Eminent Domain

‘A Manifest Abuse of the Eminent Domain Power’: N.J. State Agency Gets Bench-Slapped in Court

Eminent domain abuse struck down in Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Birnbaum.

|

For the past four years a New Jersey state agency known as the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) has been trying to bulldoze a family home near the Atlantic City boardwalk on behalf of private developers and a shadowy real estate scheme. On Friday this overreaching state agency finally received a well-deserved bench slap from the state courts.

Institute for Justice

The case of Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Birnbaum first reared its head in 2012 after Atlantic City officials announced the existence of something called the "South Inlet Mixed Use Development Project." According to state officials, this project would "complement the new Revel Casino and assist with the demands created by the resort." The state never got around to detailing the "project" in any specifics, however, and the Revel Casino shortly went bankrupt. But that didn't stop the CRDA from trying to seize the family home of a man named Charlie Birnbaum. But Birnbaum fought back, retaining the services of the lawyers at the Institute for Justice, a national public interest law firm that specializes in defending property owners like Birnbaum from this sort of government bedevilment. On Friday Birnbaum and his legal team prevailed in court.

"This Court concludes that the CRDA's decision to condemn the Birnbaums' property is a manifest abuse of the eminent domain power and in this Court's opinion is not consistent with the statutory condemnation authority of the CRDA," New Jersey Superio Court Judge Julio Mendez declared. "The CRDA's condemnation is denied."

The court's ruling is a welcome victory over government malfeasance. It's also a welcome rebuke to a state agency with a long, ugly record. After all, this is the same Casino Reinvestment Development Authority that notoriously joined forces with Donald Trump back in 1994 in an effort to kick an elderly widow out of her home in order to help Trump build a new limousine parking lot for the Trump Plaza hotel and casino. Happily, the CRDA's pro-Trump scheme was also struck down in court.

Friday's decision in Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Birnbaum is available here.

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.

495 responses to “‘A Manifest Abuse of the Eminent Domain Power’: N.J. State Agency Gets Bench-Slapped in Court

  1. Is there any force in the universe more powerful than the inertia of a bureaucracy? Why were they still trying to take Mr. Birnbaum’s house if there was no longer going to be a casino?

    1. To prove that they still could, would be my hunch. It’s not about the specific piece of land, but the expansion of their power.

      1. Yeah, they want “condemned” to sound like a very permanent condition. If “condemned” just means “strongly desired by investment group – wait – never mind: not anymore” then that might make the government look less like wise stewards and more like thieves.

        1. The tragedy here is that condemned itself is a travesty of government abuse in and of itself. That is the statement that the government has superior authority over a property owner. As in, your house is unfit for you to use, and you are unfit to identify that fact. So for your own safety you’re out. Kelo opened the door to a corruption of that abuse. Kelo made government theft overt.

          1. what Scott implied I didnt even know that a single mom can earn $9106 in a few weeks on the internet . pop over to this web-site ?????? Telltheinternet.com

            1. This one weird trick only works for single moms.

    2. NJ is a spiteful state full of suck. Even if they are wrong or what they were pursing is not longer viable, they’ll be damned if they’re going to give up.

      I hate this fucked up state and cannot wait for global warming to swallow it up into the ocean.

      1. NJ has NY values but lack the NY glamour.

    3. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $4800 for a week, pretty cool. working from home saves money in several ways.I love this. I’ve recently started taking the steps to build my freelance Job career so that I can work from home. here is i started.. Go this website more info work… http://bit.do/oMaVAv

    4. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $4800 for a week, pretty cool. working from home saves money in several ways.I love this. I’ve recently started taking the steps to build my freelance Job career so that I can work from home. here is i started.. Go this website more info work… http://bit.do/oMaVAv

  2. “Bench slap”. Damn, but I like that. I’ve got a captive insurance company meeting soon where we will go over some cases, and I will totally be using that.

    1. I can imagine some woman being like, “I DONT GET IT – EXPLAIN THAT TO ME” and there being a very awkward moment.

      1. Sadly, Dennis is correct.

      2. The women who attend my meetings are hospital people. Thick skins and a dark sense of humor come with the territory.

        1. Sadly, working with rational people is not a given in this day and age!

          =(

          1. My cubicle is between two fucking yentas. I get to hear their paranoiac gossip and bitching about their ex-husbands all day, every day.

            1. Write down what they say, organize it into a tv script, and send it to an agent.

    2. Here is another case that would never have had this happy outcome were it not for the long shadow of the Libertarian Party falling athwart these looters’ ambitious plans for men with guns aimed at other people’s property. Like Herbert Hoover, George Waffen Bush may have awakened America with that asset forfeiture crash and depression.

      1. I don’t know why dude, but i swear i laugh every time you post something.

        1. I don’t know about you, Dennis, but I think it’s the “voice” that I conjure in my head when I read Hank’s posts. Hank, no offense, but you sound like the cranky, crotchety old guy in my neighborhood from my childhood. Just a grumpy, old bastard. I suspect it’s the vocabulary more than anything else, but your sentence structure screams “Get off my goddamn lawn!! And the next fucking time that wiffle ball lands in my yard, it’s mine!!!”

    1. It’s a trap. Wait, different Ackbar.

    2. Inevitably, when someone yells “Allahu Akbar” when attacking people:

      The identity of the perpetrator and his motives are still unclear.

      1. Well, the press has taken to calling the German Iranian who shot up the McDonalds as a right-winger because he fancied himself an Aryan and said kind words about Hitler, so there may be a similar way to spin this one.

        1. Um… Iranians are Aryan. OA’s, even.

      2. Cuz Muslims don’t commit any crime other than terrorism.

        And only terrorists yell “Allahu Akbar”.

        1. It is the official battle cry of Jihadists. Could some random crazy Muslim use it, as well? Sure. But it’s also a big bright red flag that indicates some religious motivation for the attack.

          1. Dude, it’s as common as saying hello. 10 times a day in normal conversation.

            1. No, it isn’t as common as saying “hello.” And it is in fact the battle cry used by Jihadists. It has other uses and contexts. It is used by Muslims who believe aiming their weapons is an affront to god every time they fire. But its usage while attacking two people with a machete isn’t lost on anyone. That’s a pretty specific context and it most definitely suggests a likely motive for the attack.

              Your complaints every time this discussion comes up stinks of someone who doesn’t want reality to interfere with their ideology. Terrorist attacks are a small threat. It is also only one aspect of what is wrong with the Islamic world and the issues allowing large swathes of them into a territory country will bring.

              1. No, it isn’t as common as saying “hello.”

                Bullshit. Been there.

                Your complaints every time this discussion comes up stinks of someone who doesn’t want reality to interfere with their ideology.

                I’m a libertarian. Of course I don’t want to interfere with their (meaning Muslim) ideology. You can believe any retarded thing you want, so long as you don’t hurt anyone.

                You, and those like you, are using these rare occurrences as justification to deal out reparations beyond those allowed by the criminal justice system against a collective rather than the individual responsible. You are publicising these occurrences so as to give the appearance that they are more common than other crime and thereby providing an excuse to act immorally by acting extra-judicially.

                There is NOTHING less libertarian than collectivising and allowing government to take prejudicial action against innocent individuals based upon the actions of others.

                It is also only one aspect of what is wrong with the Islamic world and the issues allowing large swathes of them into a territory country will bring.

                Do you have ANY idea how many times bigots have made that argument in the history of the US and how many times it’s proven bullshit?

                “Alright! We’ll take the niggers and the chinks, but we DON’T WANT the Irish!” /Brochettaward

                1. against a collective rather than the individual

                  Right there, the money shot.

                2. You can believe any retarded thing you want, so long as you don’t hurt anyone.

                  But what if your belief system says: “Hurt people who don’t believe my retarded thing”? Hurt people who stop believing my retarded thing, or who insult our retarded founder, or who don’t follow our retarded rules? That’s Islam, dude, and condemning Islam as a whole is no more “collectivizing” than condemning communism as a whole. Saying that many communists don’t personally suppress dissent, confiscate property, and run gulags is besides the point, because that’s what the ideology leads to. Islam leads to terror and oppression. Every single Islamic country sucks from a libertarian point of view. That is not some strange coincidence.

                  1. But what if your belief system says:

                    Doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is whether you initiate aggression or not.

                    Your fucked up religion tells people to kill as well. But you don’t do it…so no one gives a shit.

                    1. Your fucked up religion tells people to kill as well. But you don’t do it…so no one gives a shit.

                      1. It’s not “my” religion.

                      2. Just one particular religion tells people to do kill much more often, says it more strongly and inarguably, and (surprise!) its followers actually do kill, much more often than any other religion. You have to be a blind ideologue to not notice the connections between the ideology and the proven, real-world actions of the followers.

                      And because lots of Muslims do kill (or support killing, or make excuses for killing), lots of people are giving a shit. Too bad you dismiss them with irrelevant statistics and tell them not to defend themselves against aggression “because that’s what [the aggressors] want.”

                3. You are publicising these occurrences so as to give the appearance that they are more common than other crime and thereby providing an excuse to act immorally by acting extra-judicially.

                  There is NOTHING less libertarian than collectivising and allowing government to take prejudicial action against innocent individuals based upon the actions of others.

                  I won’t speak for Brochettaward, but I think willful evasions of reality to arrive at a pre-ordained political conclusion might rank up there. This case involves a guy who specifically attacked someone with no known connection to him while yelling “Allahu Ackbar!”. It’s not a stretch, in any way, to contend this is an act of Islamically-motivated terrorism. There’s no contradiction between saying most Muslims aren’t terrorists and shouldn’t be treated as such, and observing that Islamic terrorism exists and that Islamic fundamentalism is a major driver of terrorism.

            2. Frank…*sigh*…you are a reasonable guy and we agree on, well, nearly everything, except this. You are fooling yourself here. 99 times out of 100 things are exactly what they appear to be. It may be said 10 times per day in normal conversation but when it is yelled by a guy swinging a machete at your head it is exactly what it appears to be. A jihadist killing in the name of Islam.

              I just cant understand why so much intractable denial of reality when it comes to this subject. Philosophical purity with regards to freedom of movement? We just don’t live in a world where open borders has good outcomes.

              1. Pulls out one Occam’s Razor, does battle with jihadists and their leftist apologists.

            3. it’s as common as saying hello. 10 times a day in normal conversation.

              Machete attacks?

              1. Yes. I took two semesters of Arabic, and, in fact, machetes are a distinctive dialectal feature.

                1. The whole alphabet looks like swords, cmon.

              2. ‘Machete attacks”

                Mormons, again.

          2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takbir

            The Takb?r (????????), also transcribed Tekbir or Takbeer, is the term for the Arabic phrase All?hu Akbar (???? ????), usually translated as “God is [the] greatest”. It is a common Islamic Arabic expression, used in various contexts by Muslims; in formal prayer, in the call for prayer (adh?n), as an informal expression of faith, in times of distress, or to express resolute determination or defiance.

            1. or to express resolute determination

              Which includes resolute determination to kill the infidels.

              1. John Wilkes Booth said “sic semper tyrannis” when he shot Lincoln, therefore anyone who says it or waves a flag with that phrase on it is an assassin.

                1. Is it ok when the libertarians finally start up a jihad if they go around yelling ‘Woodchipper Akbar!’?

                2. This guy in Belgium wasn’t merely waving a flag though, no? Or was there a flag on the machete?

                3. Lincoln had it coming.

                  1. “Lincoln had it coming.”

                    He did, indeed. He was ruining “Hamlet”.

                    1. “Listen to the woman, John!”

                4. John Wilkes Booth said “sic semper tyrannis” when he shot Lincoln, therefore anyone who says it or waves a flag with that phrase on it is an assassin.

                  Well, if they’re yelling it while killing a politician, then yes.

                5. Anyone who kills a politician while saying sic semper tyrannis is probably acting out of ideology, rather than randomly lashing out due to mental illness.

      3. OMG I thought you were just kidding…

        …but no.

      4. Obviously, this poor guy had been incited by right wing extremists to do bad things. Just as it ever was.

    3. Wonder what a feed of Muslim extremist terrorist attacks over every country with reliable reporting would look like. Are they really as common as they seem (it seems like someone is getting killed every day).

      1. If you were to bring in the non-Euro and non-American attacks, I expect it would easily be more than one a day.

        And that’s without including ISIS “warfighting” around its territory.

      2. Run a quick probability calculation. Then compare it to deaths by lightning.

        1. If terrorism is comparable to lightning, then the French and German governments are telling their citizens to walk in open fields during storms with lightning rods on their heads to avoid the appearance of lightningphobia.

          1. ^^Aptly put. Add the Scandinavian governments to the French and German.

          2. Europe has a different set of issues than we do, and making that comparison is not intellectually honest. Nonetheless, they suffer far less from “terrorism” than from crime not labeled as such.

            1. No one thinks that they don’t have a different set of issues than we do, but some are more willing to admit that it’s not out of the realm of possibility for us if we insist on making the same stupid fucking decisions that they do. And you know there are people in power right now who want us to.

        2. compare it to deaths by lightning.

