Alcohol

State Beer Laws Continue Slow Creep in Right Direction

A few new good laws go on the books, but many terrible ones remain.

|

Beer
Valentyn75 / Dreamstime.com

Every year, typically during the summer months, many state laws that were passed during earlier state legislative sessions take effect. Some repeal bad old laws. Others add to the mix.

I've written about the impact of these state laws on beer brewers, sellers, and consumers, most recently here and here, where in the latter piece I noted that a new crop of laws demonstrated progress but showed just "how far we have to go to make sure brewers, restaurants, other sellers, and consumers alike have all the choices they want."

This summer, with many changes on the books, seems as good a time as any for an update.

Ohio recently lifted its ban on many sales of beers containing more than 12 percent alcohol.

In Colorado, a new law, which went into effect this month but won't take effect until next year, will eliminate many restrictions on grocery sales of beer (along with wine and liquor).

Currently, Colorado grocers may sell so-called "near beer," or beer that contains up to 3.2 percent alcohol, at each of their locations in the state. But they can only sell actual beer that people want to drink, along with wine and liquor, at one location each in the state.

Under the new law, grocers will be able to sell beer, wine, and liquor at each of their stores in the state. If that were the end of it, this would be a great law. But the compromise law contains significant catches. The gradual deregulation under the law won't take full effect until 2037, when many Coloradans who haven't yet been born are old enough to drink. Until then, grocers will have to be content with a law that abolishes the 3.2 percent requirement in 2019, and allows for an increase from one location selling liquor to five immediately and to twenty locations in 2032. That means many consumers who frequent grocers like Safeway will be left with fewer choices for decades.

The law, which is too much change for some and too little for others, is likely to be challenged, amended, or both in the coming years.

The push to end the 3.2 percent requirement in Colorado, and a similar effort in Oklahoma, may also resonate in Utah, one of a few "near-beer" states remaining.

With fewer and fewer states clinging to arcane near-beer rules, there's some belief brewers may choose to eliminate production of 3.2% beers altogether. Some fear that would leave Utah, which generally prohibits sales of beer greater than 3.2 oercent alcohol in groceries and convenience stores, with empty store shelves and thousands of lost jobs. 

Another state with changes underway is Missouri, which recently expanded retail options for beer sold in growlers.  That's a good thing for craft brewers, consumer, and stores alike. The state also passed a law that lets brewers lease coolers to grocers. The law was supported by large brewers and opposed by craft brewers, who fear they'll be squeezed out of the beer aisle by larger brewers that can afford to buy the coolers and place them (stocked with their own beers) in stores. If the law proves as bad as the state's craft beer industry fears, the upside is that it sunsets in 2020, while the growler law, which should benefit craft brewers, contains no such provision.

Two good laws also failed to pass in Missouri. Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed bills that would have "allow[ed] alcohol sales on smaller boats and one permitting people attending events in stadiums to order drinks on mobile apps."

Change is also coming to some farmers markets. A new law in New Hampshire will allow beer sampling at farmers markets in the state beginning next month. But a Delaware bill that would have done largely the same in that state was defeated this month.

Innumerable bad laws remain on the books, including North Carolina's cap on craft brewers' distribution, to name just one.

This sampling of recent changes (and stagnation) in beer laws around the country shows we're left largely where we began. Some welcome deregulation has taken place. Some reform efforts failed. And countless awful laws still exist.

NEXT: There Is No War on Cops

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. I’d like to be able to buy liquor at the supermarket. Not gonna happen in my state, however.

    1. Growing up in California I had no idea other states had such insane liquor laws. Every corner market has beer and wine, and since the micro brew explosion I can get a Stone Brewing, Ballast Point, or Lagunitas selection at any 7-11. Our Vons and Costco have excellent wine selections. It’s possibly the one thing California has done right, and now that I said that I’m sure Feinstein and Boxer have some legislation pending to fuck it all up… It’s what they do.

      1. I recall visiting California and seeing Safeway Select scotch. Didn’t try it though.

        1. It’s fine. If you run it through a charcoal filter.

          1. At that point aren’t you better off just getting the Safeway Select ‘Shine?

      2. In NY we’re great on beer (widely available everywhere) and terrible on liquor and wine (only in liquor stores). When I briefly lived in CA I was shocked to see vodka at the supermarket.

        1. And you can’t get beer at liquor stores, can you? (I don’t drink beer, but I don’t think I’ve seen any in the liquor stores I shop at.)

          1. No beer at liquor stores.

      3. 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. Not here either as far as I know. But there is a local deli I can buy it at. Other than that, it’s liquor stores only.

    3. What? is this still 1929? Repeal never gonna happen?

  2. If we got wine in supermarkets, I’d probably still go to the liquor store, however, since they’d have a better selection.

    1. Probably not that often though.

      Unless you have a fetish for some moderately obscure (but not too obscure – which the liquor store isn’t going to carry either) stuff its likely available in the supermarket already.

      1. I have a feeling the supermarkets would carry the big California brands, like Gallo and Almaden, and not the southern hemisphere stuff I normally buy.

        1. Yeah and here in NYC some major retooling would be necessary to fit the contents of an average liquor store into our already tiny supermarkets.

        2. Our supermarket in our little California suburb has two full huge aisles of just wine, all types of varietals in all price levels from all around the world. I can’t imagine many regular wine or liquor stores have nearly as many options (other than the big-box liquor stores like Beverages and More).

          Plus, Safeway has a deal where they have six-bottle boxes next to the wine section, and if you fill a box with six bottles, you get an additional ten or twenty percent off all your wines.

          IOW, don’t fear supermarkets having the ability to sell wine. Think of it instead as one less errand.

          1. My local supermarket has maybe 20 aisles in total? And that’s including the produce section as an “aisle”, as well as the frozen stuff. I’m trying to figure out what they’d have to remove to get “two full huge aisles” of wine.

            1. I am saddened to hear that your part of the world has ran out of the materials, or perhaps the knowhow or labor necessary to create new buildings or additions.

  3. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania knows that slow and steady wins the race. Our legislature, which, despite not doing much of anything but fuckup the economics of the Keystone State, is inexplicably full-time, will not change PA’s law regarding the sale of alcohol. That’s pretty clear.

    1. You gotta lay off the near-beer, Fist, if you wanna be first on Saturday morning.

      1. I have the weekends off. They just called me in to pad the comment totals.

        1. Where were you on the Hayden post then,huh?

          1. They didn’t want to pay for that one.

          2. Something happened to Nicky Hayden? #69 #KentuckyKid #WSBK

            *looks around wildly*

            1. Or Hayden Panettiere? Save the cheerleader!

    2. I was married in PA. When shopping for thr booze I got my first exposure to PA liquor customs.

      The only thing I found good about them was the liquor sttore allowed me to buy more than I thought we could possibly need with the promise that I could return what wasnt opened. It wasnt necessary anyway.

    3. If memory serves The Liberal Party in America was organized by one Frank Church in Pennsylvania, and it published a repeal platform in 1931. Slow and steady the threat of spoiler votes caused the Dems to publish a proud and manly repeal plank and make FDR Presidente for Life. –Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 28, 1931, when beer was a federal narcotic felony with asset forfeiture and mandatory minumum sentencing under Republican Herbert Hoover.

  4. What the hell is near-beer? Barley soup that was left out overnight?

    1. low alcohol content. Like 3.2%.

      1. In Ohio,in the 1970’s there was near beer,like 1%,3.2,sold to 18-20 year old’s then the ‘high beer’ .I worked at a gas station carry out when I was in high school and we stocked all three.I restocked the beer after closing to avoid the law.

        1. Yeah, they had 3.2 when I was younger but we rarely had any problem getting whatever we wanted.

      2. IOW, lite beer.

    2. American mass brewed,Bud,Coors,Miller ect. Their like making love in a canoe,like fucking next to water.

      1. They actually had (have?) 3.2 Bud and regular Bud in Colorado. 3.2 Bars at one point, too.

        1. 3.2 here is in every non liquor store or bar.

    3. A synonym for small beer. Basically, what our ancestors drank when clean water wasn’t an option.

      1. +1 Jack Aubrey

    4. Near beer is what keeps Evercleer on the shelves at liquor stores. 200 Proof spirits became popular under prohibition for ease or concealment and transportation–and usefulness in needling Bevo nonalcoholic piss into something resembling beer. The UTexas castrated mascot was named after Anheuser Busch Bevo back when the buildings were being named after Ku-klux Grand Goblins of the dry persuasion and pigmentation.

  5. Germany and the US have too much in common. It isn’t about beer. It’s about race.

  6. A new law in New Hampshire will allow beer sampling at farmers markets in the state beginning next month.

    We’re winning.

    1. One mouthful at a time.

  7. OT: The Clever Way Starbucks Customers Are Insisting ‘Black Lives Matter’ Is Heard

    When ordering at Starbucks, people have changed their name to “Black Lives Matter” so that, when their order is up, the baristas have to yell out their new moniker.

    Take that, honkies.

    1. “Yes, my name is Jablome, first name Haywood.”

      1. “I’m Michael Hunt, but you can call me Mike.”

        1. “I’d like to place an order for my friend Ms. Hugginkis, first name Amanda.”

          1. “Order for Mr. Hugh G. Rection!”

            1. “Order up – Phil McCrackup!”

              1. “Two vanilla lattes for Patrick Fitzgerald and Gerald Fitzpatrick!”

    2. If Starbucks weren’t composed of virtue signalling retards, they could fix that by simply switching to numbered tickets.

  8. This is part of an article giving the proggy perspective on North Carolina’s HB 2.

    Readers are expected to be shocked that HB 2 is part of a movement in the states to “preempt” local laws. In plain English, the states protect businesses from arbitrary and unnecessary regulation by cities and localities – like adding new “protected classes” to the “antidiscrimination” laws, imposing minimum wages, etc.

    One of the “horror stories” in the article predates HB 2 – it’s about how the National Rifle Association (cue “Imperial March” from Star Wars) stopped common-sense control of gunz:

    “The more enduring push came from the gun lobby, which blanketed the country with bills to stop places like Durham and Chapel Hill from regulating firearms. Lars Dalseide, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, calls preemption key to eliminating “patchwork” regulation. “While you’re a law-abiding citizen in your hometown,” he says, “you cross a county line and all of a sudden you become a criminal.”

    “Around the country, NRA lobbyists courted legislators?treating North Carolina’s, for example, to seafood parties and Christmas gifts starting in 1994?and racked up victories. Most states, including North Carolina, now tie the hands of cities that want to address gun violence.”

    1. Centralized Federal power good.

      Centralized state power bad.

      1. And gunz in the hands of Joe Citizen are ickyz!

        Gunz in the hands of the anointed are good… until they’re not!

  9. OT: A Surly Misfit With No Terror Links Turned a Truck Into a Tank

    was known to his neighbors only as a moody and aggressive oddball. He never went to the local mosque, often grunted in response to greetings of “bonjour”

    Surly misfit, moody oddball, grunting hellos…

    1. Is the Middle East the land of the surly misfits?

      1. We’re a couple of misfits
        Not a couple of nitwits

    2. Dan from ‘Dan vs’?

    3. He was found dead in the passenger seat. In the truck’s cab, police found an automatic 7.65-millimeter pistol, a cartridge clip, and several cartridges. They also found a fake automatic pistol; two fake assault rifles, a Kalashnikov and an M-16; a nonfunctioning grenade; and a mobile phone and documents.