          We’ve talked about how stupid that sort of thing is before.

          it pretends to be objective & empirical, but its not.

          because trying to reduce things to oversimplified statistical measures ends up ignoring more of reality than it elucidates.

          e.g. – if lightening *ever* once killed 3000 people in a single shot, you can be damn sure people would behave a lot differently when they hear thunder.

          also – if this Lightening happened to originate largely from a single, particular region of the world….? and increased in proportion relative to the squabbles people in that region had with your own country’s political leadership?… well, you might start to see why the analogy sux.

          You’re also not describing risk correctly by amortizing total deaths over any arbitrary period of time.

          if there were a consistent, evenly distributed # of deaths-by-terrorism which occurred annually, and were geographically neutral, etc. then maybe a comparison with ‘natural events’ would make sense. But that’s obviously not how ‘deaths from political conflicts’ actually happen.

          Its just a dumb argument that undermines itself. There’s better ways to downplay the significance of ‘terrorism’ and its risks – say, by comparison to the cold war? or any other international conflict. While any country might experience some small # of deaths from terrorism, there’s little/no threat to national-integrity or sovereignty

            1. I just assumed that you were making a reference to the classic Genesis game Lightening Force: Quest for the Darkstar.

              1. the star was too dark? Racist?

        3. Run a quick probability calculation. Then compare it to deaths by lightning.

          This is a Jeff Goldblum quote, right?

      3. Are they really as common as they seem

        Well, there are approximately 12,000 killings in the US every year. That’s about 33 a day.

        But terrorist deaths are magic deaths and are 34 times more important than the guy who gets killed by the mugger. That’s why you hear about them, they are more important…

        …and they fit someone’s narrative.

        1. And the extra coverage is EXACTLY what the terrorist was hoping for…

          So it’s got that extra benefit going for it.

          1. There’s extra coverage now because Allah Akbar murders are pretty rare. Once the open borders folks get their wish, such killings will become more common and get no more coverage than gang related shootings in Chicago. Then the publicity will dwindle and nobody gets 15 minutes of fame for offing infidels. Instead of beheading folks, Francisco’s pets will spend their energy running artisanal falafel factories.

            1. Holy fuck. You can’t really believe that.

              1. Sarcasm Warning?

        2. Most of those 12,000 killings every year aren’t all that random. They are typically committed by people you know. Someone who goes around randomly killing people always draws more attention. When you attach a political motive to it, that is even more true.

          If the occasional whack job killing in the name of religion was the only issue in a place like Europe from the mass influx of people, you may have more of a point. But it isn’t. They bring with them all sorts of other ugly problems that natives have to deal with.

          If you think it is wise to simply minimize and dismiss all such fears, you have already lost most people. They are just going to tune you out. Meanwhile, there’s all sorts of injustices in the world where you freely offer up criticism despite those events being just as or even more rare than terrorist attacks. By your definition, you are engaging in irrational behavior.

          1. If you think it is wise to simply minimize and dismiss all such fears, you have already lost most people.

            If so, it’s because “most people” are mindless sheep being manipulated by those with something to gain.

            They are just going to tune you out.

            Because mindless sheep tune me out, doesn’t make me wrong.

            Meanwhile, there’s all sorts of injustices in the world where you freely offer up criticism despite those events being just as or even more rare than terrorist attacks.

            Example, please, where I have espoused limiting individual liberty in the name of safety.

            Would you care to argue your position from first principles?

            1. Because mindless sheep tune me out, doesn’t make me wrong.

              Calling people who disagree with you “mindless sheep” doesn’t make you right, either.

              1. Calling people who disagree with you “mindless sheep” doesn’t make you right, either.

                Never said it did.

                The statistics, however, support my position.

                1. Indeed, 33 murders a day in a country of 330,000,000 means anyone’s chance of being murdered is also very small. So why do we waste our taxes on government officials bothering about murders? We give up much of our freedom because we are inordinately fearful of being murdered.

                  1. So why do we waste our taxes on government officials bothering about murders?

                    I am not saying nothing should be done about murders OR terrorists. Ensuring the rights of the individual is the only legitimate function of government.

                    What I am saying is, since the incidence of dying in a terror attack (1:20,000,000/yr) is significantly less than dying of ordinary murder (1:28,000/yr), nothing beyond what we do already is justified.

                    The “solution” to the “problem” is already in place AND it doesn’t violate the rights of the innocent to bring the guilty to justice. Find, apprehend, try, convict and punish those guilty of harming others.

                    And treating it as ordinary crime has the added benefit of NOT playing into the hands of the terrorist by giving him the notoriety he needs to be successful.

                    Certainly spending $5T (extraordinary methods) on the WoT with no noticeable improvements has shown you that the ONLY way to defeat terror is to downplay it, treat terrorists as common criminals and to stop playing to irrational fears (which is their only weapon).

                    What rational individual wants to expend additional resourses against a “problem” (intentional scare quotes) that has a one in 20M probability of happening when we don’t expend those resourses against problems that are much more likely?

                    1. This, well said.

                    2. Irrational fear is terrorists’ only weapon? You forgot commercial airliners, guns, knives, hatchets, machetes, bombs, suicide vests, automobiles and tractor trailer trucks. And that’s just for starters.

                    3. You forgot commercial airliners, guns, knives, hatchets, machetes, bombs, suicide vests, automobiles and tractor trailer trucks.

                      What are they going to do with them? Take over America? Are they going to march into Washington DC with their machetes take down the American flag and raise an ISIS flag in its place?

                      There are very few actual “threats” to America. A nuclear exchange with the Russians being one. Terrorists have ZERO capability to threaten America’s sovereignty. Can they kill Americans? Sure. So can common thugs or you for that matter. It doesn’t mean we need to spend trillions of dollars (extra) protecting ourselves from a Homple attack.

                      Terrorist attacks are extremely uncommon, kill few and have very little physical impact on a nation with a $13T GDP.

                      So yes. The ONLY weapon terrorists have to control us is our overreaction to irrational fear. And fear is given voluntarily.

                      You, and people like you, calling for measures beyond what is already in place, freely give terrorists their power.

                    4. No, I believe the Islamist terrorists can make life shittier than it already is, and that treating terrorism as a criminal matter won’t much slow them down. Materialists like socialists and libertarians seem to believe that people are interchangeable moist robots who respond identically to all incentives and disincentives, irrespective of their culture or upbringing. Thus we are told that the same legal strictures that deter Sven Olson from offing Ole Swenson in North Dakota will keep Mohammad the Jihadi from blowing up himself and a bunch of others in California.

                      Terrorist activity is some?here on the spectrum between ordinary murder and a foreign invasion and is probably best dealt with the same model used against Mafia families.

                    5. probably best dealt with the same model used against Mafia families

                      So like…

                      The criminal justice system.

                    6. Yes, including infiltration of mosques, bank account monitoring and some foreign intelligence gathering. If you have no squawk about these things, I agree with you. If you mean turn it over to the local cops and let them treat the crimes like they do Chicago gang warfare, then no, that’s not enough.

                    7. The “solution” to the “problem” is already in place AND it doesn’t violate the rights of the innocent to bring the guilty to justice. Find, apprehend, try, convict and punish those guilty of harming others.

                      So let’s suppose that instead of the acts of unconnected individuals acting in their own malevolent ways, a bunch of those murderers in the US were actually acting in concert. Say, as a part of an organized crime operation. Would the rational response be to treat each individual murderer as a stand-alone crime? Or, just perhaps, would we build a task force to look deeper into the organization and find ways to disrupt and eliminate the criminal organization?

                      I think history shows that when faced with a large criminal conspiracy that includes murder in its toolbox, the government will bring more resources to bear and go beyond merely finding and convicting the individual murderers.

                      So what of this case? We have a very large ideologically-based group who have declared their intention to violently overthrow the governments of the world and subjugate all their peoples. (sounds nutty, doesn’t it?) They have a well established track record of making good on their threats. They have managed to murder people in dozens of countries around the globe.

                      Do you sit around and do nothing? Do you wait until a murder happens and then arrest the individual? Or maybe you find a mentally challenged kid and talk him into a plot before arresting him?

                    8. You do exactly what you’d do in a criminal investigation. Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. You bring all the guilty to justice. If you need to try them in absentia, do so and then bring them to justice.

                      Several points in response to your questions.

                      Do you sit around and do nothing? Do you wait until a murder happens and then arrest the individual?

                      What do you do in the US when the cops know someone is likely to kill someone else? Do they get to go arrest and punish him or do they need to wait until there is actually a crime committed? You can take steps to prevent it, short of actually initiating aggression, but you don’t get to punish people before they’ve actually committed a crime.

                      We have a very large ideologically-based group who have declared their intention to violently overthrow the governments of the world and subjugate all their peoples.

                      And such a threat is a joke. They can no more overthrow the US than I can shit a horse out of my ass. Yes, they have the capability to kill citizens of the US, but so do you and so do I. I’m not going to tear down our system of providing due process over an action that’s 1000 times less likely to happen than getting killed by a mugger. (Although, I’m sure the terrorists would love to watch us do so.)

                    9. NOW…ALL THAT SAID…

                      If the threat to the sovereignty of the US is credible. Or there is a credible threat to large segments of our population or industry, AFTER being attacked the Chief Executive may petition Congress for the legal authority to kill without due process. That authority comes in the form of a declaration of war…against a specified group…and is valid for a specified time period. At THAT point, he may kill those not directly involved in the crime. That is what war is.

                      But IMHO, the current terrorist threat doesn’t rise to such criteria (or even come close).

                      And this isn’t new. Prior to Iraq II, the US has NEVER started a preemptive war. We are the frogs in the pot on the stove top. 20 years ago, Americans would never even considered going to war until we were attacked. There has been a moral decay in many’s thinking since Bush crossed that line. It needs to be reversed.

        3. So my own point – Islam has deep problems within it. And it has a large number of followers who, if they aren’t killing people in the name of religion, they are engaging in activities that are still pretty god damn awful. So that is the reality that needs to be confronted and dealt with. Islam needs to be criticized and so do many Muslims. There’s admittedly a fine line between that and collectivizing, but it sure beats plugging your ears and covering your eyes pretending the problems don’t exist because it is more comfortable for your ideology and preferred utopian policies.

          I for one am thankful that America is situated far from the Muslim world, unlike Europe. I know full well that living in a country with a Muslim majority or even large minority isn’t pretty.

          Act willfully ignorant of reality and you are going to let people you don’t like – people like Papaya – set the narrative completely.

          1. And it has a large number of followers who, if they aren’t killing people in the name of religion, they are engaging in activities that are still pretty god damn awful. So that is the reality that needs to be confronted and dealt with.

            Agreed.

            And the system is already in place, and has been in place for 220+ years (in this country), that does EXACTLY that. They have a fancy name for it. It’s called the criminal justice system.

            You see, in this country, we provide due process and strive to only punish the guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt).

            You seem to want to punish an entire religion of 1.6B people based upon the actions of a very small percentage of idiots within that group. You seem to want to make exceptions to both libertarian principle and to American principle (due process) because you personally think Muslims, as a whole, are icky.

            1. Do you find it odd and ironic that seemingly the only defenders of the notion of not treating Islam as a collective problem are an Iraq vet and a Zionist?

              1. An “establishment climber” arguing for mass third world immigration to white Christian countries?! That’s crazy!

            2. You seem to want to punish an entire religion of 1.6B people based upon the actions of a very small percentage of idiots within that group.

              God you’re a fucking idiot.

              1. Great argument.

                Care to argue your point from first principles?

            3. I stepped out yesterday, but wanted to respond to Franc with something of a clean slate:

              You seem to want to punish an entire religion of 1.6B people based upon the actions of a very small percentage of idiots within that group. You seem to want to make exceptions to both libertarian principle and to American principle (due process) because you personally think Muslims, as a whole, are icky.

              No where in my comment history will anyone find calls to restrict the freedoms of Muslims. I didn’t say that above. I did say it is asinine to pretend that Islam does not have deep problems. So you created some strawman to reply to in response to my comment. But let’s reiterate:
              1. It is disingenuous to claim the only issues with Islam stem from terrorism. Frankly, that is just the tip of the iceberg.
              2. It is disingenuous to claim that the ‘minute’ number of terrorists that act aren’t encouraged by sentiments held by far larger numbers of Muslims. Sometimes majorities and pluralities, depending on the area.
              3. The only statement for activity I made called for rightful criticism of Islam itself. That extends to large swathes of its followers. This is something that in the past Francisco has vehemently argued against.
              4. Someone who cannot and will not address any of the above and simply attempts to minimize those issues is going to be tuned out by the wider public. But Franc just wants to dismiss those people as sheep, so…

              1. Someone who cannot and will not address any of the above

                Tell, me, Brochettaward, just how do you propose we “address” those issues?

        4. But terrorist deaths are magic deaths and are 34 times more important than the guy who gets killed by the mugger. That’s why you hear about them, they are more important…

          Well, they are more important. A random killing, crime of passion, etc. are not intended to, and do not have the effect of, provoking/causing societal changes (none of them good, as far as I can tell). Terrorist killings to have that intent, and do have that effect. The other 12,000 people murdered in 2001 did not cause massive infringements on liberty or a multiple wars in the mideast, but the 3,000 killed by terrorists did.

          …and they fit someone’s narrative.

          They certainly fit the terrorists’ narrative as well as the narratives of others, yes.

          1. A random killing, crime of passion, etc. are not intended to, and do not have the effect of, provoking/causing societal changes (none of them good, as far as I can tell). Terrorist killings to have that intent, and do have that effect.

            So, not only are terrorist acts statistically insignificant, but we give the terrorists a boost in “provoking/causing societal changes” by providing undue publicity. We are doing EXACTLY what they want us to do.

            1. “We” are doing exactly what they want.

              Who is collectivizing now?

              Governments may be doing what they want, and they are doing it to me (and you). Like mass immigration and the welfare state, we have two things that come together into a bad dynamic. One is impossible, practically, to get rid of, while the other can perhaps be controlled. Why not focus on the factor that can be controlled, rather than pointing at the other and saying we have to lay there and take it?

              1. Why not focus on the factor that can be controlled

                Because doing so violates my libertarian principles.

                1. Thus clearing the field for the bad dynamic and worse responses to continue.

                  1. Thus clearing the field for the bad dynamic and worse responses to continue.

                    As I said above…how many times has the same prediction been made about other groups (Blacks, Chinese, Irish, Italians, Mexicans…) only to come to nothing?

                    A potential outcome, as seen through someone’s crystal ball, is not and should not be used as an excuse to sacrifice principles.

                    Please make an argument rooted in libertarian first principles that supports prejudicially excluding an entire group for the actions of a tiny minority of individuals within that group.

                    1. FFS, stop referring to the “tiny minority” of radical Muslims. It’s a bullshit talking point. Numerous polls over the years prove that they have widespread support among Muslims worldwide.

                    2. The number of terrorists compared to 1.6B Muslims is fucking minute.

                      Regardless, prejudicial treatment of the innocent within a group based upon the actions of the guilty is immoral, irrespective of the proportion of innocent to guilty. The ends don’t justify the means.

                    3. The number of murderers compared to all police is fucking minute.

                      The number of concentration camp personnel among Nazis is fucking minute.

                      The number of collective famine enforcers among Communists is fucking minute.

                      The number of lynchers among KKK members is fucking minute.

                      The number of abusive eminent domain cases compared to all government actions is fucking minute.

                      I guess we want to avoid the “immorality” of “prejudice” and “collectivizing” by drawing any sweeping conclusions in such cases. In fact, opposing those murderers etc. is just what they want! They want to fight, and it costs too much to fight with them, anyway. Better to just ignore them.

        5. But terrorist deaths are magic deaths and are 34 times more important than the guy who gets killed by the mugger.

          Yea, few people about normal crime. That’s why security systems, one hour commutes, private security etc. are so rare. Revealed preferences and all that.

        6. But terrorist deaths are magic deaths and are 34 times more important than the guy who gets killed by the mugger. That’s why you hear about them, they are more important…

          And if there were some policy decision that led to mugging deaths skyrocketing, you’d insist anyone questioning the policy was just irrational?

      4. This site maintains lists of attacks. Their list of polls is also important and disconcerting.

    4. We need common sense machete-control legislation!

    5. It’s a damn good thing the LP platform does not favor indiscriminate admission of dangerous fanatics…

  3. When I was a kid growing up in New York the city was notoriously corrupt. If you wanted to get something done you needed a friend at the local Democrat clubhouse like the Cherokee Club or if it was a really big thing you went to Tammany Hall. As corrupt as it was we always said “At least we’re not New Jersey”. Looks like things haven’t really changed in New Jersey in the last 50 years.

    1. The difference is that in NJ the corruption eventually gets straightened out, while in NY it becomes precedent & entrenched. So we hear more about it from NJ, it being a turning-over process, than from NY.

  4. I thought Crisp Crispy was this constitutional conservative battler that flailed about and scared the rights violators away?

  5. So I can assume justice prevailed, those responsible for the overreach lost their jobs and will be paying court costs and reparations out of their own pockets?

    1. I wondered the same thing. Even if IJ pays the bills for four years of litigation, and the piano man is not out-of-pocket, IJ would like to re-use the payback for other defenses.

  6. What happened to the Trump implosion and the Hillary surge? Is it possible that the election isn’t over in early August after all?

    Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s lead over Republican rival Donald Trump narrowed to less than 3 percentage points, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Friday, down from nearly eight points on Monday.

    About 42 percent of likely voters favored Clinton, to Trump’s 39 percent, according to the July 31-Aug. 4 online poll of 1,154 likely voters. The poll had a credibility interval of plus or minus 3 percentage points, meaning that the results suggest the race is roughly even.

    Among registered voters over the same period, Clinton held a lead of five percentage points, down from eight percentage points on Monday, according to the poll.

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN10G2BQ

    Caveat: this is one poll. But, I’m curious about what other polls of likely voters have been saying.

      1. Yeah, RCP keeps a good running list of polls. They don’t, unfortunately, sort them by “registered” v “likely” voters. Its been my impression (although I haven’t seen an analysis or study) that likely voter polls are more predictive.

        What’s weird about that list is the way the spread among “general election” polls grows:

        Monday: 4 point spread
        Tuesday: 4 point spread
        Wednesday: 1 point spread, but only two polls
        Thursday: 11 point spread (!)
        Friday: 7 point spread

        No idea what to make of that.

        1. As has been mentioned 2-3 times before, the periods surrounding the before/after of the conventions is volatile. And its the summer, and most people really aren’t all that interested in the subject.

          You aren’t going to see any significant & consistent trend until mid-late September.

        2. In the sample column it says RV or LV. The fuss over the two and the “expertise” claimed by partisans on both sides strongly reminds me of the Bush Texas ANG documents controversy (aka Rathergate), where political junkies became experts on typesetting and typewriter history in a matter of hours.

          The average is Clinton up by 6.9 pct. Standard error of the mean for the 10 polls is less than a third that of any of the individual polls, so about 1 pct. Putting a Trump victory at well beyond a six sigma event.

          1. its so cute how you pretend to be sophisticated about polling, yet are pretending a single-snapshot in time provides slam-dunk predictive evidence. Its like watching a 6yr old insist his sneakers make him run faster.

            1. Past performance is not a perfect predictor of future results, but it is a damn good one.

              Something is going to have to change the dynamic in a big way or else Trump is toast. Nobody seems to know what could change the dynamic in Trump’s favor.

              1. Past performance is not a perfect predictor of future results, but it is a damn good one.

                That says nothing in regards to your specific claim of predictive certainty….which is still incredibly stupid, and not in fact based on “past performance”, but just a snapshot in time.

                If you actually feel like examining past-performance, contemplate this

                Something is going to have to change the dynamic in a big way

                you haven’t described any dynamic at all.

                You’re just piling on to your stupid claim and pretending that it means something when it doesn’t.

            2. And a single snapshot in time? Trump’s been behind in the RCP average for all but 3 days, and the current trend is a widening lead for Hillary.

              1. “trend”

                what’s the beginning-point and end-point of your “trend”?

                1. Do you know what a trend is?

                  1. Trend estimation is a statistical technique to aid interpretation of data. When a series of measurements of a process are treated as a time series, trend estimation can be used to make and justify statements about tendencies in the data, by relating the measurements to the times at which they occurred.

                    You can’t have a trend without defining your time-series. So what’s the beginning and end-point of your trend?

                    1. (crickets)

                      6yr old runs off to sulk and tell his sneakers that he believes in their magic powers.

                    2. Regarding trends, a year ago Trump was, what, 30 points behind Hillary?

          2. Hadn’t noticed the RV and LV, Bi. Thanks.

    1. Since Trump doesn’t stand a chance anyway, you might as well all vote for Johnson.

      1. No, we should all vote for Hillary

        We will only gather more constituents for liberty when more people feel the consequences of their moronic leftist desires. iow – We are going to have to get worse before we get better. We should ensure Hillary wins, the GOP is shattered into 1000 pieces, and gay-jay gets less than 1% of the vote, showing that “compromising priciples” is no way to improve the LP brand.

        1. Sounds like a legitimate plan.

          1. It also works wonders as “a convenient rationalization for the inevitable”. Apply as needed. Keep away from children.

      2. True facts. At Paddypower you have to give THEM 4 to 1 odds if you are betting the Dems to win. And they are laying nearly 3 to 1 odds the mystical antiabortion prohibitionist party gets the snot beat out of it–Trump persuation and all.
        The icing on the gay wedding cake baked with burning crosses is that the LP’s chances are eight times as good as in July… 50 to 1 now, 400 to 1 then. Another such change and this’ll be like the odds against Free Luna in Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.”

        1. The icing on the gay wedding cake baked with burning crosses

          that’s got to rank at least a 3 on the Agile Cyborg scale.

    2. What is the point of a national poll when a handfull of states determine the election.

  7. Why does all this shit keep happening in New Jersey?

    1. Isn’t it officially “The Garbage State”?

    2. It’s a hive of scum and villainy?

  8. After all, this is the same Casino Reinvestment Development Authority that notoriously joined forces with Donald Trump back in 1994 in an effort to kick an elderly widow out of her home in order to help Trump build a new limousine parking lot for the Trump Plaza hotel and casino.

    Which has been an abandoned building for the past two years, it should be noted.

  9. In NY this sort of taking would probably be upheld in court, on the basis that an authority is to be trusted to later flesh out the specifics of its “plan”.

  10. Florida says,at least we’re not New Jersey.

  11. It is interesting to me that this is a perfect article in which to slam Trump on the single worst thing about him; his love of eminent domain abuse. Yet he has barely come up. None of the other complaints about him amount to much, but this? Outright theft using government goons? This is a big fuckin’ deal.

    I don’t give a shit if he is rude to people. Stealing, that’s another matter.

    1. Well, the lefty press loves it some ED.

      1. Yeah, this is not an issue that the Left wants to draw attention to. It’s also probably not in the top 20 issues that anyone cares about.

    2. When it comes up, the Trumpistas just say that it’s not his fault, that you have to use ED and rent-seeking if you’re going to succeed in business.

      They always have a canned talking point in response to any criticism of their leader. Reminds me of another political group, actually.

      1. Not to succeed in business generally, but in urban large-lot real estate development, yes, unfortunately, when you consider that your competitors might. It’s not as if it’s Trump’s standard m.o.?how many times has he tried to arrange it?

    3. God’s Own Prohibitionists are into stealing, communist income tax, asset forfeiture–and were already that way before The Don was even born. Great minds discuss third-party platforms. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.

  12. “This is the same Casino Reinvestment Development Authority that notoriously joined forces with Donald Trump back in 1994 in an effort to kick an elderly widow out of her home in order to help Trump build a new limousine parking lot for the Trump Plaza hotel and casino. Happily, the CRDA’s pro-Trump scheme was also struck down in court.”

    That’s a legitimate criticism of Donald Trump.

    It’s nothing like faulting him uniquely for saying he’d bomb ISIS even if it meant there would be civilian casualties as well–when the Obama Administration has actually killed thousands of civilian casualties and hundreds of children with drone strikes.

    It isn’t like accusing Trump of the crime of insensitivity towards grieving patriotic Muslims either.

    It isn’t like associating Trump with Nazi brown shirts because his staff was falsely accused of manhandling Michelle Fields.

    This is solid, relevant, direct criticism of Donald Trump’s actual behavior, and it should be most welcome by thinking people.

    It’s refreshing to see people bring up criticism of Donald Trump that requires voters who know about it to vote for Trump despite that information if they’re going to vote for him.

    . . . rather than seeing false accusations hurled at Trump so often that legitimate criticism starts to be ignored by those who might vote for him.

    1. Are you saying he wasn’t insensitive toward the Khan family or that it’s not a big deal for him to be?

      1. Did you get tired of “Aftertouch”?

        1. I called this last weekend.

          1. Your skills of discernment are underappreciated.

            1. Said that last weekend too.

      2. I’m saying that what people say or whether they’re insensitive isn’t something I’m especially concerned about as a potential voter.

        I’m saying that criticizing Trump for what he actually did–rather than what he said–is legitimate criticism.

        I’m saying that much of the criticism leveled at Trump turns out to be bogus.

        The only thing I’m adding here is that you seem to have trouble with reading comprehension. In fact, it’s almost like you’re being willfully obtuse–and that’s one of Tulpa’s hallmarks.

        No, I’m not saying that Tulpa is the only willfully obtuse person in the world, but that’s the kind of response we’d get from Tulpa. And why would anybody want to discuss anything with Tulpa.

        He’s willfully obtuse!

        1. That means that Obama can’t be criticized for saying that people could keep their doctor and health insurance, right? Or saying “you didn’t build that”? Or talking about his opponents clinging to guns and religion and xenophobia?

          1. Are you really incapable of understanding that criticism of what people do is more compelling than criticism of what they say?

            Or are you just being willfully obtuse?

            1. its bo, dude.