      CLEARLY part of a well funded terrorist organization.

      “He is a terrorist probably linked to radical Islam one way or another,” Mr. Valls told France 2 television.

      Because it fits the narrative and we should never let a tragedy slip by without using it as an excuse to acquire more power.

      1. They already have the power to boot out criminal non-nationals – they just chose not to use it.

        1. I was referring more to their power to trample individual rights in the name of the war on terror.

          You see…you need to sacrifice some of your civil liberties in order for us to protect you from the big bad terrorists…

          Oh, wait…a nut runs down a bunch of people with a truck?

          Well, it’s obviously terrorism and the only reason it happened is that you didn’t give us enough power (read give up enough of your civil liberties) to keep you safe.

          1. That’s the plan, dude. Import lots of Muslims, and then you need a surveillance state for counter-terrorism. That’s a feature, not a bug.

            And by the way, witnesses say he was yelling “Allah Akbar!” while driving, so the connection with terror is not much of a stretch….

            1. Yeah, did you even read the article?

              1. I did. What’s your point?

                1. No known ties to terrorists and he wasn’t even a devout Muslim.

                  But I guess his name alone is enough to label it an act of terrorism rather than a mass killing, right?

                  Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t, but I’ve yet to see one shred of evidence that supports the government and the media calling it an act of terrorism. Other than it supports their narrative.

                  1. Bin Laden wasn’t devout for a long time, either. It’s entirely common for non-devout Muslims to suddenly turn jihadi. They are unhappy with their sucky lives, but the Koran says they can redeem themselves and get to Heaven by killing infidels. No other major religion says that. And millions of members of other religions don’t cheer when something like this happens. It’s absurd to say this isn’t linked with Islam.

                    1. THE POINT being that it is gross negligence on the part of both the media and the government to claim terrorism without any data to support it.

                      Doing so provides disgusting little bigots, such as yourself, a reason to stroke their tiny bigot boners even more furiously.

                    2. So I (and pretty much anyone else paying attention) sees a guy named Mohamed drive a truck into a crowd, a terror technique ISIS has been promoting, does it while shouting “Allah Akbar,” and ISIS takes credit, but we’re “bigots” to connect this with Islamic terror? Yeah, right.

                      Next, will you tell us that immigration is always and forever a good thing, with no downsides, no matter who and how much, and that lack of immigration causes fascism? You haven’t gone “full Cytotoxic” yet, so you’ve got a ways to go down the path of ideological delusion….

                    3. It’s entirely shortsighted to bitch about Islam when the problem is that losers like this guy feel compelled in the first place to drive a truck into a crowd rather than quietly offing themselves at home.

                      The majority of people who commit these kinds of attacks are citizens of their respective European countries. They aren’t going anywhere nor will banning immigration solve the problem. It’s simply a means by which right-wing nationalists can drum up support for their platform.

                      Further marginalizing your citizens for having the wrong religion or skin color isn’t going to make them less likely to snap and go on a rampage. I blame Europe’s perpetually shitty economy and European xenophobia for creating conditions that give ISIS appeal to European Muslims.

                    4. Plain old suicide doesn’t get you 72 virgins. Taking out infidels and blasphemers does.

                      Banning more Muslim immigration won’t solve the problem on its own, true. But the First Rule of Holes is that when you find yourself in one, stop digging.

                      Western civilization needs to “marginalize Muslims” to at least some degree. The message should be: assimilate, turn in the terrorists and their supporters, or leave Islam, or GTFO. Unfortunately, vast number of Muslims everywhere support terror, so it’s a huge problem. One that more Muslim immigration can only make worse.

                    5. “I blame Europe’s perpetually shitty economy and European xenophobia for creating conditions that give ISIS appeal to European Muslims.”

                      Religious and ethnic minorities deal with xenophobia and discrimination in many places, yet the violence levels are vastly different. I’m sure there have been plenty of Chinese people who been discriminated against, but for some reason, there haven’t been any Chinese suicide bombers since WW2.

                      There was a recent attack in Bangladesh, a country that is 90% Muslim. The attackers were not uneducated, unemployed losers living in a hostile culture. They were students from rich families who went to expensive private schools in solidly Muslim country.

                      When you eliminate the impossible, the remaining explanation, no matter how ugly, must be the truth.

                    6. A good portion of European xenophobia is down to the chattering classes’ trying to present a false narrative on immigration.

                    7. Thanks Derp. That’s a good point.

                  2. No known ties to terrorists and he wasn’t even a devout Muslim.

                    So, you are saying we should pay more attention to devout Muslims?

                    1. So, you are saying we should pay more attention to devout Muslims?

                      Nope.

                      That was thrown in to counter the bigot’s contention, both here and elsewhere, that Islam is causal in terrorism.

                      But, you are right, I should have made that more clear.

                    2. Study up on Islamic doctrine and history and maybe you’ll learn why it is causal in terrorism.

      2. Riiiight, and this is about beer, which under Islamic State Sharia Law is a forbidden narcotic that turns boys and girls into projectile-vomiting avatars of Satan–just like in These States from 1919 through 1932 and then some…

    4. “Yet it also left the French government facing uncomfortable questions about whether it had provided sufficient security in Nice”

      Yeah, blame the gendarmes.

    5. So – a French libertarian?

    1. When the video makes cops look good, they’re able to publicize it immediately.

    2. That’s nothing, one day I shot a bear in my pajamas.

      1. Did they fit it ?

      2. Talk about a euphamism.

      3. one day I shot a bear in my pajamas

        You’re like the gay Oscar Pistorius.

        1. Sub-thread win!

    3. lesbian black beans? oh, bears, ok that makes way more se….wait, what?

      1. It’s a “Subarus are for lesbians” joke.

        1. According to Consumer Reports, they’re also for tall men.

    4. +1 Crusty. More than 50% of Subaru owners are Lesbians!

  10. “how far we have to go to make sure brewers, restaurants, other sellers, and consumers alike have all the choices they want.”

    Elect Bernie?

  11. Explained: “all lives matter” is not okay:

    Those in the Black Lives Matter movement say black people are in immediate danger and need immediate attention, like the broken bone or house on fire.

    Saying “All Lives Matter” in response would suggest to them that all people are in equal danger, invalidating the specific concerns of black people.

    “You’re watering the house that’s not burning, but you’re choosing to leave the house that’s burning unattended,” said Allen Kwabena Frimpong, an organizer for the New York chapter of Black Lives Matter. “It’s irresponsible.”

    More to the point: It is a given that all lives matter, said Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, an assistant professor of African-American Studies at Princeton University.

    “That has always been an assumption,” she said. “The entire point of Black Lives Matter is to illustrate the extent to which black lives have not mattered in this country.”

    Judith Butler, a professor in the department of comparative literature and the program of critical theory at the University of California, Berkeley, said in a 2015 interview that “if we jump too quickly to the universal formulation, ‘all lives matter,’ then we miss the fact that black people have not yet been included in the idea of ‘all lives.’ “

    That wasn’t so complicated, was it?

    1. The letters in the name “Allen Kwabena Frimpong” can be rearranged to spell “A Wannabe Pelf Girl Monk” or “A Banal Kennel Frog Wimp.”

      1. Also, “A Napalming Blew En Fork.”

    2. Oh good. The retarded house not on fire analogy again

      1. “So, your house is on fire and you’re running around screaming at other people like its their fault – that’s what you’re saying? – and when other people suggest ways to help, you just scream some more and demand they accept its their fault.”

      2. The mathematician picks up the flamethrower and sets the house on fire, thereby reducing the situation to a case previously solved.

    3. You know, when you’re constantly having to amend your movement’s tagline with lengthy, circuitous explanations for, of all things, why it’s incompatible with saying “all lives matter,” it’s not a very good tagline. Or movement.

        1. When Feelgood Political-Gestures Go Wrong

          The other members of the group ? Clifton Murray, Fraser Walters and Victor Micallef ? said later they were “shocked and embarrassed” by the actions of Mr. Pereira, whom they described in a statement as being a “lone wolf.”

          They added that his stunt was “extremely selfish” and that he would not be performing with the group until further notice.”Our sincere apologies and regrets go out to everybody who witnessed this shameful act, to our fellow Canadians, to Major League Baseball, to our friends, families, fans and to all those affected,” the statement said.

          “United We Stand” was written on the back of Mr. Pereira’s sign, The Associated Press reported. Major League Baseball had no idea Mr. Pereira planned to make a political statement, a spokesman, Matt Bourne, said.

          We live in deeply retarded times.

          The poor canuck got his virtue-signaling gestures all mucked up, and now he’s crucified. “No one told me!” he insists. He probably thought he was being “evenhanded and generous”. I mean, why not? Hillary Clinton can say it?! And people would get mad if she did something wrong, right?

          Beyonce did a virtual

          1. *Beyonce, meanwhile, prances around during the superbowl halftime show with a musical-rendition of the Watts Riots, and everyone raises their fists in solidarity like its the most apropos thing on earth.

            Poor white boy had a piece of paper, and he done fucked up.

          2. I hope they set up some safe spaces for the victims of this awful tragedy.

        2. I’m not surprised baseball put them to sleep.

        3. Slava Malamud @SlavaMalamud
          Full disclosure. I have once altered the words of O Canada and sang it Oh Canada. I sincerely apologize for my lone wolfery. I love Canucks.

          This guy gets it.

    4. I’ll consider taking them seriously (again – they started out with some promise) if they start addressing the drug war that’s by far the biggest culprit targeting black lives.

  12. Gov’t actions distort market, causing shortages; solution is more gov’t, Venezuela edition:

    “Analysis: Venezuelan military had big role in economic woes”
    […]
    “A press tour in March of a military-run farm near the central city of Maracay showed soldiers readying empty chicken pens and tending a small plot of tomatoes.”
    http://www.newsday.com/news/wo…..1.12040050

    I know I got a Tomato Merit Badge when I was in boot-camp!

    1. Just came back from the grocery store myself. Didn’t have queue’s, shortages, or riots. Of course, I don’t live in Venezuela…

  13. Speaking of beer, i just found out i am attending a craft brew and taco festival today. Things are looking up.

    1. Sounds like a good day. I’m being kicked out if house for bridal shower so need to figure out something to do.

      1. I’d head down to Schmidt’s, and get a belly full of sausage. Then head out to find some more alcohol. Maybe hit up some hipster stores to find a cool punk rock t-shirt.

        1. Schmidts sounds pretty good

          1. Prolly do a gun store instead of a hipster store:) Was going to go see Batman v Superman then maybe hit Gallos Tap Room later.

            1. Ernest and Julio Gallo have their wine on tap?

              Ewww.

  14. Wow. Just got to work. It appears to have hailed much worse down here than where I was. It looks like… well… like a storm came through. There are rings of leaves feet above the ground. It must have flooded, too.

    1. Where are you ?

      About 500,000 roofs have been dedtroyed in Texas in the last 9 months by hail.

      1. Where are you?

        You just earned another out.

        1. So I guess you are from straffinrunville

          1. 😉

      2. South Denver, just north of the tech center

    2. It poured in Boulder, but only before dinner.

      1. It never rains in Colorado,
        But boy, don’t they warn you
        It snows, man it snows….

      2. It never rains in Colorado,
        But boy, don’t they warn you
        It snows, man it snows….

        1. No one should complain about white powder.

  15. A lot of people will now be “allowed” to do things that should never have been illegal in the first place. We The People are gaining new rights every day! Libertarian moment!