              But what about Bo’s incessant pretend-debate tactics is it you find ‘annoying’, exactly? Do you dispute that it is NOT ‘baiting’ to simply raise a number of questions in a form of statement, without ever actually saying anything of substance, but suggesting that what you seem to be saying is being somehow ‘complicated’, as it were? And do you not find the perpetual use of pedantic expressions, wrapping banal observations in a series of rhetorical devices, such as those used supra, as failing to add any substance to any particular claim? I do not see how this violates the NAP, so your objection strikes me as yet another example of how un-libertarian you are, or do you disagree?

              1. Wasn’t Bo from stage left?

                Why is Bo mad that I’m criticizing Trump?

                1. Bo was desperate to pick fights and get into meaningless squabbles where he could pretend to win by avoiding taking any position at all, and just nitpicking other people to death.

                  This “aftertouch”/”Bipox” character suffers from the same habit. He’s also dumb in exactly the same ways.

                  1. Yeah, I think you nailed it.

                    I’m always hyper suspicious of new people being Tulpa on Saturdays, too. Tulpa often shows up on Saturdays.

                    With a Tulpa Tulpa here
                    and a Tulpa Tulpa there
                    Here a Tulpa
                    There a Tulpa
                    Everywhere a Tulpa Tulpa

              2. “But what about Bo’s incessant pretend-debate tactics is it you find ‘annoying’, exactly? Do you dispute that it is NOT ‘baiting’ to simply raise a number of questions in a form of statement, without ever actually saying anything of substance, but suggesting that what you seem to be saying is being somehow ‘complicated’, as it were?

                Okay, after further review, that’s nail on head.

          2. Those are the three leading hallmarks of Tulpa, are they not?

            In no particular order:

            1) Willfully obtuse

            2) Straw man

            3) Running around with the goal posts.

            In fact, two and three are often combined as they are in the response above.

            1) Does Tulpa really not understand what I wrote–was it that confusing?

            2) Did I say that Obama can’t be criticized for what he says?

            3) Watch, I’m supposed to prove that I never criticized Obama for what he said.

            Why would anyone play this game?

            1. I was merely assuming that the rules you’re laying down for criticism of Trump would also apply to criticism of Obama.

              1. “I was merely assuming that the rules you’re laying down for criticism of Trump”

                Who said any of this?

                Shouldn’t blame him for things that didn’t happen?

                Shouldn’t falsely accuse him?

                Should give weight to what was done over what was said?

                You think these are rules for criticizing Trump?

                I don’t suppose being a troll and being delusional are mutually exclusive. You may be both!

                I’ve always said there are two kinds of trolls–those who know they’re trolling and those who don’t. Maybe you’re one of the latter. I don’t know. It doesn’t really matter . . . to anyone else but you.

                P.S. These are the rules of trolling. Shultz has spoken.

            2. Ken, I gave the troll a C- first, but it was only a post or two later that it was obvious courtesy was wasted and I changed the grad to F.

              1. It really has deteriorated.

                Or it gets older with repetition.

                Some people treat us like we’re the voices in their heads.

                Like what we say and mean is a function of their situation or something.

                And ultimately, isn’t this about me criticizing Trump–but not with the right feeling?

                I guess I’m supposed to genuinely believe all the bullshit, too–because it’s anti-Trump.

                How many people have we come across here over the past two weeks (Reason staff, too!), who seem to think that because Trump is bad, saying anything bad about him is okay.

                Bo’s taking it to new heights. I guess if I don’t like Trump, then I’m supposed to genuine believe everything bad that people say about him–whether it’s true or not?

                Admittedly, Bo may have been deranged pre-Trump campaign, but there are some strong symptoms of TDS present, too. Maybe I should add a new test to the list.

                If you attack people for attacking Trump because they’re insufficiently anti-Trump, then you may have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

            3. Anyone barking at this or that looter as if the election were a personality contest draws exactly the same level of response. The government monopolizes deadly force. We want it used, if at all, to preserve individual rights. Surely even a cowardly anonbot commentator can grasp that simple a proposition–or by feigning incomprehension out itself as an infiltrator for one or the other of the terrified looter hordes.

        2. How can you criticize Tulpa though? Since your contact with him is solely through comments, you’re necessarily criticizing him purely based on what he says, which is apparently an illegitimate form of criticism.

          1. Are you so completely ignorant that you think if Donald Trump comes here to this forum and insults everyone, that he won’t get some of the same that Tulpa did? To the contrary, being a candidate for POTUS, he’ll get much worse.

            As usual, you never say anything that contains a valid point.

            1. Just because you never understand what I say doesn’t mean I’m not saying anything.

              1. Next you’re going to tell me that I don’t even know what socialism is. Ok.

            2. Your problem, then, is with people who insult those they disagree with?

              Does Trump not fall into that category?

              1. Your problem, then, is with people who insult those they disagree with?

                You’re starting out with an overly broad statement there.

                1. That appears to be what you are accusing this Tulpa person of.

                  1. “Tulpa” is a category that includes a half-dozen types of retard. Don’t feel bad if you’re compared to just one.

                  2. Maybe you shouldn’t speculate on Tulpa so much when you’ve never read one of his posts.

            3. How can you criticize Tulpa though?

              Speaking of which…

              Has there been a confirmed Tulpa citing lately? Maybe he’s busy. Maybe he is Trump.

              (Although there is a possible in this very thread)

                1. I quit worrying about who’s the current handle of Tulpa or any of the other trolls. We’ve seen what kind of badness that leads to.

                  …Or at least leads bad people to.

              1. Haven’t seen him for a while. But I get your drift.

          2. If they came in here and just said “Libertarians are stupid” like Tony does (which is 90% of Trumps shtick) you might have a valid comparison.

            But most people don’t criticize Tony or Jackass when they just say “Libertarians are stupid”. They criticize them when they advocate retarded leftist policies that would take away people’s liberty. And if you’ll notice, none of the examples Ken gave were instances where Trump spoke about taking away our liberties.

      3. Not a big deal, Bi. Trivial. The guy decided to be a partisan activist, but cries when people treat him that way.

      4. No dipshit, it wasn’t a big deal for him to be. If you jump in the ring and end up with a black eye you don’t really have anything to complain about. Fuck Khan.

  13. OT: This review of Deirdre McCloskey’s third book in her Bourgeois series explains why “capitalism” is not the best term for libertarians to use to explain the reasons behind the profoundly positive societal changes of the last two centuries.

    1. w/o reading it….what’s the better-term?

      1. They don’t seem to offer one, which is my problem with the review (maybe McCloskey does?).

        1. I think it’s a legitimate point. “Liberal” originally meant what is referred to as libertarianism now. But after too many socialists began calling themselves liberals, it became necessary to switch to a new word to avoid being confused for one of them.

          In the same way, corporatists and cronies calling themselves capitalists have so degraded the word that we may need something new to designate real capitalism. A big thing would be drawing the distinction between being pro-market and being pro-business.

          1. “Free market capitalism” is already in fairly wide use in this regard.

          2. And yet, you side with the left on pretty much everything. I’m not sure which is worse, people who are just ignorant and useful sheep or a person who knows how bad the ideology they’re siding with is, and yet goes down that road anyway.

            1. To someone who can’t distinguish between not-west and east, a person arguing to go north must be confusing indeed.

              1. Your cognitive dissonance is not my problem.

                1. So if you don’t understand what I say, and you don’t consider it your problem, why do you keep bothering to respond to me?

                  Is it some sort of dominance thing? I make you feel inadequate and you’ve convinced yourself that just the right insult will for me to admit your superiority?

                  1. Do you have some sort of delusion that just because I respond to you, that I’m going to agree with you? You can get that sort of environment over at HuffPo as long as you say what they like to hear, you can get likes and little thumbs up all day long. I actually just gave you credit for saying something valid, but questioned why if you mean that, do you always side with the left? That’s cognitive dissonance, not me questioning why you do it.

                    1. Because I don’t side with the left. You’re just the reductive sort of person who can’t tell the difference refusing to side with the right and siding with the left.

                    2. Yeah, for me, someone who is socially liberal and economically conservative, and fights with both liberals and conservatives on the intertoobz, too difficult to understand.

                      But you have a distinctive pattern of siding with the left on things. Just saying.

          3. No, that’s not the point. “Capitalism” was a bad word to begin with, which is not surprising since it was coined to describe something to be done away with.

      2. Many have made that same point, correctly. That’s why I say or write “free enterprise”. “Capitalism” would be a system in which capital (or its owners) ruled, or possibly a system (like mercantilism) which favored inefficient accumulation of capital.

    2. I prefer ‘free markets’, a term that induces more pants shitting in leftists than the term ‘capitalism’.

      1. I too prefer “free markets”.

      2. “Free markets” is good, but “free enterprise” explicitly encompasses the buying, selling, & ownership of capital, so I think it’s better.

        It was Clarence Carson in The Freeman where I 1st read the criticism of use of the word “capitalism”. He said the USSR was a better example of capitalism than the USA, if the word be taken seriously.

        However, one of the things that keeps “capitalism” going as a term by those promoting free enterprise is the in-your-face nature of it, deliberately using a word of opprobrium. In the early 1970s, someone criticized the LP platform as having switched from “capitalism” to “free enterprise”, which the critic thought was too wimpy. But if you don’t want to macho-flash, & want to be accurate instead, don’t refer to “capitalism” unless you’re a Marxist.

        1. that’s an interesting case. is this the article you’re referring to?

          https://fee.org/articles/capitalism-yes-and-no/

    3. She’s trying to push the “equality” aspects of capitalism, but the problem is that “equality” itself is a ruined word, being taken nowadays to be synonymous with “equality of outcome”, rather than “equality before the law” or even “equality of opportunity”.

      1. “equality before the law” or even “equality of opportunity”

        Those things have been rendered irrelevant by the patriarchy of the white debils.

      2. being taken nowadays to be synonymous with “equality of outcome”

        Refuse to allow it to be.

        I’m really sick of the whole “change the definition” and use it to argue against the guy who is using the old one thing.

        Equality, meaning equality before the law, IS a good thing and it never did nor does it mean equal outcome.

        1. “Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis”

        2. I don’t have the power to prevent it from happening.

          1. You just did.

            The entire notion can be defeated by simply stating what you posted.

            Equality, as an American ideal, means equality before the law, not equality of outcome.

            In fact, equality of outcome would require equality before the law be non-existent.

            1. “In fact, equality of outcome would require equality before the law be non-existent.”

              Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

      3. Equality still has some currency, even for libertarians. On individual terms, the poorest and wealthiest in a capitalist nation are much more equal than they would be under any other system. The quality of car or tub or sandwich meat differs, but their access is identical. You work, you consume. Done.

        1. On individual terms, the poorest and wealthiest in a capitalist nation are much more equal than they would be under any other system

          My god, yes.

          Anyone who comes from developing countries like India or Brazil or China knows that there are like separate legal systems/educational systems/political systems for even the “modestly wealthy” versus “The rabble”

          by contrast, in the US… billionaires can actually get parking tickets, and “the poor” can still get decent legal representation (more or less). People who bitch about “inequality” in the US have no fucking clue what they’re talking about. In many other areas of the world, police won’t even think of helping you without a bribe.

    4. Her thesis seems to be that the problem with “capitalism” is not so much its bastardization by the left, but how it doesn’t capture the ultimate reason for the unprecedented reduction in poverty: bourgeois values. In other words, as important as capital accumulation is, it is classical liberal ideas – and their implementation – that are most responsible for the wonderful changes the world has seen since the late-18th century.

      1. Both the left and the right elite love them some cronyism. Most of the left proletariat seem incapable of discerning cronyism from free market capitalism. When you get one of the smart ones that do know the difference, they don’t have a problem with cronyism it as long as their team is doing it. But free markets, that’s something they just outright hate because it cannot be controlled by their leaders to create an outcome that they like. They go on and on about equality, but true equality on an individual level for them is a terrifying thing.

    5. I remember a friend from ARI telling me that Ayn Rand said that “Ayn rhymes with capitalist swine”.

      I like that.

      Yeah, capitalist.

      I prefer the term “capitalism” because the scumbag socialists find it infuriating.

      1. I prefer the term “capitalism” because the scumbag socialists find it infuriating.

        I do too, because they don’t want to admit that they’re “Anti-capitalist”. Instead they mumble about neoliberalism – as we discussed in previous thread

        1. Here’s the perfect test to identify the retards:

          Do you believe that the United States can be turned into a socialist paradise like Sweden or Denmark?

          Just sit back and watch the derptastical derp ensue.

    6. This Sapir-Whorf on steroids stuff is a favorite of the degenates at C4SS.

  14. You know who else took other people’s property for their own use?

    1. My younger brothers?

    2. Dumpster pool block party throwers?

  15. Congrats to all. I do wish that we knew, after the fact, who is paying the bill for this lawsuit. The guy gets to keep his house, but at what cost? Did those who contribute to the Institute for Justice pay the bill, or was it the State of New Jersey.

    Stick it to em.

    1. Are you Brazilian? Just asking because of your posting name.

    2. Well I give 0.5% of the purchase price from my eligible AmazonSmile purchases to IJ so I paid for it and am going to take full credit here. You’re welcome, America.

  16. I heart* IJ.

    *For some reason (ha!), Reason won’t let me post the heart symbol; the site says I’m typing in a non-English language (who knew the squirrels were yokeltarians?).

    1. There’s very limited HTML support here. And some special characters won’t appear.

      1. But numerous special Olympic characters appear.

        1. So I take it Swiss has the day off?

          1. Swiss has elected to take the week off for stress relief due to this election.

            He’ll be back. They always come back.

  17. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.Today40.com

  18. Paging Dr Groovus:

    If you got to a conclusion about the apparent surgical excision on Hillary’s tongue, I missed it.

    And now we have this:

    http://youtu.be/YMHOcmDVBP021

    And people wonder why I have this racee at 50/50.

    1. They were trying to give her a forked tongue to make lying easier?

      Holy shit. WTF? Has she got a brain tumor or something?

    2. Go to :50 and watch from there. My gawd, she has a brain tumor or she’s possessed by demons.

      1. Could be both.

        1. My Quatloos are on demons

      2. aw come on now. that’s just a clip of her acting goofy which was looped to make her look spastic. Anybody can make an exaggerated “double-take” gesture and look the same if you hyperfocus on it. Old ladies also don’t look natural when they do stuff like that. If they showed the whole context (before/after of the clip) it would be clear she was goofing.

        I’m generally very skeptical of the way people use video these days. We basically have people filming everything 24/7 and there is a habit for news-media and partisans to try and excerpt “Video” and treat it as a Gotcha! in ways which no one would ever take seriously if they were just “Quotes” taken out of context.

        IOW – people for some reason think anything from 5 to 30 seconds of video taken entirely out of context is somehow a “fair and accurate representation of reality”….

        ,,,, when no one would accept any single comment/statement in print as ‘valid’ unless they were allowed to see the entire speech/context from which the excerpt was being taken.

        video gets this special pass because its more sensory, or something.

        The whole “Shovapocolypse” was a recent example of this sort of thing which i think points to a growing collective-insanity about what amounts to “proof” of anything.

        1. “Grab its motherfucking arm”

        2. *footnote =

          this does not preclude Hillary being possessed by demons. totally separate issue.

          1. Possessed? She can’t be. She’s the devil.

        3. Look at the reactions of the people in front of her. Something not right happened. The slow mo is misleading, true. But yikes.

          1. Except that in the slow mo, her eyes were that of someone who is not completely aware of what is going on and are about to lose consciousness. I’ve seen people have seizures before, that was a seizure.

        4. You’re not serious are you? I showed it to my and she also thought that she was just ‘goofing’, at first. Then she asked me to play it again and noted the reaction of several people in the crowd. In particular the guy right beside of her who was smiling and then that quickly turned to a look of confusion and concern. She was having a seizure, no doubt at all.

          1. Showed it to your what? To your what?!

            *convulses from lack of context*

            1. Well, there’s no edit feature, you know? My wife. Now you can relax while Hillary has another seizure in public and the press ignores it.

              1. *convulses from presence of context*

          2. you’re really pretending to diagnose a brain-tumor from a 10second clip of video?

            Please man, don’t.

            1. Of course not. But that was a seizure. What do you think it was? You honestly think she faked that? Maybe it was a nearby bio hacker from the Trump campaign short circuiting her brain waves with his cell phone? Please, you’re not being serious. You need to watch it again. She was about to lose consciousness at least twice. I was around someone with a brain tumor for quite a while, until it finally killed her. She would sometimes have mild seizures daily, so I know what a seizure looks like.

              1. She was having a seizure, no doubt at all.

                if you’ve ever seen an actual grande-mal or petite-mal, they don’t look like that. I’ve seen a bunch up-close. (primarily epilepsy related, but 2 which weren’t)

                Here’s a helpful video which shows some features common to each.

                the ‘seizures’ i’ve seen (and i’m no doctor- but going from experience) don’t have specific, localized muscle-contractions that would allow a person to be smiling when it starts, and still be smiling when it was over. in fact, the facial effects i’ve seen are either “super-contracted” where the face tightens up in a teeth-grinding grin which can’t relax… or the opposite – totally limp. what you don’t see are people being able to hold some specific artificial expression during the process a la Hillary.

                Also – in my experience, the after-effects of any seizure were almost more-debilitating than the seizures themselves. people were exhausted, withdrawn, unresponsive. A buddy had epilepsy growing up, and sometimes he’d just stop what he was doing and go sit down and be quiet for 5 mins, and he’d later explain he “had a small one”. And needed to ‘shake it off’.

                That wasn’t a seizure. At best you might argue its some incipient Parkinsons or some degenerative thing like that (i have no idea what)…. but again – playing Dr with a video clip is silly.

                1. Yeah, I’ve seen a grand-mal seizure. And lots of others caused by a brain tumor. I just told you that.

                  I say that was a seizure, you obviously have another opinion.

                  1. I just told you that.

                    Forgive me. I sometimes don’t refresh for long stretches. i blame…. Robby.

                    i think the below “more contextual clip” sort of undermines your diagnosis, as per my original comment.

                    1. Only it wasn’t a diagnosis. I didn’t say it’s a brain tumor, I said I think it’s a seizure, only that.

                    2. And, keep in mind, I spoke with a neurosurgeon about this a lot when my friend was having seizures. Sometimes they are so mild as to be almost unnoticeable, and I’ve seen this before. My opinion is that’s a seizure that Hillary was having. I don’t know what the cause, but a seizure is just this:

                      A seizure is the physical findings or changes in behavior that occur after an episode of abnormal electrical activity in the brain.

                      This might help:

                      Seizures

                      Not all seizures are mal seizures.

                    3. Just as an aside, I never got to see a seizure live as a med student, but a few yrs. later I had my baby niece in my lap, and she had a classic, just the way faculty would act it out to demonstrate. Daddy, a MD, was looking on, & said, “Did you see that?” I answered, “Tonic-clonic seizure.” Babies can get those fairly easily, their nervous systems are rather keyed-up (hyper-reflexic & so on), so it means nothing, even in the absence of a fever or other apparent cause. Years later Daddy denied ever having seen it.

                    4. I mean it means nothing as an isolated event in a baby.

          3. There’s definitely something wrong with her. Even during a “normal” speech she isn’t flopping around like a trout out of water, but there is surely something weird going on in her head. Normal humans that have mostly normal interactions with other normal humans can spot this but can’t name it.

            Also, the ignoring the question and going into latte salesperson mode was odd as fuck. And notice that she only freaked when she had multiple stimuli assaulting her senses, something that causes brain freaks to short circuit.

            1. There’s definitely something wrong with her.

              She makes Mao Zedong look humble and liberal?

    3. She’s a weirdo, but I used to know someone with epilepsy and their seizures were not that subtle.

      1. That’s no epilepsy, it’s a brain condition, like a seizure from a brain tumor. Seizures vary widely in their severity. But there’s no doubt that’s what it was.

        1. Isn’t it pathetic that we’ve reached the point in our nation’s grand experiment where the potential condition of a presidential candidate is cause for actual concern?

          1. Somebody knows what’s wrong with her, you can count on that. The fact that they are letting her continue a stressful campaign in that condition is just unreal. Too many people these days are so obsessed by their own lust for power that nothing else matters. Well, I guess it’s always been that way.

            Hillary campaign person 1: You don’t think the bitch is going to fall over dead before we win do you?

            Hillary campaign person 2: She better fucking not! She promised me a really cushy spot in her cabinet!

            Hillary campaign person 1: Shoot her up with some more of that stuff, and get her fat ass back on the stage! Somebody just hold her up if they have to and keep her talking!

            1. I wish we had a Downs kid in office. I wish we had a flatulent, Tourette afflicted 35-IQ huggable retard president who loves glowstick dancing and masturbating in public rather than this calculating shrew. I wish it didn’t matter.

            2. This video shows the real time interactioon it last about 3 seconds and appears, to this impartial observer*, as her reacting to a reporter leaning in at the same time she turns and she flinches then turns it into a weird old-person acting goofy thing.

              *yes she a habitual liar and an even bigger con artist than Trump, but I recognize HDS when I see it.

              1. She’s a goddamn synth, people. How is it not obvious?

                Also, Hillary in HD is not a pretty sight.

                1. How many old people are?

  19. All I know is I just came back from vacation and drove through NJ where we counted 13 state troopers who pulled people over for speeding.

    Is it quota time or something?

    1. Is there a not-quota time?

      1. Actually, in NYC, “the last week of the month” is when you’re 5X as likely to get a parking ticket or a moving violation. or arrested for drinking a beer on your stoop, or letting your dog poop on the sidewalk, or whatever.

        I don’t know how the NJ Turnpike works. I don’t know if state troopers have the same sort of business-cycles or performance pressures. I do know that they certainly are busier during the summer-months.

        1. It seemed, erm, excessive to us. While I’ve not driven on the GSP as many as the natives here but I’ve been on it quite a bit and that was special.

          1. There is a stretch of Route 17 – starting at the Harriman exit – where I have counted 20 New York troopers with people pulled over. I think that is partially for training, and as Gilmore said in the summer they are out in force.

  20. i get paid over ?79.91 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over ?9185 a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,……

    See Here===>>>> http://www.CareerPlus90.com

  21. How exactly does Puerto Rico have it’s own Olympic team? Does Guam? D.C.? Or any other US territories?

    1. I think The Vatican has a team.

      They don’t physically train in as much as they rely on faith training.

      Can I get a high five?

        1. OW!

    2. Guam, US Virgin Islands (as Virgin Islands), and American Samoa also have teams.

      DC is considered part of the United States proper, not a territory.

    3. How exactly does Hong Kong have its own Olympic team? Does Macau? Shanghai? Or any other PRC territories?

    1. Sf’d

      1. Definite SF’d link.

      1. Wasn’t that like, “the best youtube video of 2010*”?(whenever it came out)

        Speaking of nothing in particular, a previous discussion of music inspired me to go re-organize my iTunes library, which i realize is a clusterfuck 13years in the making.

        2 questions = does anyone have a preferred version? i’m downgrading to v10.7 because the newest one is…well, shit for a variety of reasons, but because someone suggest the old one was just ‘simpler’

        and any recommended tips for improving on the way iTunes auto-manages things? My problem is 1000s of one-off tracks which may or may not have associated ‘albums’. (compilations, remixes, ‘guest-starring’ etc. which end up filing them away as something other than the OG artist)

        1. OK Go is my happy place

          As far as organizing your library, I can recommend only one course of action. It’s a simple three-part system. 1) quit listening to music. 2) let your hard drive fail. 3) take up listening to podcasts exclusively.

          1. that’s an interesting approach

            One reason why my ‘digital archive’ has lapsed is because i’ve gotten in the habit of playing whole records on Youtube, or listening to DJ’s on Mixcloud. I don’t even turn iTunes on anymore.

            secondly – partly because i remembered how much i had liked that song, i just went and bought that album on itunes, and the whole record is pretty great.

        2. I have few problems with the latest version. The crap I don’t use – like “Apple Music” and “Radio” – I can disable.

          As for the library… I seem to recall there is software that can identify and tag your music for you, but I haven’t used it. Instead I tag everything myself if it isn’t already correctly tagged.

          1. Instead I tag everything myself if it isn’t already correctly tagged.

            (shudders with the thought)

            yeah, that’s not happening. i have ~3000 tracks that are a homeless mess.

            this appears to be something =

            http://picard.musicbrainz.org/

            1. Well, I don’t know what sketchy sources you’re using but I only have to touch maybe 1 out of 50 albums. More often I choose to correct things like year or genre.

              1. I don’t know what sketchy sources you’re using

                You don’t even begin to understand. no-label mixtape cassettes sold out the back of a dude’s trunk in east harlem in 1989 were better labeled and organized than my digital miscellaneous-bin.

                like…i have 100s of “baltimore club” edits that aren’t even labeled by who the original DJ was, or what the source track is.

                they were all retained under the vain assumption that “one day i might actually get my shit together and use Serato”

              2. oh yeah, and when aphex twin decided to release all his ‘200 bits of unfinished work‘ about a year ago? yeah i downloaded that too. and those are all labeled like “Uchoob trax links [your fave music or other REALLY interesting music] not just any old crap#43.mp3″

                1. Come to Daddy……takes on a different note when Milo says it….

      2. I wonder how long it took to set that up?

      3. I must have very weird music video tastes from most people because I know how popular the video was but I don’t really like it. It’s clever but it doesn’t seem to be made for the song, it was just made to be clever and the song part was just tacked on. So it annoys me.

        1. Wait a few years. You’ll never have heard of the video, the song, or the artist; and you won’t care.

  22. “…has been trying to bulldoze a family home near the Atlantic City boardwalk on behalf of private developers..”

    Listen to you Damon! You’re concerned with families losing property to “private” developers or companies? Not once do you ever mention the most numerous cases of eminent domain being invoked on behalf of private enterprises…and that is oil pipelines. Here is just one recent one:

    “So far, Sabal Trail has filed 160 eminent domain suits and more are expected, according to a report by the Orlando Sentinel. The company is desperately trying to get the right of way through 346 more properties…”

    You know Damon, pretty hard to say who is the most sekective righteous phony at Reason, but I think it’s you.