    1. Maybe it’s my imagination, but a HELL of a lot of shitty laws have been repealed or struck down by the looter courts since the Libertarian Party published its repeal planks in 1972. Every one of those spoiler votes is a billy-club whack in the jaw to the two looter parties desperate to hold on to government jobs. I call it Fabian Freedom.

    1. Pakistani Kim Kardashian killed by brother

      Kim Kardashian is Armenian. And if she’s still alive, i’m going to be very disappointed

      1. I see you didn’t go with, “Killed by brother? What’s that supposed to mean, honky? People of coloUr all look alike?”.

        1. I am not as race-conscious as some here.
          (arches eyebrows and knowingly nods head in direction of everyone else, resumes smoking pipe)

          1. Being a 6’3 white guy here used to make me a bit race-conscious. Not anymore. One day couple of elementary school kids walking across the street from me screamed, “Gaijin!”. I’m looking around like, “Where?”

    2. yes, I put a “u” in honour.

      We’ll allow it. If you try “colour” or “favour” around here, however, you’re going to be beaten with rolled-up American flags while being force-fed twinkies

      1. I usually have to pay extra for that.

      2. What about “glamour”?

        1. There’s another masturbation reference….

        2. Allowed. It is internally consistent. You can’t say “glamour” without a swish of the head and an elitist affectation anyway.

      3. I support this, as well as ‘gray’.

    3. “Honour” should be in scare quotes.

    4. “The 26-year-old actor-cum-model was killed in central district of ”

      Cum model

    5. Qandeel was media sensation and unbelievably bold and was also considered highly controversial. She shot to fame in Pakistan in 2014 after a video of her pouting for the camera.

      She became famous through her tireless self-promotion and suggestive “selfies” posted on social media and had amassed tens of thousands of followers.

      She had expressed her desire many times to marry ex-cricketer and opposition politician Imran Khan.

      “She’s Famous Cause She Wants to Be”

      Self-promotion is understandable when you’ve got something to promote. When its an end in itself, and there’s no other underlying reason, it becomes a little more … well, creepy.

    6. Trust me. The killing was justified under Sharia law, and his motives were strictly religious and altruistic, like their banning of beer, toppling of skyscrapers and bombing of buses. Law, religion and altruism are good things. It says so in the Christian Science Monitor.

  16. Ohio has some ridiculous regulation on wineries. Wine kills human pathogens and has no history of food safety issues, and since licensing passed in a 2009 budget bill (by surprise) we have been subject to food processing licensing and regulation by the Ohio Department of Agriculture. This is duplicate of licensing and regulation as provided in Ohio liquor codes. Many other states exempt from this sort of duplicate licensing and regulation. Ohio’s regulation is superfluous, unnecessary, duplicate and also discriminates against Ohio wineries by wineries from out of state that are not subject to the same food processing licensing and regulatory costs that sell wholesale in Ohio. As a traditional artisan winemaker that values microbial diversity in the winery environment I also find the regulation is in direct opposition to my winemaking principles. http://www.FreeTheWineries.com or http://www.facebook.com/FreeTheWineries

      1. Have you seen his Vines?

      2. Buncha sour grapes

        1. All you guys can do is pun this guy; even though he is raisin some good points.

          1. the lees you can do is hear him out

            cianti we all get along?

            1. Those puns didn’t really hurt me though I did feel some champagne.

    1. . As a traditional artisan winemaker that values microbial diversity …

      Unless you’re wearing a beret, I call bullshit.

      1. You can get one at any secondhand store.

  17. OT: has anyone seen the WarCraft movie? Critics were scalding but I wonder if they were being unfair in the opposite direction they were being unfair about Ghostbusters 2016.

    On that note: Loder is a fraud.

    1. I saw it. Meh.

      My wife liked it a lot, but she’s a player, so that’s likely the difference.

      1. Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more! Say no more! Know what I mean?

    2. Meh

  18. We don’t need Lincoln-inspired racial ‘unity.’ We need whites to stop being racist.

    “…Clinton’s call for everyone to “do the work” to unite against hatred overlooks the fundamental fact that it’s whites ? and only whites ? who must work to fix the racist structures in our society….

    “To quote another historical figure, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: “The thing wrong with America is white racism. ? It’s time for America to have an intensified study on what’s wrong with white folks.” Clinton could have spoken about racial justice.

    “Instead, like so many others, she focused on the rhetoric of unity. And calling for unity places yet another burden on black people….

    “while Clinton may not have intended it this way, what the message of unity winds up doing is blaming communities of color for failing to assimilate, rather than acknowledging that the very fabric of this nation is built upon a diabolical, calculated and constantly evolving system of racism. That has the same effect as when Republicans blame President Obama for dividing the nation and making race relations worse, or when the media chastises Black Lives Matter protesters for alienating liberals with its “violent tone.””

    1. Hillary Clinton called for racial unity by invoking the words of Abraham Lincoln. She said he “defended our Union, our Constitution, and the ideal of a nation ‘conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.'”

      SEXIST!

    2. Forced abortions of non married pregnant women would go a long way to solving sterotyping/profiling part of racism.

      Feral children tend to give the rest a bad name.

      But I guess that would be called racist as well even though I was inclusive.

      1. Exactly. For example, if your fat pig of a momma had shoved a coat hanger into her vag, think what a better place the world would be, you illiterate hillbilly peice of shit.

        1. Now, now. The world needs ditch-diggers and conmen…err..”contractors”, too.

        2. YOU’RE STOOPID YOU’RE IGNORANT YOU’RE IGNORANT STOOPID

          WHYCOME THE WART SO STOOPID ?

          Although I must admit you have somewhat changed your tone after I called you out on you bullshit that day .I seemed to have truly touched a nerve. I noticed after that you actually attempted to have some decent conversations with certain approved handles other than just throwing random insults at most everyone here who doesn’t play up to your self expressed sense of intellectual superiority..

          Excessive time spent bodybuilding in front of a mirror never corrects for deep insecurities though WART. It has to come from somewhere else.

          And you might give though to calibrating your sarcasm detector to factor in posts from those who aren’t impressed by your repetitive insults of most who post here.

      2. It’s true that paying poor women to have children is much of the problem, but ending government welfare would be more fair, less extreme, and accomplish much of that goal.

        1. I agree. The post was sarcastic. 70% of black children are born to single mothers, most on welfare, who are financially encouraged by the government not to marry the father. The kids grow up in the streets without much supervision and find love and acceptance in a gang.

          I can easily have empathy for a cop who is exposed to that work environment on a daily basis, sometimes for years. How could one not stereotype and profile in such an environment ?

          I’m not sure racism is the correct definition of their thoughts. If, after 5, 10 , or 20 years of dealing with feral gang bangers of any particular color who would be above classifying them on sight ?

  19. Japan Reverts to Fascism

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/…..ew-fascism

    Sounds real ugly, but they’re too broke to hurt anyone but themselves. This does demonstrate one of the many pathologies that occur when your country does not allow immigration.

    1. Tell us about the pathologies in Switzerland, which is also famously hard to emigrate to.

      1. We’ll tell you! Anytime Cytotoxic can’t answer with “STOP LYING” or “BOMB THE SHIT OUT OF THEM”, you’ll hear from us!

      2. Switzerland? The Switzerland where the SVP (of black sheep fame) currently holds a plurality? That Switzerland?

    2. Dang, I didn’t know Trump-u-san was running in Japan too.

        1. I think I played that Nintendo game once.

      1. http://ktrh.iheart.com/onair/m…..-14909506/

        Tumpster Tom

      2. http://ktrh.iheart.com/onair/m…..-14909506/

        Tumpster Tom

  20. The state also passed a law that lets brewers lease coolers to grocers. The law was supported by large brewers and opposed by craft brewers, who fear they’ll be squeezed out of the beer aisle by larger brewers that can afford to buy the coolers and place them (stocked with their own beers) in stores. If the law proves as bad as the state’s craft beer industry fears, the upside is that it sunsets in 2020, while the growler law, which should benefit craft brewers, contains no such provision.

    Seems libertarians can’t count on anyone, whether large beer makers or craft brewers, to simply allow the free market to work.

    1. As with most laws addressing crimes without victims, liquor laws are a festering, puss-filled blister of cronyism.

    2. As I mention in every single article about “Weed Legalization”

      …the entire Alcohol Industry is one giant case of regulatory capture *because* of the enormous web of laws passed down after prohibition.

      One could theoretically argue that “Making Booze Legal” has created more “Crimes” than ever existed before or during prohibition; because now there’s 1000s of little rules instead of just a few “big ones”

      And all of those rules favor some (e.g. distributors, or retailers, or bars, etc.) while becoming a disadvantage to any potential competitors, and are an endless boon to state-regulators, who are constantly being begged for ‘favors’ by one or the other.

      Of course, progs will tell you this is an example of why the “free market” can’t really exist – because everyone will demand rules! – the idea that legislators shouldn’t be able to hand out ‘rules’ like party-favors doesn’t really compute with them.

    1. Tennessee woman?

  21. Followup to a Reason article from last year.

    It’s a start. At least they’ll never be cops again.

    1. Oh, and the cover of OC Weekly is awesome.

      1. it took me a few minutes to figure out that the guy in the upper left was not a ninja trying to smoke weed out of a miniature toilet.

    2. Hidden cameras allegedly captured the officers making derogatory comments about a disabled customer

      Its not the thieving and the hypocrisy of police arresting people for “drugs” which they then steal and consume…. no, the story which the journalist chooses to highlight in the headline is, “Troglodyte Cops Say Non-PC Things”

      1. AND raiding the store for snacks. There’s a funny clip of the officer appearing to be completely stoned.

      2. Yep. The thing people got most upset about was the kicking in the nub comment.

    3. Will this war on cops never end?

      1. They can surrender whenever they want, just like drugs could surrender. OR they could lose election after election like God’s Own Prohibitionists in 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948 and the intervening mid-terms. Religion isn?t about learning. It’s about prohibition and being dead and in Heaven.

    4. At least they’ll never be cops again.

      I’ll take that bet.

      1. Maybe in other states, but not here. CA POST is pretty strict about hiring officers fired for misconduct.

        And, they were criminally charged too, and it’s actually going to trial.

        1. IF YOU LOVE CALIFORNIA SO MUCH WHY DON’T YOU MARRY IT. I’ll believe you when I read that they’ve lost their certification.

          1. You lose your POST cert automatically in a situation like this.

        1. No. Prison guards aren’t cops in CA.

          1. I was more wondering if they’d be barred from prison-guardianing if they are kicked out the po-po

            which is sort of an interesting topic on its own; what do you have to do to be considered too ethically-suspect to guard prisoners? i presume felonies are a no-go; maybe history of violence – which is sort of ironic, as its more of a qualification.

  22. Coup staged?

    In response to the attempted rebellion, Turkish authorities have detained 2,745 judges and prosecutors whose loyalty to the regime has been questioned.

    Also, some 2,839 soldiers – including the head of the Third Army Corps in Istanbul, General Erdal Ozturk – have been arrested.

    That kind of purge does certainly seem to provide an incentive to stage the coup… Plus the lessened resistance to install an Islamic constitution.

    1. There may be something to that.

      What’s notable about the coup is that NO ONE made any effort to secure the personages in the political chain of command.

      that’s Rule #1 – isolate the leadership and bar them from talking to the press.

      Rule #2 – shut down the media until you have a representative ready to speak – they not only didn’t cut off the local TV, they didn’t have anything for them to run with other than “Wait and see”. They should have had prepared someone to go to the news channels and gum them up for the next 2-3 hours with “Announcements”.

      The coup-planners also seem to have had no connection to the political opposition – which is odd, because it just asks = “Who were they”? You’d think if they wanted rid of Erdogan, they would have spoken to the minority political factions and had been prepared to put someone in power as a replacement.

      Nothing about it makes any sense. Reuters also noted there was something bizarrely “1970s” about their great show of cutting off the Airports, but not actually bothering to secure the president himself.

      I don’t think any of this adds up to “Staged Coup” by itself; but it suggests whomever really did order it was unbelievably stupid.

  23. Let’s see what the Taiwanese animators are up to…

  24. Pokemon Go

    (It’s even making American’s exercise!)

  25. Sorry, no bestiality in these videos like in the Brexit one.

  26. Remember this Reason post a few years ago – Justice Department honors slave catchers?

    They’re still doing it – I found this page from the US Marshals Service Web site, about U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850:

    “But the Marshals, regardless of their personal feelings, had no choice. The Constitution itself required the free states to return fugitive slaves. The Fugitive Slave Law merely implemented that Constitutional provision. To deny the law, even a hated law, meant a denial of the Constitution itself. The Marshals enforced the law.”

    Ignoring the numerous people who denied the constitutionality of that statute, saying that the fugitive slave clause was supposed to be enforced by the states, not the feds, and did not authorize violations of habeas corpus, and jury trial, and even of the right to be tried by a judge.

    What *wouldn’t* they enforce?

    (If this doesn’t get some responses, I am the worst troll ever)

    1. I know this would only appeal to people who know how many laws are on the books and how many are obsolete or downright absurd – maybe 10% of the country.

      Still, my pipe dream is that one of the parties will make a serious plank in their platform to make an effort to list and repeal laws that serve no purpose. Maybe I’m just OCD, but I simply don’t like the idea of having tons of laws on the books that don’t do anything. The legal code should be condensed to the size of a novella.

      1. I would rather start with repealing the many laws that ARE doing something, namely putting innocent people in jail for things that shouldn’t be crimes.

        1. I would rather start with repealing the many laws that ARE doing something,

          I also appreciate that sentiment; but i don’t think its an either/or proposition, or a “First This Then That” prioritization issue.

          Both “unjust laws” and “unnecessary laws” are problems needing to be addressed, and neither party is even interested in so much as acknowledging either problem.

          1. Oh, absolutely.

      2. Maybe I’m just OCD, but I simply don’t like the idea of having tons of laws on the books that don’t do anything. The legal code should be condensed to the size of a novella.

        No, welcome to the club. “The Law” needs a 100year housecleaning

    2. It’s not that the Obama administration is racist, it’s that they’re freaking legal positivists who take their views to their logical conclusion.

      Enforce every statute to the letter.

      Wait, Obama doesn’t believe in doing that.

      So what’s going on?

      1. This is why I really don’t like e.g. the model of “let the states legalize pot and then just don’t have the feds enforce it on their end.”

        Selective enforcement is 1) absolutely not the prerogative of the executive and 2) it just causes confusion and can alter the law with a regime change – truly a third world country scenario. Truly not rule of law.

        Ha, who am I kidding? Rule of law is a silly, antiquated concept. Rule of man is so much more modern and fun.

    3. Deep-dish circumcision?

    4. you should mention that to…

      …who’s the go-to person @ Reason to mention stuff? i used to email Matt. try robby. or Ed. they do racism and cop stuff.

      Otherwise Salon might hear of this and beat everyone to the punch.

      Or maybe not. Its notable how quick the proggy types are to insist that “Yale” is sooper racist for allowing their buildings to be named “Calhoun” and stuff, but never you mind that Justice Department… “they’re on Our Team.”

      side note = this isn’t the first time, but

      Your connection is not secure

      The owner of http://www.usdoj.gov has configured their website improperly. To protect your information from being stolen, Firefox has not connected to this website.

      Government websites often do this to me these days. When wondering, “Is it them, or is it me?” – i’m defaulting to “Them”. Because they’re retarded.

      1. Hm, I don’t get any warnings from Chrome going to that site. Secure, valid certificate, etc.

        1. So, either Mozilla is overly suspicious of The Man, or Google is in bed with them?

      2. It’s located on Hillary’s email server.

      3. Wow, that’s weird, I didn’t get that message…well, let me just say that I I love Obama and everything he does is super awesome and the same goes for the Department of Justice and our wonderful Attorney General Loretta Lynn, and I listen to her songs all the time.

          1. Wow, I Gollumed up the term “United States.”

  27. Would buy a carton of Sharia shredded and laced beer with a butt naked Arabian honey with nipples glistening desert heat lightning on the label fondling George Washington’s cock in a nest of bibles. My mouth palace bleeds the dreams of a million infidels imagining this delightful brew.

    1. For you, Sir.

      Although I am considered a capable swimmer by many, Agile Cyborg, I’ve little doubt that I could find myself drowning in many of the lustrous pools depicted, which ordinary men call eyes.

      1. Kind gentleman unleashed the gem-eyed ravens of swerving delicious comet brews.

      2. They seem to come out particularly well when crossed with other ethnicities.

  28. I think all drugs should be legalized.

    THAT SAID…. i….. uh…. well….. I mean…. fine, that too. But seriously, can’t you just listen to the song like everyone else, and call it good?

    1. Embalming fluid? That’s just dumb. It’s just a bunch of stuff you can get from other sources and mix together. Why you’d need to steal a human brain to extract embalming fluid is beyond me, besides the fact that there’s obviously a limited quantity in one brain and the ingredients are extremely cheap. (It’s possible that they just had some weird tradition surrounding this, these folks aren’t brain surgeons).

      Reactions to the drug appear to vary, with users reporting “anger” and “paranoia” as well as an “increase in women’s sexual appetites,” the DEA added.

      Anyone know where I can find an embalmed human brain?

      1. Anyone know where I can find an embalmed human brain?

        I do not, aw, yet it seems to me that you would be well advised not to send Igor to fetch one for you.

      2. “Why you’d need to steal a human brain to extract embalming fluid is beyond me”

        Maybe he wanted to trade in the brain he had for a better one?

      3. Why you’d need to steal a human brain to extract embalming fluid is beyond me

        Dude…. its the A E S T H E T I C

          1. Pee Chee folders or GTFO!

  29. Erdogan stout would consist of Erdogan’s super real effigy grated alongside ginger, cucumber, and anise and tworled into the purest fucking deep blue mountain Kentucky mash whereupon the retarded souls of the 72 virgin-seekers would be caught after brazen mass murder and capped right before the line of squirming imagination ladies spread the 144 knees in the sandy clouds and these dank shitty souls would be twisted like cotton britches in 1894 Arkansas next to the green river into the Erdogan stout and the pour would be so sweet on the powerful tongue of motherfuckers who love soaring in the mystical space rivers of freedom.

  30. Erdogan stout would consist of Erdogan’s super real effigy grated alongside ginger, cucumber, and anise and tworled into the purest fucking deep blue mountain Kentucky mash whereupon the retarded souls of the 72 virgin-seekers would be caught after brazen mass murder and capped right before the line of squirming imagination ladies spread the 144 knees in the sandy clouds and these dank shitty souls would be twisted like cotton britches in 1894 Arkansas next to the green river into the Erdogan stout and the pour would be so sweet on the powerful tongue of motherfuckers who love soaring in the mystical space rivers of freedom.

    1. Anise. It would be anise, wouldn’t it.

      1. Anise. It would be anise, wouldn’t it.

        It would, yes.

        Impressive, is he not?

        Also: tworled.

        Did you have the benefit of his book review earlier today, HoD?

        Here it is (sans last sentence): “Heather Mac Donald’s mania desecrates the conceptual frameworks that form the crystalline pillars of free society.

        Collective authoritarian hallucinations writhing in the minds of heavily armed battalions riffed and shocked into a manual dripping psychosis and pretend-world illustrates the workings of a crass deceiver deliberating seeding pages with delusions designed to terrorize and alarm.

        A work of fiction spilled from the canals of hysteria.”

        Source.

        1. Which is better, the poetry of Agile Cyborg, or this poem from an online poetry journal?

          1. It’s all better than culturally appropriated poetry.

          2. I can actually follow AC’s poetry, unlike that of Jennifer Givhan.

            1. I can actually follow AC’s poetry, unlike that of Jennifer Givhan.

              Fusionist, this was very similar to the answer with which I intended to answer your question.

  31. Some thoughts about Mohamed the Truckerist:

    I suspect the percentage of violence-prone people is similar across various ethnic and religious groups. However, the rates and kinds of violence are *not* so similar.

    What I mean is, there’s bound to be plenty of angry, divorced Catholic men in France but it is very unlikely you will ever read a story about one of them plowing through a crowd while screaming “Hail Mary, Full of Grace!”

    The ugly reality that many people refuse to see is that Islam has many particularly nasty teachings about martyrdom and the duty to wage war until Judgement Day on non-Muslims until they submit or convert.

    Qur’an 9:29

    Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

    1. Of course, fortunately, most Muslims ignore the more violent and inconvenient aspects of their religion, just like believers of other religions. But a significant number do not, and that must be acknowledged.

      I find it odd and sad that “we” are willing to shoot them and blow them up, but for the most are scared to criticize the beliefs which are the entire reason why “we” are fighting them. I put “we” in quotes because I don’t like speaking on behalf of other people.

      1. I certainly agree that the terrorist jihadists are following a specific version of Islam – a version with a specific history and a lot of money and guns behind it.

        They say they have the one authentic version of Islam and they have some Koran and other texts to back this up.

        What bothers me are the neocon types who basically say that these terrorists are right, that their minority interpretation is the authentic interpretation of Islam, and the non-terrorist majority are naive, and just don’t get their own religion. And that because many extremists pose as moderates, therefore moderates are the same as extremists.

        All of which is to sell out those Muslims who oppose the terrorists, by “praising” them for being less serious about their religion than the terrorists are – the same argument the terrorists use.

        I suppose if the point was to evangelize the Muslim “silent majority” and get them to switch religions and become Christians or atheists, maybe these arguments might be useful.

        Or maybe if the terrorist interpretation was, in fact, the One True Interpretation of Islam and saying so is simply the courageous utterance of inconvenient truths, then go ahead and blurt it out regardless of practical implications.

        But if it’s a debatable proposition, why take the terrorist side? Why not back those Muslims who *aren’t* terrorists, seek their aid, without insultingly saying that they’re less authentically Muslim than the terrorists?

        1. I mean, a Protestant-style Battle of the Proof-Texts may be interesting – does the jizya/conversion/death passage have more authenticity than the “no compulsion in religion” passage – it would be better to look at how actual Muslims discuss their faith, and those who say they can be U.S. allies and good Muslims at the same time – tell them that’s great, don’t sneer that they aren’t being Muslim enough.

          1. Islam has a doctrine called abrogation which resolves the contradiction you mention. The rule is if two verses conflict, the one that came later takes precedence. Since the peaceful verses are mainly from the early period when Mohamed’s following was small, the violent verses usually take precedence.

            Mohamed was not a very peaceful man. He fought in many battles and raids and personally executed hundreds of prisoners by chopping their heads off. He forced women of the men he killed to become his wives and slaves and ordered his followers to assassinate his opponents and critics.

            What possible good is accomplished by ignoring this?