      1. You dirt farmers can’t stand in the way of PROGRESS!

    1. *selective

      1. It’s more than Damon has.

      2. Jackand Ace would personally slit your grandmother’s throat and shit on her gasping face if it meant the feds are allowed to take a quarter more of her estate than they’re presently allowed. Never forget that. The progressive impetus is to rob, pillage, and murder to advance the progressive agenda. Jack can come around here imagining that he occupies a moral vantage, but in reality he and his are nothing but murderers and thieves. Shove it down his stupid gob every chance you get.

        1. Prolonged, sputtering, liquidy shits, too. It’s the vodka diet given his penchant for Soviet culture. Jackand Ace is a shill for a murderous regime. Don’t let’s forget that fact.

    2. I’d say its a toss up between you and American Socialist.

    3. There’s a big difference between taking a property and getting right of way. The oil pipeline and the current owners can coexist.

      1. So say you, the guy who doesn’t have to deal with it. Guess you think all those people who keep fighting ED fro oil companies are just whiners.

        Easy…when you’re on the sidelines.

        1. So now, your erectile dysfunction is the fault of big oil?

          1. Hoho!! The witticism of Hypo! Have a great evening!

          2. Have you seen what petroleum jelly does after it seeps into erectile tissue?

        2. I also don’t get paid for it as the property owners do.

          Easy for you to oppose the pipeline when you’re not one of the seabirds who gets caked in oil in the next spill from an oil tanker that would never have left port had there been a pipeline.

          1. Easy for you to oppose the pipeline when you’re not one of the seabirds who gets caked in oil in the next spill from an oil tanker that would never have left port had there been a pipeline.

            This is, hands down, some of the funniest shit I’ve read on here in a while.

            1. I’m getting that feeling that the left hand is arguing with the right hand again.

            2. So, seabirds in the flyover country get caked with oil from ocean tankers, because pipeline? Ok, that makes as much sense as environmentalists typically make.

              1. NO, seabirds in the ocean get caked with oil from tankers that transport oil because there is no pipeline.

                I am PRO-pipeline.

          2. Just sticking up for private property owners who want to do with the property they own what they want to do, without government telling them otherwise and taking it away from them.

            Funny that even has to be explained to an alleged libertarian like you or Damon.

            Alleged, of course, being the operative word.

            1. The pipeline doesn’t interfere with what they want to do, and the govt is NOT taking away the property in the pipeline case.

              Libertarianism has to bow to pragmatism once in a while.

              1. Bull. That is land that the owner cannot do with whatever he wants. It has a pipeline, and he can’t even build structures close to it, and he has to allow maintenance paths to and from.

                Get a clue and listen to what those owners have to say.

                1. Jackand Ace:

                  Get a clue and listen to what those owners have to say.

                  I think it is interesting that you’re making the connection here between government property rights violations and environmental harm.

                  Basically, if we had a government that respected private property rights, there’d be less environmental risk and damage. Just think of how much lower CO2 emissions would be without the federal highway program.

                  Hmmm: I wonder who gave government the great idea that seizing property for the “public good” was a super awesome, obvious win-win with no downside?

                  Probably the tea party.

                2. he can’t even build structures close to it, and he has to allow maintenance paths to and from.

                  Which he gets compensated for, just like any other easement.

                  Is there some sort of residential development boom in East Bumfuck IA that this is going to interfere with?

              2. Tell you what, genius…read what one owner has to say

                “While the construction of the pipelines may last only a couple of years, there is lasting negative impact. As many Iowa farmers already know first hand, once the pipelines are laid, you can no longer build on that land. Furthermore, pipelines permanently reduce the yield potential of the land by compaction and destroy the soil structure.”

              3. Read the whole thing

                http://www.desmoinesregister.c…../22156905/

                1. Read the whole thing

                  An activist farmer holding a “Renewables Yes” sign and sharing a couple of vague anecdotes and a vaguely scientific-sounding quote from an unnamed professor with no links or cites. Yeah, sounds legit to me. Probably straight from the checkbook of T Boone Pickens.

            2. Wouldn’t it be funny if, thanks to this Reason article, and others, eminent domain got some serous attention and reforms were enacted, that hampered oil companies’ abilities to grab land.

              And then, Reason would be sitting there, thinking, “Wait! We just wanted to pretend to address eminent domain! We didn’t want reform on that level! Now the oil pipelines are threatened! What were we thinking?!?”

              It’s like they don’t get the long game on their own hypocrisy.

              1. Yeah, I don’t think you really understand how libertarians think.
                You do, however, have a great grasp on the Kochtopus characture.
                I’m buzzed, so I’m not going to ease into the whole NAP, private property, etc.
                But shorthand: libertarians do NOT favor using eminent domain to build pipelines, and the (other) idiot that you are debating is a troll, not a libertarian (God, it’s like watching the cripple fight from South Park).

                1. Do “libertarians” as defined by you favor ED for building roads?

                  1. “Do “libertarians” as defined by you favor ED for building roads?”

                    Given that you’re a troll and a slaver, the answer doesn’t matter but I don’t.
                    Now, let’s get back to your trolling and give you a good ass-kicking since you deserve it:

                    “Sevo|8.6.16 @ 12:46PM|#
                    “Antitrust is one of those areas where you have to put aside the libertarian dogma for a second and think about things pragmatically.”
                    I’m sure you have several examples of where anti-trust laws really helped, right?
                    Every slaver’s cause is the ‘one special time where the government should step in and fix things’. Every slaver is full of it.
                    ——————————–
                    Bipox|8.6.16 @ 1:13PM|#
                    You already brought up one of the big ones, the Bell breakup.
                    Free agency in sports.
                    The action against MS had some good effects as well.
                    ————————————————-
                    Sevo|8.6.16 @ 1:15PM|#
                    Claims absent evidence.
                    ———————————————–
                    Sevo|8.6.16 @ 11:44PM|#
                    Ya know, slaver, I keep checking back, presuming you’re going to post some lame cites to support your claims, and here it is, what, nearly 12 hours later and bupkis.
                    So you admit to lying?”

        3. “So say you, the guy who doesn’t have to deal with it.”

          Ok asshole, I DO have property, and HAVE had to engage in these very negotiations regarding oil transportation.

          What now?

          1. What now? Enjoy!!

  23. Three weeks after the GOP convention, Republican candidates for Congress and governorships are already fleeing en masse from the top of the ticket hoping the smell doesn’t get on them.

    For Republicans in close races, top strategists say, the issue is no longer in doubt. One House Republican has already started airing an ad vowing to stand up to Mr. Trump if he is elected president, and others are expected to press similar themes in the weeks ahead.

    In the world of Republican “super PACs,” strategists are going even farther: discussing advertisements that would treat Mr. Trump’s defeat as a given and urge voters to send Republicans to Congress as a check on a Hillary Clinton White House.

    Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, in a conference call with reporters the same day, was less subtle. “Donald Trump is in a category unto himself,” Mr. Toomey said, predicting that his state’s voters “will make a completely separate decision” between the top of the ticket and the Senate campaign this year.

    That is increasingly the hope of nearly every Republican leader across the country.

    Keep in mind, barely three weeks ago Chairman Reince and the rest of the Retarded Nutjob Committee were quashing floor votes to protect Trump from any attempt to avoid nominating him at the convention. How wise to hitch your wagon to his star, Reince!

  24. As a man- young, small, tall, fat, old, middle-aged, collegiate, worried, scatter-brained, geekish, tentative, stumbling, lost, tripping, dazed, and fucking diving…
    always be strong.
    Period. Always live life alive as a muscular gun ready to fucking punch evil in the goddamn throat and after you FUCKING punch evil in the throat don’t stop rip the neck veins from evil and eat them.

    None of the previous can be done without muscle. Pure fucking rocking beast muscle. Build it any way you want… just be prepared until you fucking die to crush a demon skull with your goddamn bare hand.

    this is the world they gave us… let us American men prepare for it.

      1. The star-kicking power of the HeroMu collapses goddamn black holes into screaming swerving universe parallels confusing all the electronic million dollar junk NASA bitches put out in the black skies.

      2. Not nearly enough Jack Burton. Sad.

      3. I kind of like this too.

        https://youtu.be/3I_Ds2ytz4o

  25. Manhood is spearhood. Men should love the gentle hills of vagina flowers with lips of spring breezes and cocks entering the pink palaces on chalices of whispers. But Freedeom loving men should stand tall with power and they should bristle with dragon spikes protecting their goddamn liberty from the organized dark angels lurking like massive hells afloat in the stolen sea storms chilling with murder dragoons on the sand nightmares.

  26. Weakness is smelt from the forges of-around-you society. Your fucking boss wants you weak. Your government wants you weak. Your existence screams weakness.

    Strength is the mountain man lost in the wilderness of colleges and tall steel glass lost lives.

    Strength of free men is the wings of dragons burnt on the fires of dead warriors bending their rage around times clashing against the angst of eagles.

  27. The lines of stolen whispers rock the miss alissa like drop down dreams felled like fucking god trees and mown comets under the gucking space lawn of shivering collapses right upside the fucking metallic sides of crawler mars tunnels and bars serving jango fermenstations on the trucking red goddamn Arizona experiment and shit…

  28. Hello. OT: fuck work. They have their heads shoved so far up… no, that’s not productive. DenverJ needs to once more go into business for himself. In fact, the economy here is booming, and I’m losing money by the day not working for myself.
    How are the reasonoids this beautiful evening?

  29. What are you ladies fagging off to?

    1. I was watching USA beat communist china in basketball,
      I am now watching hot brazilian woman play hot swedish women play soccer
      trying to figure out the mess of my itunes library,
      and laughing at how pathetic Bo Cara is.

      1. If you can find an easy way to bulk tag MP3’s let me know. That has been vexing me for years.

  30. stairs are like notes and stares are unnerving like bogeyman
    but bogeyman don’t exist and stares are real so stares are like stairs
    if you fall down a stare stairs collapse into you like so much fallen dreams
    and bogeyman writes notes in your fucking lost mind because
    your lost mind is a gentle ship alost in the adrift asea moaning over
    glittering reflections and very lost echoes a bunch of scared people lost
    a very long time ago.. i would track them down but this would require at
    least three fucking lifetimes and since we live in weak times this is.not.possible.so
    accept that odd things happened under the shadows of neon evolutions and your super
    racing heart thing where we all know millenials dip down into eerie grommets of
    bear skins tripping on atomic skins of pulsars dripping dreams of screaming stars…

  31. Hi, AC, I loved your Neil Diamond CDs, I’ll send them back to you now.

    1. Hi babe, some of the people pretend they can climb the mouths of mountains
      but pretending that mountains don’t have teeth is like pretending that base camps on the nostrils
      of wild lions won’t mean certain neck-breaking death.
      However as the mountain so are the wild lions and the climbers and friends of these
      earthen thorns one must respect the men and women who gather round the earth and lion fang.

    2. The corpsucles are strong with you Meastro Fusion.

  32. the face of the mountain is thirsty for souls man
    all mountains eat people
    and people have tons of stories about mountains
    both stony and cold that eat their offspring and companions
    but mountains will always eat people
    and to pretend they don’t is like
    pretending that wild lions can be clumb.

  33. these grey boxes are actually on very strong drugs of times and this oddness is notable and even alarmable and shit…….

  34. Reports of a missing Civil War cannon dropped in a well, and a century later allegedly covered in a concrete by a construction company which didn’t want historical artifacts holding up work.

    The guy who’s looking for the cannon sounds like a H&R commenter:

    “John Briggs loves history, the Second Amendment and “things that go boom.” He wears a pistol on his hip, dips Skoal tobacco, has a vast collection of guns and is devoted to God, country and family. A sign on his office wall says “Bear arms or wear chains.””

    1. (except the God part, that’s the “tell” that it’s not one of you guys)

      1. For a second I thought it was Joe Bob Briggs.

    2. concrete or asphalt, whatever

    3. I quite dipping years ago.

  35. fat neck? appetite weak
    thin neck? nervous or strained
    medium neck? hiding behind the last two necks
    tears? light reflecting on the face streams should be respected
    only 50 percent of the time because some tears are bullshit farts
    and some tears are pools of broken dreams dribbling from human
    blankets…

  36. Need more common sense machete laws. Hard to say what this is about. Probably a disgruntled Trump supporter.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..n-belgium/

    1. He was just saying “Hi”.

    2. Belgium’s Prime Minister condemned the attack on Twitter: “I condemn the attack in Charleroi with force.”

      Meaning, one supposes — “I condemn the forceful attack in Charleroi.”

      Unless, that is, the tweet contained this.

    3. The identity of the perpetrator and his motives are still unclear.

      there was some debate above when Frankie suggested that “Yelling Allahu Akbar” when slashing someone with a machete doesn’t mean its “terrorism”. He could have just been saying hello!

      1. It’s just like at Easter when Christians say “He is risen”, but if hundreds to thousands of them started to get into the habit of murdering people after they said it that would totally just be a coincidence.

        1. Also = any time the subject comes up, lets immediately stop talking about the *actual sorts of attack-phenomena that are occurring*, and instead talk about the probability of lightning strikes!

          when anyone says this is stupid and irrelevant, put on your boxing gloves and challenge them to a dual on “First Principles”

          Because there’s zero policy grey-area between open-borders welcome of every so-called “refugee” on earth, and endorsing a State-Organized Muslim-Holocaust. Its one or the other, people – Have you no principles@!??