            The former pope to his great credit acknowledged the past crimes of the church. It would be great to see some high-ranking Muslim clerics do the same.

            1. And if a Muslim person asked me to explain why his religion *wasn’t* the best thing ever, this is the sort of stuff I’d mention (after praying for my personal safety).

              But from the political standpoint: the thing is, the U.S. doesn’t want *peaceful* Muslims. The U.S. wants Muslims to be *non-peaceful* against the jihadis.

              So Mohammad being a warrior headchopper could be a good thing if it inspires Muslims to fight ISIS or other anti-American forces.

              1. Americans aren’t at war with *all* the bad parts of Islam – but with a faction of Muslims which preaches war vs. Americans.

                There is an intra-Muslim civil war, and the Muslims we want aren’t hippies sitting on mountaintops talking about multiculturalism, but hard-core warriors who often embrace many of Islam’s bad parts, but in the context of fighting enemies who are also the enemies of America.

                And “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

                1. I see your point. And my point, which you may not see, is that if non-Muslims are afraid to speak out, what chance is there that Muslim reformers will?

                  If dialog becomes impossible, the only thing left is war.

                2. There is an intra-Muslim civil war, and the Muslims we want aren’t hippies sitting on mountaintops talking about multiculturalism, but hard-core warriors who often embrace many of Islam’s bad parts, but in the context of fighting enemies who are also the enemies of America.

                  Charlie Wilson is burning in Hell.

              2. I’ll give my Mohamed some credit: if there was nothing appealing in his message, his system would not have spread the way it did. He found a way to unite a gaggle of hostile tribes into an empire-conquering army and he did it as an a illiterate, middle-aged, divorce with no military experience. Islam puts a high value on learning and literacy which is one reason why Islamic empires lasted while Mongol ones did not.

                1. “Islam puts a high value on learning and literacy which is one reason why Islamic empires lasted while Mongol ones did not.”

                  It may have at one time, but I see no recent evidence.

                  1. True, but when the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258, they threw so many books in the river that it turned black for a while from the ink. Mohamed also supposedly said that the ink of the scholar is greater than the blood of the martyr.

                    Memorizing the Qur’an, which has about 320k Arabic letters (about 1/10 as many as a KJV Bible), is great act of piety and something thousands of Muslims have done and continue to do.

                    1. Derp,

                      When Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khilji reached the gates of Nalanda University in 1193, he had originally mistaken it for a fort. When told it was a library filled with hundreds of thousands books and staffed by Buddhist monks, he declared that he would spare Nalanda, if and only if a copy of the Koran was in the library.

                      The resultant fire was said to last for more than a month and that so much blood was split that the ground was red for 2 years. A Turkic poet accompanying army wrote a poem that is still considered a classic of Turkic poetry today. It ends with “We burnt their books, slaughtered their monks, and shat on the idols of the Buddha”.


                      Nalanda is a ruin to this day.

                    2. Well. So much for that.

                      I haz bin rekt.

                    3. I wasn’t trying to “rek” as much point out that the tradition of respect of literacy in Islam is/was always counterbalanced by the concept of jahiliyyah, i.e., anything pagan and/or before the time of Muhammad isn’t worth a damn. The books that are important to the People of the Book are those that belong to a certain cultural milieu. I would expand upon the evidence of Arabic cultural imperialism/supremacy that I would argue is inherent in Islam, but it’s time to hit the hay here. We can pick up on it another time, if you’d like.

                    4. I think I could learn a lot from you about Buddhist-Muslim interactions in history.

                      Sleep well.

              3. But from the political standpoint: the thing is, the U.S. doesn’t want *peaceful* Muslims. The U.S. wants Muslims to be *non-peaceful* against the jihadis.

                Someone said a while back

                Militant Jihadis want to cut your head off
                “Moderate Muslims” want Militant Jihadis to cut your head off.

                I think in reality there is huge range of complexity in between those categories; but as a simplification, it works OK.

                The people the Media (or the screeching SJW left) describes as “the bulk of moderate islam” aren’t at all monolithic. They don’t ALL support Jihadis.

                But a large enough share fall into a bunch of different categories which either

                a) are willing to let them run wild as long as its someone else’s problem
                b) vaguely support “fucking over the west” but want to avoid getting fucked with themselves
                c) disagree with them but still support Islamist political parties which might “deal with them” out of a need for self-preservation/populist support

                etc… that it really doesn’t make much difference in the end.

                1. But a large enough share fall into a bunch of different categories which either

                  a) are willing to let them run wild as long as its someone else’s problem
                  b) vaguely support “fucking over the west” but want to avoid getting fucked with themselves
                  c) disagree with them but still support Islamist political parties which might “deal with them” out of a need for self-preservation/populist support

                  Right on the money. And short of collective punishment, there really isn’t much that can be done about it.

                  1. I was thinking that in Japan after WW2, the emperor of Japan was forced to make a statement where he renounced his divinity and said the Japanese are not a superior race destined to rule the world, a unique conclusion reached by approximately 100% of societies.

                    Of course, to get to that point, about 2 million Japanese people had to die, about 3% of their pre-war population.

                    3% of 1.5 billion is 45 million.

                    [sighs heavily and gazes off into the distance]

                    It sure would be great to live on a planet that wasn’t swarming with countless mutually hostile tribes hell-bent on shitting on each other.

                    1. It sure would be great to live on a planet that wasn’t swarming with countless mutually hostile tribes hell-bent on shitting on each other.

                      This is why all must join the proletarian internationale, comrade

        2. What bothers me are the neocon types who basically say that these terrorists are right, that their minority interpretation is the authentic interpretation of Islam, and the non-terrorist majority are naive, and just don’t get their own religion.

          I hate to jump in and correct assumption about “Neocons”…. because it often seems like i’m defending them – when i’m absolutely not; its just that i have such distaste for their left-wing utopian roots that i get irritated when i see the term being used as a catch-all for “warmongering” of any and all types, particularly right-wing christian-crusader types, which it is pretty distinct from.

          Neoconservatism has/had a fairly specific kind of rationale (very much derived from Wilsonianism) for use of force, and it doesn’t/hasn’t ever really required seeing “all Islam as Salfist Jihadism”.

          Quite the opposite; Neocons don’t really care what enemies of Western Liberal Democracies believe; only that if they are enemies of Western Liberal Democracy at all; that the US, as the sole superpower with the military capability to defend Western Liberal Democratic states, is morally obligated to do so aggressively, pre-emptively, and unilaterally – because the UN are are mostly a tool of weaker, less-democratic states and it serves their interests and attempts to handcuff the US.

          1. Hmmm…I’ve been struggling with terminology, so I can’t guarantee I’ve got it right…

          2. – further – Neocons reject a range of realist assumptions, such as 1) “all states prioritize their own perpetuated existence first and foremost”; and that 2) national foreign policy should be guided by self-interest

            e.g. They see states like Iran as engaged in a suicide mission to destroy Israel, and that the US has an obligation to intervene in this suicidal-project out of its moral obligation to the sole “Liberal democracy” in a key strategic region.

            they don’t care that the suicide-project is motivated by Shiite messianic fervor instead of Salafist desire for a global caliphate.

            Neocons differ from Wilsonians in some notions about the “Spread of democracy”; Wilsonians think if we convert everyone on earth into democracies, that we are “Spreading Peace”, because democracies fight less (if not ‘never fight’); Neocons may not really care whether democracy really succeeds as a consequence of their active destruction of Enemies of the west. Its “nice to have”, sure, but not necessary.

            The main purpose is not to “improve the rest of the world and make them love us” like Wilsonians, but rather “to cut the legs off any potential rivals” before they can stand up, and make everyone else realize that it is futile to challenge Western Liberal Democracies, and so therefore ‘join them’.

      2. Derp,

        Would you care to cite which religions and ideologies consider slavery acceptable (and provide quotes and links)?

        I intend my question for you to consider the difficulties almost all* of us commentators will face if we quote religious dogma.

        *”almost all of us commentators” I phrased my comment in this manner since there is a chance, regardless of how minute, that one or more commentators will join any given discussion on H&R and be well versed in religious dogma/doctrine.

        1. It would be easier to list the religions which specifically outlaw slavery. The only ones I know of are Bahai’ism and Jainism.

          The founder of Bahai’ism whose wrote a letter to congratulate Queen Victoria for abolishing slavery and also explicitly forbids slavery in the religion’s holy book.

          The first and only teaching of Jainism is ahimsa, or total non-violence. The founder commanded his followers not to kill, injure, insult any person or animal. Devout Jains sweep the ground in front of them so as to not kill insects.

          Slavery is a little different in Islam in the sense that freeing a slave is considered a noble deed but it is not a duty.

          wiki has a good article on it

        2. “Would you care to cite which religions and ideologies consider slavery acceptable (and provide quotes and links)?”

          “ISIS says Islam justifies slavery – what does Islamic law say?”
          […]
          “Citation to Quranic verses on chattel slavery at first blush seems to make this point because the Quran, like other religious texts, accepted the existence of chattel slavery as a fact of life at the time of its revelation.
          It is also true, however, that the Quran established an entirely new ethic on the issue of slavery and ISIS’s selective use of certain Quranic texts to justify contemporary chattel slavery ignores this fact.
          First, consistent with the new ethic, the emphasis in all of the revelations on slavery is on the emancipation of slaves, not on their capture or the continuation of the institution of slavery. (See, for example, verses 2:177, 4:25, 4:92, 5:89, 14:31, 24:33, 58:3, 90:1-12.)
          http://thecnnfreedomproject.bl…..c-law-say/

          The problem becomes what do you mean by ‘religion’? Religion, qua religion, doesn’t exist absent bleevers and their claims and behavior.
          Christianity (meaning all but some minuscule portion of bleevers) no longer supports slavery; the same cannot be said of Islam.
          —————————-
          Without parsing the religions, here’s a claim regarding where slavery is still practiced; ironically, it seems Africa is a major vector.
          http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_world.htm

          1. Sevo,

            I think you overlooked the significance of something of I mentioned: “I intend my question for you to consider the difficulties almost all* of us commentators will face if we quote religious dogma.”

            Part of the reason that I think this is because you quoted religious dogma

            1. “Part of the reason that I think this is because you quoted religious dogma”

              So any answer that includes the interpretation or behavior of those who claim to bleeve is not acceptable?
              Care to suggest why I shouldn’t presume your conditions to be bullshit? You seem to have pretty much defined the term ‘non-falsifiable’.

              1. “Derp,

                Would you care to cite which religions and ideologies consider slavery acceptable (and provide quotes and links)?

                I intend my question for you to consider the difficulties almost all* of us commentators will face if we quote religious dogma.”

                1. So you’re admitting your original conditions are not possible to achieve and now you post them again?
                  You now accept them as bullshit?

                  1. Sevo,

                    I posited to Derpologist and to you (after you joined the discussion) that when many of us quote religious dogma, there will be difficulties.

                    Would you agree that religious individuals and secular scholars have, over the centuries, argued and debated over interpretation of religious lore?

                    1. I looked “downthread” and saw quite a bit of quoting from religious text(s), Derpologist and Sevo.

                    2. Charles Easterly|7.16.16 @ 11:54PM|#
                      “Would you agree that religious individuals and secular scholars have, over the centuries, argued and debated over interpretation of religious lore?”

                      Charles,
                      By all evidence, gods don’t exist; none ever have, and any “religion” does not exist without bleevers to ‘interpret’ and act on the interpretations resulting from those superstitions.
                      Religions exist as the inventions of various societies and as such the members of those societies argue regarding the supposed ‘mythical’ intent; there is no “there” there other than those interpretations. Those folks are arguing about the intents of the ghosts in the closets.
                      So, yes, those who fantasize some mythical being have argued and debated, but so do those arguing and debating the importance of Star Trek.
                      As I tried to make clear, the personal fantasy is less relevant than the actions in pursuit of that fantasy; if Trekies were to start bombing places, I’d say the fantasy of Star Trek is dangerous.
                      Is that clear?

      3. Criticizing religious beliefs is unlikely to turn people away from them, especially the people who take them so seriously as to kill for them.

        As you sort of acknowledged, Judaism and Christianity have explicit calls for violence against innocents in their holy books as well. If you pick a random Jew or Christian or Muslim, the probability that they are motivated to kill innocent people in compliance with that holy book is roughly the same.

        The raw number of attacks is highest for Muslims, but that might be due to the fact that Jews’ and Christians’ homelands aren’t being either bombed into smithereens or politically manipulated from abroad. Using one’s religion to justify violence is a lot easier when you have a grudge.

        1. No one is bombing Bangladesh, site of a recent terrorist attack. No one is bombing Nigeria, site of many terrorist attacks. No one is bombing Tunisia, whose chief export is ISIS recruits.

          Many countries in South America and the Caribbean are hostile to the US as a result of actual war/interference, yet there are no Cuban or Venezuelan suicide bombers.

          Israel and Jews face constant attack, yet there is no wave of Jewish terrorism.

          1. They see what’s being done to their coreligionists and react. Sort of like the US reacted to ISIS committing atrocities against Iraqi Christians, despite their posing no threat to the US at that time?

            When Israel or the US decides to kill large quantities of people on the other side they send guys wearing spiffy uniforms in airplanes. Much more civilized than a guy wearing a t-shirt in a truck. Laundry and altitude are important determinants of morality, right?

            1. Oh goodness, Mr Strawman McGoalpoastmove! What an absolutely devastating rebuttal!

              You’re right. There’s totally no difference *at all* between US or Israeli soldiers and suicide bombers. Why, there’s even this helpful cartoon to prove it.

              And of course the US is no different from North Korea. After all, they both have jails and a constitution and military and elections.

              Only an awful, racist, stinky bigot who probably even likes *Trump*, *ptooey!* would think that North Korea is worse than the US just because the wear different uniforms and speak a different language.

              Such a keen intellect you have. And to think I wasted so much of my life conversing with lesser intellects.

              Truly Sir, you are a Philosopher-King, straddling the earth like an intellectual Colossus.

        2. “The raw number of attacks is highest for Muslims, but that might be due to the fact that Jews’ and Christians’ homelands aren’t being either bombed into smithereens or politically manipulated from abroad. Using one’s religion to justify violence is a lot easier when you have a grudge.”

          The problem I see here is the timing; the grudge has been evident from times the Muslim homelands were no more under attack than the others.
          Have to recommend “What Went Wrong” (Lewis) and “The Long Divergence” (Kuran); both show that Muslim law is a major factor in restricting the region’s economic and social progress, while Lewis in particular points out that denying women equal roles in society sorta ties one arm of those societies behind there backs.
          Lewis also points out that reasonable Muslims are asking that question (what went wrong?); the others are asking ‘who did this to us?’
          Victimhood and juvenile whining is always a recipe for tantrums, dangerous ones if the subject has RPGs.

    2. Hail Mary?

      More seriously, good post, Derp.

    3. I give my jizz willingly

      1. I snorted.

        1. Im still fucking laughing.

    4. The ugly reality that many people refuse to see is that Islam has many particularly nasty teachings about martyrdom and the duty to wage war until Judgement Day on non-Muslims until they submit or convert.

      Leviticus 20:1-5
      [1] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
      [2] Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
      [3] And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
      [4] And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:
      [5] Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

      Romans 1:32
      Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death,
      not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

      Jeremiah 48:10
      Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

      Psalm 58:10
      The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance:
      he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

    5. Exodus 22:20: “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.”

      Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. they must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

      Deuteronomy 13:1-5 “If there arise among you a prophet, … saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them…And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death…So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee….”

      Psalms 79:6: “Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name.” This is a call to God to commit genocide against persons of other faiths who are either unfamiliar with Judaism and Christianity, or who have learned and rejected these religions.

      1. And how many countries on earth use these sections of the Bible as political guidance?

        1. IOW, the “Whataboutism” of holy texts is irrelevant. I’m sure you can find some swords & fire in Hinduism or Buddhist texts are well.

          The only issue is the degree to which these ideas are being used for practical political purposes.

          1. “The only issue is the degree to which these ideas are being used for practical political purposes.”

            Per above: Religion only exists a bleevers practice. All else is commentary.
            Who cares what some text supposedly written in support of a bleef says if no one ‘enforces’ it.

            1. “”Who cares what some text supposedly written in support of a bleef says if no one ‘enforces’ it””

              I’m not sure your opinion is relevant on “which passages matter” because as far as you’re concerned none of them do.

              My point was that christianity does not, by and large, attempt to impose itself on political reality beyond a few narrow areas (abortion might be one).

              Islam is very different in that regard. Pretending that similar passages in their books makes them the same is stupid.

              1. “My point was that christianity does not, by and large, attempt to impose itself on political reality beyond a few narrow areas (abortion might be one).
                Islam is very different in that regard. Pretending that similar passages in their books makes them the same is stupid.”

                My point is that the difference is not relevant to the valuation of the superstition. Absent bleevers, there is no ‘religion’.
                You are correct in that the current xian bleevers are less likely to cause harm, but that is only in that the current xian bleevers are not quoting and supporting the text which supports violence to those who disagree. There’s no lack of text to support such.

                1. There’s no lack of text to support such.

                  And how many countries on earth use the Bible as their principle political guide?

                  1. (*note: I am willing to accept that “The Vatican” is a sovereign country)

                  2. I make no excuses for that.

                    1. I’m not sure what i said you’re even arguing with; i wasn’t part of any discussion with you above.

          2. The only issue is the degree to which these ideas are being used for practical political purposes.

            So, IOWs, beliefs and actions are two different things and we should hold people accountable for their actions rather than what brand of mysticism they practice?

            Damn, Gilmore, we are in agreement.

            1. IOWs, beliefs and actions are two different things

              No, i said the degree to which ideas (aka ‘beliefs’) are being used for political purposes (aka “actions”) is what distinguishes the “scary ideas” you find in one religion from that of another, and clearly makes one significantly more of a threat than the other.

              “IOW” is not a tool for simply stating the argument you’d prefer someone made.

              1. So, just to be clear.

                Should we:

                1. Discriminate based upon people’s actions?

                OR

                2. Discriminate based upon people’s beliefs?

                Which?

                1. Francisco d’Anconia|7.17.16 @ 12:55AM|#
                  “So, just to be clear.
                  Should we:
                  1. Discriminate based upon people’s actions?
                  OR
                  2. Discriminate based upon people’s beliefs?
                  Which?”

                  Joking?
                  I don’t care if the truck driver was pissed at his ex-wife or some dim-bulb bleever; he did what he did and should and did suffer for it.

                  1. Joking?

                    Asking Gilmore.

                    The point being, those here (Papaya et al) “blaming” Islam for the actions of terrorists and promoting discrimination based upon religious beliefs rather than actual actions of individuals are immoral.

                2. I believe i expressed myself clearly and you’re unhappy that no one proposed a simple either/or choice for you.

                  My point (3rd try) was that beliefs are used for political purposes far more in Islam than in Christianity.

                  I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to “discriminate” anyway.

                  Islam as a concept/belief presents a unique danger because, unlike Christianity, it doesn’t have 100s of years of reconciliation/accommodation with the Enlightenment, which acknowledges the superiority of secular institutions for human governance.

                  As i said below = do you think Marx’s ideas are completely irrelevant to the historical actions of revolutionary Marxists? If no, why would you argue the koran is irrelevant to the potential actions of jihadists?

                  1. I believe i expressed myself clearly

                    No, you have not.

                    Are you are are you not willing to discriminate against Muslims based solely on their religion? Answer the fucking question.

                    1. I don’t believe i ever expressed any interest in “discriminating” about anything.

                      My point was to show that your above facile comparison of islam and christian texts is profoundly stupid, because you were ignoring the far-more-important distinctions in how the 2 different religions approach contemporary politics.

                      Your retort seems to be “change the subject”, which means you don’t actually want to address anything i just said at all.

                    2. deflect, deflect, deflect

                      Answer the fucking question.

                      My point with the comparison was to show that the Bible and Quran both promote detestable moral positions. Most Christians don’t act upon them and neither do most Muslims. Yet there are those here who want to discriminate against Muslims simply because their religion promotes some fucked up stuff, rather than discriminating based upon actions of the individual. Taking a similar position for Christians would be unconscionable.

                      e.g. There are those here who want to deny Muslims access to this country simply on the basis of their religion.

                      So, my question, which you have failed to answer several times, is completely valid and relevant to the discussion.

                      Are you are are you not willing to discriminate against Muslims based solely on their religion?

                    3. I’m not deflecting anything

                      My point with the comparison was to show that the Bible and Quran both promote detestable moral positions

                      irrelevant, because as i already noted = the bible isn’t used as a political guide anywhere (outside the vatican city), and believers don’t have any special demand that governments recognize its authority.

                      By contrast, the Koran is embedded in the constitutions of a dozen countries around the world, and citizens of many more openly say (as per the polling data i linked to) that the think that the Koran SHOULD be the ruling authority in government. That accounts for hundreds of millions of people suggesting that the book represents the supreme political authority.

                      There is simply no reasonable comparison, and it shows an incredibly shallow interest in the topic to pretend that simply because 2 books have similar passages is somehow more important than the fact that “one was moderated by the enlightenment”, while the other was not.

                      there are those here who want to discriminate against Muslims simply because their religion promotes some fucked up stuff

                      perhaps you should argue that with them.

                    4. Its odd that you still seem to be convinced that i’m supposed to take up some discussion i was never part of. Maybe you should go back and read what i’ve actually said here again.

                    5. And Gilmore, once again, refuses to answer the fucking question.

                      Do you, Gilmore, believe it is okay to discriminate based solely upon an individual’s religion?

                    6. Discriminate what?

                      Whether or not to eat at their house? Let them marry my daughter? Elect one president? Whether to visit their home-country as a tourist? Discriminate *what*?

                      What is the relevance of choosing some meaningless blanket either/or here anyway?

                      My sole objective was to show that your attempt to compare texts was a stupid exercise in false-equivilence. And to give you a chance to acknowledge that Islam has a far more significant worldwide political role than Christianity.

                      You seem to think that refusing to acknowledge and respond to what i’ve actually said means it will go away. It doesn’t really work that way. Ignoring it just suggests you don’t have anything further to say.

                      But fine – change the subject = what exactly do you want me to discriminate about? Pick something.

                    7. So you are not proposing any policy or legal changes, Dennis? To address whatever it is you’re complaining about.

                    8. So you are not proposing any policy or legal changes, Dennis?

                      No, that would be a Positive argument.

                      I was simply pointing out that Frankie’s attempt at scriptural-equivocation was bone-stupid 4th-grade-level pig-ignorance…. which seems to pretend that The Enlightenment never actually occurred, and that Christians came to accept a few hundred years ago that the Church is not the supreme-ruling authority on earth.