          1. You have no principles, G.

            Little tip…

            Don’t come to a libertarian site, promote non-libertarian positions and then whine like a little bitch when you’re called on it.

            1. promote non-libertarian positions

              [citation needed]

              I’m not whining frank, i’m making fun of the retarded argument you made above. (and below, now)

              1. Noted…G believes libertarian positions retarded.

                1. I see. Everything you say is the final word on libertarianism?

                  and if they find your case stupid, its not actually YOU they’re disparaging, but the entire body of thought itself.

                  Wow. Do you get a special hat to wear? a badge, or something? Grand Mufti, Lord Overseer of Local Reason 105.

      2. Maybe he was a terrorist. Maybe he was a religious nut. Maybe he was just a nut.

        But claiming to know his motivation from that article is disingenuous.

        1. claiming to know his motivation from that article is disingenuous.


          adjective: disingenuous

          not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

          You seem to be suggesting the opposite, in fact. That people are pretending to know MORE than what is actually known. maybe “presumptive”?

          to that point –

          Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel told broadcaster RTL on Saturday that the attack appeared to be a terrorist incident.

          smdh, charles. not cool, man. you can’t know a man’s mind merely because he’s hacking cops with a machete and screaming about Islam.

          1. Synonyms:

            insincere dishonest untruthful false deceitful duplicitous lying mendacious hypocritical

            1. You’re calling the prime minister a liar?

              1. Dennis knows cool music and looks at facts. Can I be your BFF(second to Agile Cyborg)?

                Re Francisco: Yeah, these terrorists could be crazy in general, but Islam seems to incite people to violence in ways that other religions don’t. Is that an irrational position to take?

                1. Is that an irrational position to take?

                  YOU HAVE NO PRINCIPLES

                  1. I definitely have no princiPALS.

                  2. I missed the part when simply “observing facts” was a matter of compromising one’s principles.

                    I’m sure there’s a good argument to be made for why all Good Hearted People should suspend judgement and maintain a lofty attitude of open-mindedness about certain kinds of violent criminal acts.

                    If, for example, cops get killed in the line of duty – i think some retards jump to conclusions like “ER MAH GERD ITS A WAR ON TEH COPSES BY BLAK LIBES MAYTER”

                    That is stupid. There’s a zillion ways for cops to get into gunfights/altercations that could result in a cop getting killed. Even if it were an incident where it *might even seem* like there was some premeditation by a killer – cops can stumble on criminals and get shot.

                    By contrast, where there’s a story reported of a man walking right up to police, whipping out a machete, screaming “allahu akbar” and whacking away?

                    I don’t think its either “unprincipled” or “irrational” to assume that the event probably had similar motivations that the half-dozen similar acts that have popped up in the last few months in Europe.

                    And i don’t see why if someone might have a different interpretation of events, that meant that one of the two must therefore be either “unprincipled”, or in opposition to some unknown libertarian dogma.

                    1. Dennis, Constitutional Peasant|8.6.16 @ 11:50PM|#
                      “I missed the part when simply “observing facts” was a matter of compromising one’s principles.”

                      I missed the part where drawing conclusions from scant data was “observing facts”.

                    2. I missed the part where drawing conclusions from scant data was “observing facts”.

                      You say conclusions, i say observations. What’s the difference, really.

                    3. Here’s a question, Sevo =

                      Say my pre-emptive conclusion-drawing is correct? assume i accept (which i don’t really) that i’m jumping the gun. Fine. Does that make me “un-libertarian” nevertheless?

                      Why would you or anyone think there is an ‘ideological’ requirement for me to maintain irrational-disbelief? For the sake of peer-approval?

                      And what does any of our opinions matter on the subject, anyway? Its a European issue.

                      If these people were whacking at cops in the US, and there were some imminent call for a police-state crackdown, the subject would be “the response” – not the act.

                      In this case, all some people are doing is looking at what’s going on over there, and calling a spade a spade.

                      and others are getting mighty pissy and self-righteous about saying “they shouldn’t dare do that”.

                      Which i don’t really understand. And my lack of understanding is not despite great efforts made by the local libertarian Grand Poobah of Truths, who has mostly decided to call people names and declare them unfit.

                    4. “You say conclusions, i say observations. What’s the difference, really.”

                      Really?
                      One says ‘this happened’, the other says ‘here’s why’.
                      Do you have a hard time telling the news from the editorials?

                    5. Do you have a hard time telling the news from the editorials?

                      Nope. See above. asked you a question as to why you think “doing exactly what the PM of Belgium is doing” is such a horrible thing for people to do, & requiring your indignant censure.

                    6. “Nope. See above. asked you a question as to why you think “doing exactly what the PM of Belgium is doing” is such a horrible thing for people to do, & requiring your indignant censure.”

                      Uh, G, sorry I missed that, as it landed at the same time:
                      “Say my pre-emptive conclusion-drawing is correct? assume i accept (which i don’t really) that i’m jumping the gun. Fine. Does that make me “un-libertarian” nevertheless?”
                      Pretty sure you’re going to have to look long and hard to find me claiming someone is ‘not a true Scotsman’, so you got problems from the top. My comments were directed to you claims.

                      “Why would you or anyone think there is an ‘ideological’ requirement for me to maintain irrational-disbelief? For the sake of peer-approval?”
                      Uh, OK. Sure. Well, maybe. WIH does that mean?

                      “In this case, all some people are doing is looking at what’s going on over there, and calling a spade a spade.”
                      Based on data far short of definitive and very easy to project.
                      Here:
                      As is obvious, I am not particularly tolerant of those who are superstitious *AND* use their superstitions to promote coercion favorable to that superstition.
                      Further, among superstitions, I find Islam to be probably the most atavistic of the lot, and there is more than enough literature to back that up.
                      Regardless, simply being a Muzzy bleever is no worse than being eddie; eddie’s more violent compatriots are willing to gun down doctors who perform abortions.
                      There’s a difference; it is by degree.

                    7. My comments were directed to you claims.

                      And my claims were = “”to assume that the event probably had similar motivations that the half-dozen similar acts that have popped up in the last few months in Europe.””

                      You and frankie are the ones up on a high horse insisting this is Particularly Bad and unwarranted.

                      (frankie saying its specifically unlibertarian to do so – and you are acting like this is news to you; maybe either you haven’t been following or are just disinterested)

                      all some people are doing is looking at what’s going on over there, and calling a spade a spade.”

                      Based on data far short of definitive and very easy to project

                      Yes, and as i specifically asked you to answer in many more words above = “So What”?

                      Given that authorities in Belgium are currently doing *exactly the same thing*, what is your especial objection to any given schmoe here doing so?

                      simply being a Muzzy bleever is no worse than being eddie

                      Given i never made any generalizations at all about “being a muzzy”, i’m not sure why that matters.

                      And – completely aside from that – the value judgement of ‘equivalence’ you just made is a strange departure for you, who seem to be so concerned with ‘objectivity’. I’d think some people’s beliefs might actually be objectively worse if they lead to worse behaviors (e.g. subjugation of women, intolerance of non-belief, etc)

                    8. Regardless, simply being a Muzzy bleever is no worse than being eddie; eddie’s more violent compatriots are willing to gun down doctors who perform abortions.
                      There’s a difference; it is by degree.

                      Please provide evidence of Christians yelling “Jesus Christ is great!” as they violently attack doctors who perform abortions. And also, compare the number of those hurt by the “Jesus” crusaders vs “Allah” crusaders.

                2. but Islam seems to incite people to violence

                  Or are violent people drawn to Islam. Kinda like – does police training turn people into aggressive douche-bags, or are aggressive douche bags drawn to a career in law enforcement?

                  1. This is a good point. But it takes both sides, right?

                    1. it takes both sides, right?

                      Indeed. We have no idea how those European female cops might have provoked that poor man.

                    2. We have no idea how those European female cops might have provoked that poor man.

                      Correct. Who knows what caused this man to brandish a weapon and yell “Allahu Akbar.”

                    1. It’s true. We are all just incarcerated on Teegeeack, if you really think about it.

                    2. Progressivism? Oh, wait they never have to serve time

              2. I’m calling anyone who believes they can draw substantive conclusions about 1.6B people based upon that article, deceitful.

                1. I’m calling anyone who believes they can draw substantive conclusions about 1.6B people based upon that article, deceitful.

                  That’s great Frank, if not remotely resembling what you said before
                  (which was that no one could possibly intuit the motivations of *one person* from the article… Prime Minister included, apparently)

                  You make sure to point that out to anyone the second that they start making claims of certainty about “1.6B people”…. instead of the actual guy mentioned in the piece.

                  1. Oh, and i hope i haven’t offended “Libertarianism itself” pointing out your subtle remodeling of the goal-posts.

  37. can’t post long bullshit here anymore. man.
    have been struggling to unroll long lines but reason shuts me goddamn down every fucking time.
    too drunk and fucked up to deal with the internet and its bullshit
    the interwebs are the uptomes of brain normals all gathering to be chinese happy and all tagetha like a goddamn russian camp meeting.
    and fucking shit
    the interchurch is narrowing out the lost souls and we will gather and it won’t be fucking online but underneath, motherfuckers

  38. How does this goddamn interweb whitehouse not have the financial capabilities to afford a hermit a fucking chalkboard of lines he can’t post on fucking 14 different states on very odd occasions so as not to offend the gentle Reason reader?
    Fuck this millenial-possessed oddity of Major Dark Bangs.

    1. Hey, A C — Did you try typing your lines into Notepad or something like that, and then cut, paste, and post until the point comes across?

      1. Rich did your fingers nimble across the green pastures of grandma when
        she rolled alongside a gentle sun underneath the gentle shadows
        of an afternoon of pointed memories?
        Rich, tons of minds are pouring from your sentences, lovely.
        Shit, RichMeister I can even get drowned in the letters pouring like Victoria from your sweet sermons, lovely mister lord… all the lines below would be infected with Rich Uranium in agile universe but since THIS world YOU read IS NOT what i am imaginaing all is safe but i still see all sorts of hell pouring down in my tripping hell fingers, bro

      2. AC is our resident poet Laureate, and the wisdom to be gleaned by studying his musings is not to be so lightly dismissed by the ignorant.

        1. Oh, I agree completely.

  39. I ran on the bucks of a thousand alleys
    breaking the bricks of a hundred buildings
    whilst dreaming about angels spreading their tears
    for the pirate of the parallels and the the king of the chasms

    where the frozen frowns of lost clowns collapsed
    outside of swerving chiseled faces doubting on
    cold planets like that motherfucking jupiter place
    where human Cuban CEO’s go to make great but melt
    like sugar boogers.

  40. Good to see, Damon, you stick up for an individual property owner fighting use of ED from private enterprises. Here is another

    “The owner of an 11,000-acre ranch south of Marfa has filed suit in federal court, claiming the use of eminent domain by a private pipeline company to take part of his land is unconstitutional.”

    “Filed in Pecos, the lawsuit by lawyer John Boerschig of Katy against Trans-Pecos Pipeline LLC comes as construction of the 148-mile natural gas line through the unspoiled Big Bend is already underway.”

    What? Nothing? Cat got your tongue? Oh that’s right…it’s an oil company, and your against private companies using ED, unless it’s private oil companies.

    What a phony.

    1. “What? Nothing? Cat got your tongue? Oh that’s right…it’s an oil company, and your against private companies using ED, unless it’s private oil companies.”

      Poor, poor Jack. Here he for once ‘supports; private property and no one picks up on his cherry picking. Pathetic.

    2. Well, at least he can fight it in court and presumably get a fair trial (assuming the company isn’t in bed with government officials which we know never happens. /wink). The second the government calls your house or knocks on your door it’s not a request. Obey or else.

    3. Well, obviously, if every post doesn’t specifically address every aspect of every issue, then the author is guilty of your worst possible interpretation of whatever aspect of the issue wasn’t addressed. That’s what logic is all about. ‘

      For instance, did anybody else notice that Jack & Ace’s post failed to address terrorist attackd by the Niger Delta Avengers against Nigeria’s pipelines and oil production facilities?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_Delta_Avengers

      What? Nothing? Cat got your tongue? Oh that’s right…it’s a pipeline, and Jack & Ace is in favor of terrorism and murder, so long as it targets energy production.

      See how that works?

      P.S. Not that facts seem to matter to you, but others might note that Damon Root specifically lists eminent domain abuse to build the Keystone Pipeline across Iowa under “Trump’s support for eminent domain abuse” in this article:

      “Will Trump’s Support for Eminent Domain Abuse Hurt Him in Today’s Iowa Caucus?”

      https://reason.com/blog/2016/02…..t-domain-a

      A simple Google search with “Damon Root”, “Keystone” and “Eminent Domain Abuse” could have spared you some unnecessary embarrassment.