                      Whereas by contrast, many many many millions of muslims – including the ‘peaceful’ ones – feel very very differently about the practical utility of their religious text.

                      This is called “introducing a distinction” being ignored. a Negative point. In the case of Frankies dumb argument, all it does it poke big fat holes in it. It doesn’t introduce any positive-claims or make policy demands or anything else.

                      All it means is that if anyone else tries to make the same false-equivalence AGAIN, they’d have to first deal with the point i brought up.

                      Just because the distinction clarifies that the Koran (like, say Marx) is super-extra-special-shitty-sauces, doesn’t require anyone to do fuck-all about that

                      It CAN possibly lead to further discussion, but that’s only if you’re intellectually honest and can digest other people’s points and counter them. Or not. (see case study above)

                    9. Frankie’s attempt at scriptural-equivocation was bone-stupid 4th-grade-level pig-ignorance

                      In the case of Frankies dumb argument

                      Gilmore, you really are an arrogant, condescending fucking prick. You completely misinterpret the reason for the comparison, ignore my explanation and then feel the need to belittle. You are a grade-A asshole.

                      but that’s only if you’re intellectually honest and can digest other people’s points and counter them

                      Oh, the projection.

                    10. Discriminate what?

                      To make public policy/law based solely on one’s religion.

                      My sole objective was to show that your attempt to compare texts was a stupid exercise in false-equivilence. And to give you a chance to acknowledge that Islam has a far more significant worldwide political role than Christianity.

                      I did respond to what you actually said. I’ve explained my purpose for the comparison and it’s completely valid. It was to point out the hypocrisy of collectivising and promoting policy based upon religion for one religion and not the other despite promoting similar immoralities. Such a practice (government discrimination based upon religion) clearly violates one of the most sacred amendments in our constitution, yet the hypocrites seem to want to make an exception to Islam (cuz it’s bad).

                      All that remains is for you to declare whether you are one of the hypocrites or not.

        2. Yeah, I was about say you’d have a hard time finding Christians or Jews today who would, for example, support killing homosexuals as per Leviticus.

          This is because those religions have had successful reform movements caused in part by a long period of fierce and ongoing debate. In Islam, it is much harder for that to happen because Mohamed said that “my people will not agree on an error”. This means that when Islamic clerics reach a consensus on a topic, the matter is considered closed and no further discussion of it is permitted.

          I posted this already, but I’ll post it again as it pleases my lizard brain:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TbhJThBFl8

            1. Oh, FdA, this is just pure fail. In the entire article, the word “gay” appears once and the word “homosexual” is absent.

              And of the sole mention, all it has is: “Although primarily an anti-abortion organization, the Army of God also has a history of promoting violence against gays. And one of the terrorist acts that Rudolph confessed to was bombing a lesbian bar in Atlanta in 1997.”

              The group mentioned with the highest body count (30) and that was from killing Hindus, not gay people.

              The 1st group mentioned was about killing abortion clinic workers.

              Then there is mention of both Kony (who claims to be the messiah, a teaching which is somewhat controversial among other Christians) and a Chinese sect which believes that Jesus will return in the form of a Chinese woman, also a somewhat minority opinion.

              Then some skinhead who shot up a courthouse because he was mad at the govt.

              But by all means, keep at it with those what-about-isms. That’s surely easier than conceding a point.

              1. Oh, I’m sorry Derp. I thought when you said “for example” you actually meant “for example”.

          1. Neal Boortz…is he still around?

      2. Psalms 79:6: “Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name.” This is a call to God to commit genocide against persons of other faiths who are either unfamiliar with Judaism and Christianity, or who have learned and rejected these religions.

        Sorry, but that’s baloney. If you read the line in its full context, it’s clear from the very next line “for they have devoured Jacob, and devastated his homeland” that its specific to those tribes involved in the invasion of Jerusalem and the destruction of the 1st Temple. Furthermore, the hymns that make up the Book of Psalms were and are understood, by Judaism at least, to be, well, psalms. They bear as much doctrinal value as “March on Christian Soldiers” does upon, say, Methodism, i.e. none-at-all.

          1. HM, are you really suggesting that any part of a written bleevers text has relevance outside of the practice of those bleevers?
            Do you really think they search the texts other than to find a justification for their particular behavior?

            1. Do you really think they search the texts other than to find a justification for their particular behavior?

              Yes. I believe a Jew can tell the difference between a song and a statement of theological doctrine.

              1. “Yes. I believe a Jew can tell the difference between a song and a statement of theological doctrine.”

                Lame, HM.
                Yeah, a bleever can find ‘beauty’ in some written doctrine, which is not saying much.

        1. Fine. Point being…if you want to justify immoral behavior with religious text, Muslims don’t have a lock.

          To claim Islam is a religion of hatred based upon selected passages from the Quran and overlook similarly intolerant passages from the Bible is hypocritical.

          1. Point being…if you want to justify immoral behavior with religious text, Muslims don’t have a lock.

            We don’t disagree there.

            To claim Islam is a religion of hatred based upon selected passages from the Quran and overlook similarly intolerant passages from the Bible is hypocritical.

            That’s true too. A pox on both their houses.

          2. Yes, other religions also have or have had violent teachings. I thought I made that clear when I wrote:

            “…most Muslims ignore the more violent and inconvenient aspects of their religion, just like believers of other religions”

            I did not claim that Islam is a religion of hatred. I did say that it has specific teachings regarding martyrdom and holy war that set it apart from other religions, both in the teachings themselves and the degree in which they are followed.

            There is religion with about 1/4 of the world’s population that teaches that killing and dying for the sake of the religion will give the chance to party like a rock star in Big Al’s VIP room. There is no other religion that comes close to teaching this.

            1. You’ve never heard of Valhalla or Eleysium?

              1. I hear those were big in the 3rd century

          3. To claim Islam is a religion of hatred based upon selected passages from the Quran and overlook similarly intolerant passages from the Bible is hypocritical.

            I didn’t see anyone saying Islam was a “religion of hatred” so much as pointing out that Islam is used to justify a wide range of political violence against non-believers and apostates which you do not see in other religions.

            the comparison is just facile ‘whataboutism’

          4. Francisco d’Anconia|7.17.16 @ 12:11AM|#
            Fine. Point being…if you want to justify immoral behavior with religious text, Muslims don’t have a lock.
            To claim Islam is a religion of hatred based upon selected passages from the Quran and overlook similarly intolerant passages from the Bible is hypocritical.”

            Anyone willing to get on board with the fact that superstitious writing has all sorts of ‘interpretations’ and the writing is less important than the actions of those who would ‘interpret’ it?

            1. superstitious writing has all sorts of ‘interpretations’ and the writing is less important than the actions of those who would ‘interpret’ it?

              meh.

              People make the same argument about Marx.

              Is marx entirely free from blame simply because of a few (hundred) million dead? I’ve heard a number of academics say so. You agree?

              1. (perhaps “simply because of” is better replaced with “despite”)

              2. “meh.
                People make the same argument about Marx.
                Is marx entirely free from blame simply because of a few (hundred) million dead? I’ve heard a number of academics say so. You agree?”

                I think you miss my point, thus:
                Those who justify their activity by superstition get no pass from me, including commies.

                1. There’s no lack of text to support such.

                  you’re dodging.

                  Would you say marx is “less important” than the actions of any individual revolutionary marxist?

                  So – the problem is to simply deal with marxist revolutionaries “whenever they pop up”, and never worry when mere “marxist ideas” become widely popular, because ideas are bullshit and not a problem, only actions?

                  if the ideas don’t matter (or “matter less”) then why even bother confronting the ideas?

                  1. (sorry, that quote was a non-sequitur; didn’t need to be there)

            2. “the writing is less important than the actions of those who would ‘interpret’ it”

              Yes.

          5. To claim Islam is a religion of hatred based upon selected passages from the Quran and overlook similarly intolerant passages from the Bible is hypocritical.

            Only superficially true. It ignores the many huge differences between Christianity and Islam.

            Christianity was founded by a pacifist carpenter. He told people to “render unto Caesar.” Christians are taught to emulate Jesus.

            Islam was founded by a caravan robber turned warlord, rapist, slaver, and mass murderer. He believed in establishing a worldwide theocratic dictatorship. Muslims are taught to emulate him.

            Those facts alone should indicate that the vast, worldwide Muslim support for terror (PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, ISIS, you name it), among everyday Muslims and many Muslim clerics, is not some bizarre anomaly. There is simply no equivalent in contemporary Christianity.

      3. Psalm 137:8-9: “Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
        happy is the one who repays you
        according to what you have done to us.
        Happy is the one who seizes your infants
        and dashes them against the rocks.”

    6. Take the test.

      (Hint…all the odd numbers are from the Bible)

      1. OK, I didn’t take the test.
        To be clear:
        *ALL* religions are bullshit and it seems every one of them has contradictory texts which can be used by bleevers to support whatever activity they propose, including mass murder or (pace Gaia) the subjugation of the world’s population.
        All of you who bleeve in some entity beyond the welfare of individual humans, fuck off.

      2. Relevant: a brief moment of clarity from Bill Maher, and then a guest quickly pivots into full derp:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9N6udRE5Jk

        Politically Incorrect is proof of the 2nd law of derpodynamics: the derp of a closed system cannot decrease.

    7. Mencken’s “Treatise on Right and Wrong” covers a lot of mohammedan dry wit. Mencken also reviewed the peer in 1933, after Sharia Law was partly repealed in These States.

  32. Ok, I’ve been working all day. 10 hours of moving 6 months of work into production.

    Now it’s beer and H&R time. Anyway, wtf? We can drink beer now in some states? What state do we have to be in? Is still awake ok? Yeah, I didn’t read the article, first time ever.

    1. If you’re in a solid state, drink up. If you’re in a liquid state, pace yourself. If you’re in a gaseous state, well, WWIII just started.

    1. Many villagers ? particularly men ? preferred going outdoors, where they could think in private, survey their lands or just feel the evening breeze or gaze at the sky..

      The Bangladeshi version of Horkheimer.

      1. FYI, Star Gazer was originally called Star Hustler, but was changed in 1997 due to web searches gone awry.

        1. Six years he’s been gone. Wow.

          1. I just had a flashback to high school… did not know he was gone. Belated RIP.

  33. Of all the crazy beer laws I’ve seen, and I’ve seen many, the one I experienced in TN a couple years ago seems to me to be the craziest. And I’ve seen lots of crazy beer laws. There was the 3.2 beer thing I remember from Ohio, where you could buy 6% beer all week, but only 3.2% on Sunday. There was the dry counties which didn’t allow any liquor sales at all. There was the so called ‘Blue Laws’ which did not allow any liquor sales on Sunday. Baltimore County, MD is still like that to this day.

    But the craziest beer law I have seen is the TN growler law. I’m not sure if this is TN state wide or only in the county I experienced it in, Sevier county. Anyway, I went into a local brewery there and when having drank my fill, I decided to buy a growler of one of the beers I really liked. After doing so and paying, I had to follow the person I paid, out through the back door of the brewery. No fucking shit, due to some idiotic law there, you cannot buy a growler of beer and walk out the front door. Which is something I’ve been doing in MD for years.

    1. Growler? That means something else to me.

      1. You’ve never seen a growler?

        1. Yes, we all know about a growler of beer…

          but I believe staffinrun is referring to a particularly hearty dump, which is also called a ‘growler’.

          Usage: “Whew, I feel great, just had a twenty-minute growler. Would stay out of the bathroom for awhile if I were you.”

          1. I prefer the former.

  34. The Cubs are combining deep dish pizza and Chicago-style hot dogs and now the city is ruined

    “ESPN’s Darren Rovell tweeted that, for six days on this beautiful Earth of ours, Wrigley Field will be selling a new food item courtesy of two Chicago food staples, Vienna Beef and Giordano’s. For some reason, they both agreed to make this “deep dish Chicago-style dog pizza…”

    1. All I know is I had an Italian beef sandwich and still don’t know what it was.

      1. I have heard and read that “ignorance is bliss”.

        Also this: I, unlike PM, have nothing negative to write to (“at”) you.

        1. It was delicious though. Wet and messy but tasty.

          1. Hmm… in a “licking of the lips and napkin worthy” type of manner?

          2. Was it covered in saucy molattoe?

            1. Yes…

              and…

              No?

            2. I think you can only get that at Fenway.

  35. Creaky British beast of a human shoveled up next to a goddamn super state and tossed his metallic ass alongside the superpower mass muscular that was most definitely not assholian and desertian like daesh acid in nature but most definitely ghostian in nature… the shotting arms swing upwards and outward into the lilting clever creaky British beast with a fucking narrowed alloy of pure goddamn muscle on board the gassed steel forbears in the streaming coffins. and shit.

  36. tripping man like a goddamn falling down awkward plastic what not and so on fucking falling into the
    consciosness of why did my goddamn tappers lose that u over there? .. yea over on that line arrowed to the left a u was not typed because the fingers on this being are. well. shit… let us get control of the fingers now

  37. FUCK fingers and ghouls.. fingers search graves like ghouls eat the dreams of the modern fallen.

  38. your nation projects your reality even though you don’t realize this.

  39. Was reading about “> and found this gem:

    In addition, despite some improvements, the JSDF continue to enjoy a somewhat dubious reputation as a pool for “ochikobore [drop-outs from the regular school system]” and “inakamono [country bumpkins with strong regional dialects from Kyushu in the south and northern Honshu]”.

    Heh, I guess we’re not so different after all.

    1. oopsy, tag fail. Was reading about Japan’s army.

      I propose that “> be the new official shorthand for masturbation euphemisms.

  40. I was just over at the Mises website. Very good handle on economics. But, man, the Commentariat over there sucks. On topic and zero snark. Losers

    1. You can’t build a movement around us let alone usher in a libertarian moment.

      You. Just. Can’t.

      1. The worlds just not ready for that much snark to be concentrated in the hands of a few.

    2. Yokeltarians! (Confession. I spend more time at Mises than here, but never comment. Humorless bunch there).

      1. There are a lot of double crossers around here.

    3. zero snark.

      On the longest enough topic discussion, you will eventually die.

  41. I notice ‘Ghostbusters’ has a 73% on Rotten Tomatoes.

    1. And that is a perfect example of why internet ratings are broken, at least according to the typing monkeys at 538:
      http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea…..re-broken/

      1. Mad Max: Fury Road has 97% and it was one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. That being said, I’ve found Yelp and Google generally give me a pretty solid gauge of how good a restaurant is when choosing.

        1. Yeh, it was okay and interesting and all but 97%?

      2. All I want to know is how can it possibly replicate a character like Louis Tully?

  42. guitars strum like falling governments
    fields run forever across stripes of love and death, man
    violins have always jittered to queens and maniacs
    while the fields of humans knelt in their stacks and
    lucky boxes while mad men tossed egowads into the lives
    of millions like fucking horrid shit eaters, bro
    the earth must be sick of evil human beings

    1. “guitars strum like falling governments”
      Damn! I wish falling governments strummed like a baglama.

      1. i love sevo like a little crab with van gogh paint on it

  43. tanks smash lines
    and oblivious goddamn ladies in
    tight villages knight bullshit
    while
    tanks smash lines
    in the actual earthen oven
    and in the place where
    tables are drawn quickly
    under foggy lights and coffee numb

  44. wars happen everyday
    and always while mothers
    purchase coach
    wars happen because alleys
    are illuminated on the visions
    of the steel ships swimming in the mirth of
    fallen echoes

  45. mouse spins blur thoughts like
    lost ancient boys in the ruins of
    fallen bibles in the deep walls
    of legends
    and this is how mass loss becomes
    the verses in tired centuries
    penned by robed kings with nothing
    to eat.

  46. tendons in the morning sun
    are the arms of moon sweeving through
    lines and optic and routes
    of the barking fucks
    who stand by in the brutal
    camp presidents of the mysterious
    monsters who infect and kill millions at the
    drop of thought and who haunt liberty
    like a sparrow filled with spears

  47. cardboard boxes and basement carpet
    under flickering fucking lights
    stacks and fucking stacks of thousands
    of buried voices and gone dreams
    in the master of the gallery I once knew
    he was super tall and handsome with a
    massive forehead with gorgeous hair
    and the worst goddamn girlfriend any man
    on earth could ever have but he
    was the record god and i knew him when
    i was a small man.

    1. Know that part in Se7en where they found all the wackjob’s notebooks in his apt? I get the feeling this is what was in them.

      On the subway today, a man came up to me to start a conversation. He made small talk, a lonely man talking about the weather and other things. I tried to be pleasant and accommodating, but my head hurt from his banality. I almost didn’t notice it had happened, but I suddenly threw up all over him. He was not pleased, and I couldn’t stop laughing.

        1. They censored the original ending where the box contained deep-dish pizza.

          1. *shudder*

            That is far more disturbing.

        2. WHAT’S IN THE BOX?!?!?! ::crying::

  48. Mr lovely held a billion voices in his vast under place
    and when i was a small tall man I saw all this
    mine of old school reams and reams of piled and collected
    billion notes
    and Mr. lovely also collected plump kneeling babes on all the
    walls of his dining room and I once conducted
    business at 19 with a chinese firm in this room
    and the chinese babe repping this firm could not
    seem to understand how awesome this oddness was
    and shit and agile created their fucking cartoons and shit
    for their fucking product and the chinese paid him
    and Mr. Brooks tall head came home that
    evening with a young girl across Western ave losing her
    virginity and as she screamed Mr. Brooks said
    Jonny Boy, she is losing her sex tonight and every fucker knows this
    bubby boy… she is losing her sex, man… said Mr. Brooks

  49. when you age you lose
    the dream that excited you
    and blinded you for journeys
    lept off the porridge of empty wallets
    and team transits
    but when you age
    what remains is tripping after dark
    and piano songs when humming birds flit
    and secret cartwheels
    when they run off to play you
    fuck with hallucinations
    but forever take care of them
    and offer them the best peace on top
    of the deepest philosophical lavas
    and goddamn bedtime booze
    let them be raised to understand life and times
    but fucking resist morality in media because this
    is Jesus Sharia
    Praise the Hitchens sun on this FUCKING site that rarely
    seems to care for him and Vidal

  50. nickie boy gillespie swallowed gore vidals dead body like a goddamn gypsy soup.

  51. nick gillespie is a spinning record in Brooks basement
    right next to kris kristoferson and otis.

    1. Sriracha is delicious

      1. Super Bu5 delirious on the stand of travesticous stone mountains, Butts Dub

        1. ::thousand yard stare::

  52. “Why legalizing marijuana has some pot farmers worried”
    http://www.sfchronicle.com/

    Lemme guess!

    1. Pot never killed the universe of humans.

      All the stakes burning and heads cut off involved Jesus and Mohammed.

      1. AC, the lat vote for ‘legalization’ lost heavily in the ’emerald triangle’; protectionism.

  53. i have spend lots of times on
    the years of eyes twirling the sentences
    of my achieving posting alphabets accompanying the sweet moniker and agile lust on occasion
    fuck you agile has a large cock that enjoys fucking pussy and the occasional hobo ass
    notes clash into the grey box and time changes like a dog hunting its ghostly Napoleon

  54. If you wish to Trump earthly humans bring in an Indiana nasty who loves Jesus and they all ride firing tank blasts across the steel of the villages called American squirming while Trump and his goopy dude pretends not to be like those evil fucks in caliphate glory.
    why? you ask is this river spurning Trump and his smerving lecherous clumsy awfulness? it is because Pence is Jesus on the Trump ticket. I hope they smash evil Islam but their ticket is lightning right wing on the poems of soft fuckers in the open minded fields where the open basements of orgasms thrive.
    Trump may well be the American Sharia.
    Agile hopes agile is wrong.

  55. the american christian right replicates sharia even as Jesus lovers HATE that
    dispensation
    rest assured. when Trump is elected Pence will bring down evangelical hell
    while Hillary’s loss is definite
    and the left is on the verge of failing for coming years
    but libertarians should feel no excitement
    for the future of freedoms wings

    1. The freedoms we continue to gain are through the information highways.

  56. look at the christian cross and how her ladies merge with socialists
    and you fucking question my goddamn lightning?
    Feminists love sharia and jesus, boys. ALWAYS keep that in mind… even you boys working
    for morality in media.

  57. A free country loves sex.
    A broken country flees sex.

  58. Falling mountains can be broken with elbows.
    May the maestros of dream seekers on this
    stretched parade of letter tossers be
    blessed by the reeling hearts of cloud
    villagers dripping tears underside the
    soft orange glow of spinning suns

  59. space is alien
    sweet alleys become foreign
    in the raising of families
    normality turns into excess
    everyday reigns premiere
    and turns aside of
    common circularity
    fall into the swamp
    of decades of family raising
    children and wives and husbands
    I do not understand
    how the religions have made this
    their virtue
    I love my children but
    fathers and mothers MUST fucking escape
    their roles from time occasionally
    or they will be eclipse by the swerving
    genetic propulsion of their offspring
    time is me. I am time. Cataclysms of minutes
    trickling over my like glances back into the
    monuments of Newtons.

  60. Good evening ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the opening ceremonies of the Derplympics. Ah, the German team is entering now. Experts say they a favorite to sweep the Mind Boggling Idiocy event.

    After a rash of sexual assaults allegedly committed by suspects including asylum seekers on New Year’s Eve, the Germans have been on a mission to re-educate migrants, especially males, about sexual norms in the West. In Munich, public pools, for instance, published cartoons warning migrants not to grope women in bikinis. Also in Bavaria, public money is partially funding sexual education classes including lessons for male migrants on how to correctly approach German women.

    1. Is this the link you were trying for?

      “It then probes deeper into the world of sexual gratification, including graphic descriptions of the various ways to perform oral sex, anal sex and masturbation….

      “For the dateless migrant, however, the site also offers insights into how to release sexual energy. It is okay, the site says, to like pornography.”

      And there’s a *really sick burn* against the United States:

      “On the other side of the Atlantic, such material might cause a stir. But Germany is a nation where public nudity at parks and beaches remains relatively common, and where blunt public discussions of sex are comfortably held without prudish reserve. Thus, most observers seem to be taking it in stride, with even the harshest criticism against the site more of a grumbling than a show of genuine outrage.

      “Yet it has raised a few eyebrows.”

      1. Funny – sure we’re more prudish here, but you can get all the pornography you want *and* we don’t have a problem with Syrians ‘not understanding’ American sexual mores. Mainly because we don’t ghetto them up like they do in Germany and they know they’ll get shot if they grab the wrong ass.

  61. we can buy liquor at the gas station here.

  62. We can even create playlists of them so it will be very easy to find our videos which we like. We can also download those videos and can watch them offline. Showbox for pc

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.