  41. Freedom is a cave painting on the metal sides of alleys placed on the glowing end of
    nasa dreams where only the floating piquing humans dribble and exit on the tip
    of the mathematical thumb… but there are gigantic monster maths and shit leaving
    behind all of humanity, man… monsters of numbers where astronauts can slip aside
    in teams and leave us all to die from asshole muslims and communists and finally the fucking
    christians…..
    don’t escape, Harvard lights, don’t escape into the comet downs…

  42. Human tears are spaceships to dreams
    and heads bowed down make fear clouds
    tense thoughts are the bars of your magic
    and little boys and girls should be offered
    the greatest trips but American education offers them
    submission to unions…

      1. Qmaze~

  43. Eventually the wired world will be like living in a very small town. Everyone will know everything about you and all of your business. From what small town people have told me, that’s one of the things they hated the most growing up in one.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..ican-adult

    1. Also, WOTS WRONG WITH THOSE NAVY FAGS? DO THEY STILL WEAR BELL-BOTTOMS?

    2. That doesn’t surprise me. Ron Paul did extremely well with the military as well.

      1. Yes, the article goes into that (clears throat and gives “look” at JB).
        But I was ignorant of that fact, and find it both surprising and eminently encouraging.

    3. There’s some other “military poll” that says a plurality back Trump. Makes sense if they don’t want to fight GayJay’s “humanitarian wars not in the US interest”.

    4. I remember that story. The “poll” was some guy’s Facebook page and “the military” included family members of former military.

    5. It’s almost as if a population who has sworn to defend the constitution knows who is best for it.

  44. I knew a very tall man my beloved Brooks who ate the same exact sandwich for goddamn years
    but he was a fucking collector of songs and pussies and tits and he also had a very tall forehead
    and i haven’t talked to this gentlemen in fucking years but all his memories spill from my skin like
    rivers of slippery eels and dancing birds cleaning their clawish feet on the magnets of plastic oddities
    smashing into the deep show downs of sunsets spilling secrets and pain….

  45. a little thought entered my
    planet and it took no time before
    snowflakes fell on my spinning dream
    and then I noticed all sorts of oddness
    and times revealed my lost thought
    and sunsets and animals of notice
    fell from my what the goddamn
    and even wings started and
    from a little thought, bro
    we all are here
    how many Other here’s are being
    created under the angels of out
    dreams
    is life a long lived dream of clouds
    emitted from the goddamn theatres of minds
    of thoughts coalescing? Do we simulate many lives but feel deeply for a short life?

  46. deepness is a river to be sold tickets upon
    and clouds hiding the great thoughts are sold in the frozen hells
    where honeys break and fall
    earth and her curves and cliffs
    remand humans and their desperate yearning
    to reward their mounting trophies but did
    the autumns of the humans breaking their dreams
    crinching into the old towns of our finger tips and eagle trips

  47. all the great walls of men fall
    and the great dreams die
    and the lost angels loft softly to who the fuck
    and the only real life of humans beside
    the hells of bondage and gods
    killing the fleshly
    …..
    the remains of thousands of fucking years of
    a trillion lives burnt on the bibles and korans and now the fucking
    Marxist chinese….
    the earth is not safe for poets
    and dreams and fantasies
    the planet we wish to raise our children
    upon is being destroyed everywhere
    and your babies and mine of thought will
    be released into the screws of dungeons…
    mother millennial can you spread your thighs to a child
    that will aloft and crawl in a designer world built by
    Sharia or dumb ass Christians who lost in 1992 and the new
    break down barn is goddamn socialist fucks and taxation hells and Sharia

  48. Always fear Christians, but
    RUN from goddamn MUSLIMS,
    because Catholics killed all their millions
    hundreds of years ago and MUSLIMS
    are just getting started…..

  49. History is a bottle neck of hells
    and records blooming with genius are remembered by only fucking bright men and women
    and this is so with liberties built on the court battles of dead gods
    I know of these gods and most of you don’t and i am sad because society is long and deep and passes
    on the distractions of passing romances and child-bearing and old age deaths…
    but i know history is long and powerful and within this forest of lines and atoms lies tremendous knowledge- please follow the butterflies of the past into the lost ghosts and as these flapping angels
    swoop among the stones of knowledge forever feel their pulses, my brother and sister…
    these might be words.
    but words can fall deep if a svelte child allows and agile would never hurt a brother or sister.

  50. closets live in the tears of dark people…

    1. Tears live in the closets of light people….

  51. swollen suns erupt from cheeks lazy with palms and times

    1. What’s wrong with lazy? Justification!

      1. lazy is granma broach and Prince Lester crashing on the slippery downtone.

        1. ::stares off into space:: I don’t understand your references

          1. BUTTS you goddamn spelunker… dig down into the smash comet glasses and spirits..
            fucking butts wagner……….. a goddamn lame traveler into the pink zittle void.
            REFUND HIS TICKETS, grandma!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            1. I am not worthy.

  52. I fucking hate computers and gods
    and i fucking hate codes
    i fucking hate an earth filled with computers
    i fucking hate goddamn binary realities and i HATE
    FUCKING digital ECOsystems
    I FUCKING HATE this keyboard my motherfucking fingers type upon
    WHY? Because computers are awesome and death of self at the same tome.
    WHY? Because code kills humans
    WHY? Because humanity and sitting on a mountain under a real sun with a tripping friend cannot be duplicated by the goddamn fuck digits of fake brains…
    Always keep tyrannies and computer gods at bay… will anyone listen?… no. and they will be siphoned off into prisons and happy camps like all the histories prove and shit…

  53. sparks coalesce and echo bumps tramp the scrump yowl can humans create the ultimate perfect earth based on planet liberties smashed with religious resolve and science owls….
    the earth has to love and not die from hells of mysterious collective dark demons.

  54. Cemeteries of software collectives are dead zones of millions who are FUCKING too ignorant to eat the alleys of their own collapsing teeth
    Also, downturned alleys hide the erstwhile horrid fuck working for the erstwhile horrid fuck company that is sort of huge like google or facebook that is so goddamned self earth eating that erstshile horrid fucks by the thousands in all the countries get ruined by the juggernaut that is awful… praise Jesus and Mohammed for all the digitech palaces cuz all the humus dummies get all online and smarmy with all their billion points of maps….

    fuck you, asshole humans PLEASE HATE facebook and google and ALL Big tech
    but this won’t happen because the digital drugs are tank blasted across the dumbass religious/political world

    1. Welcome to the monkey house?

    2. Here’s what you need to know =

      – Ginny Thrasher wins USA’s first gold medal of Rio Olympics
      – U.S. Men’s Archery Team Angered With Second Straight Olympic Silver, Accuse Elves of “Doping”
      EVERYTHING IS GOING SUPER-SMOOTHLY AT THE EVENTS
      You are disingenuous and dishonest if you dare to draw any obvious conclusions about a man who screamed “Allahu Akbar” and took a few whacks with a machete at wimmin-Cops in Belgium

      1. Three Swedish tourists were briefly kidnapped on Wednesday by an armed man as they pulled off on a highway near a slum to take photos. They were quickly released unharmed after the gunman checked the photos they took.

        Charming city.

      2. Ginny Thrasher wins USA’s first gold medal of Rio Olympics

        That’s not exactly who progs are telling it. More like, ‘teenager with a gun wins first gold’ and then pants are shat.

        1. *how progs are telling it

  55. The earth is very old but lots of people on the old earth have just been born
    who don’t understand much about this place
    and education sort of sucks and so does eating
    lots of goddamn fruits and moons
    and shit
    The earth is very old but modern minds are not prepared
    to understand tyranny lies around every FUCKING corner
    on this tiny globe… most of the earth is- in fact- FUCKED because of religion or communism
    so will you fuck that pussy to make babies in the upcoming world of tyrants?
    Because I wish I hadn’t made children………

    1. Because I wish I hadn’t made children

      Be happier AC. The world is getting better day by day. There may be tyrants who continue to try to flex their muscles, but there are crazy inventers who continue to make amazing new indivualistic technologies. Your children will live in a world that will be amazing, and we want AC children in the future. They will drive the future.

      1. well this lovely bw is the trapdoor into jester shoutings and goddamn digital unicorns and strong sausages and
        Agile has to enter this world from the obsidian insanity and connect and love peaceful Butts Wagner reminds me of my super muscular Markie Mark friend…. who said FUCK planets but master plan is Butts and Muscles>>>

  56. reason dragons flie into my goddamn trips like fucking trippy lost musicians derping their farts like Mohammed boobs and Jesus balls..
    A bunch of lost voices in the dram clouds of my millenial appreciation-
    blue mauve wands wincing the taps and ears
    tribbling the down tones of recollections
    cmon man behind snare collapsing like a real fuck and now I the fuck am interested
    kill my face with a sweet snare and a river of voices and shit that never once cared
    about agile. LIke a dead jesus or a running lizard.
    I got into that shit for real even though I am FUCKING FUCKED up///
    i love you lovers

    1. I am FUCKING FUCKED up///
      i love you lovers

      Utopia….really. I want to roll around in a fluffly pillow of straw and hay and down and whatever with all of you in a state of mind fucked-ness.

  57. Yik Yak handle of the week: TaydolfSwiftler.

      1. So pathetic, Dennis….

          1. It is Sunday Morning

  58. Aha! It’s a stealth Trump article. Smooth move, Reason.

  59. Drug-laced candy leads to 20 overdoses at Ohio music festival

    Police said a man described as a white male 5-foot-6 with a slender build who was wearing a red hat and black shirt with a marijuana leaf was seen tossing small packets of what was labeled “nerd ropes” into the crowd of the Last Night on Earth music festival at Ohio Dreams festival center and campground in Butler, Ohio.

    1. Nerd Rope Panic!

      But wouldn’t this be easier?

  60. How lawyers scare people out of taking their meds

    According to a recent report, at least 30 people suffered serious medical problems ? such as strokes, heart attacks and pulmonary embolisms ? because they stopped taking Xarelto without their doctors’ approval after seeing the commercial. Two of those patients died, including a 45-year-old man being treated for blood clots. Two others were paralyzed. (Millions of people take Xarelto each year.)

    As these ads proliferate, those responsible for protecting the public’s health and safety should make sure trial lawyers aren’t held to a lower standard than those who advertise the products over which they’re suing. Until then, all TV viewers should heed the warning: Reacting to trial lawyers’ ad claims before consulting a doctor may be bad for your health.

    1. It’s amusing how evening television is wall-to-wall drug ads and daytime television is wall-to-wall lawyers looking for victims of all the drugs that were advertised in the evening.

  61. An excellent H&R thread (so far), everyone.

    I’ve been informed and entertained for two hours straight, now.

    *tips hat*

  62. Presented without comment: Link

    1. Okay link did not work. Try again.

      1. In New York City, homicide jumped almost 6 percent while rape is up 10 percent over the past two years.

        Fun with statistics (or) bullshit?

        1. I call bullshit because swings of 10-15% DOWN are just as common/frequent as 8-10% swings up.

          The way the crime rate moves is not a steady, progressive change year to year. and it doesn’t move uniformly in Down or Up directions. Because stats like crime (anything based on human behvior) is ‘messier’ than natural phenomena like Lightning Strikes (see above point about the same)

          Anytime you see ANYONE quoting ‘year-over- year’ crime stats, or even just 2 years, without mentioning the 10 year average net change?
          (i.e. the total levels now vs 10 years ago) is bullshitting you.

          Even if they do mention the latter, they do so in passing in the body/end of their piece.

          when you get down to these ‘low-range’ levels (and NYC homicide is now at per-capita early 1960s levels), its not surprising you get ‘higher volatility’. murder rates.

          as they say in the stock market, no one breaks their neck falling out the basement window. likewise, there’s little-to-no reasonable “downside” to crime rates in the current range, and plenty upside volatility to be expected.

          1. Yeah, when your murder rate is down like 80% since 1990, a 6% upswing – even if it were true – would not be the end of the world.

          2. as an example –

            they are moaning about differences of 6-10% in murder rates versus “the first half” of 2014 (as their base comparison)… and calling that change

            2014 had 615 murders….

            assume then that NYC has 680 murders in FY 2016 (~10% higher)

            2013 had 650 murders…
            2012 had 680 murders…
            2011 had 770 murders….
            2010 had 865 murders…
            2009 had 780 murders…
            2008 had 830 murders…
            2007 had 800 murders…
            2006 had 920 murders…

            What they’re saying is…. murders are 73% lower than they were 10 years ago??? and we don’t think of 2006 as being particularly ‘crime-y’ either? and still 10% lower than they were 5 years ago? and that swings of +/- 10% happened about half the time during that period?

            There’s an exchange above where the latest Bo-Troll (bipox) makes a claim about ‘polling trends’ but refuses to say when the trend began. (3 days ago? 6 months ago?)

            That WaPo editorial is more or less doing the same thing; taking something in isolation, and declaring it “Significant”…. and pretending this is plausible only by *omitting any other details*

              1. I guess my only caution is to say that the editorial is stating that the crime rate is up in the country from its low a couple of years ago. It may be nothing, but it may be something. The authors themselves say (quoting Buffalo Springfield) “There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear.”

                From recorded US history (I don’t think we recorded crime in the 1820s like we do now) it is true that crime is near its all time low right now, and it is also true that crime is increasing. Which matters more right now is more political than any other. If the trend is really changing then maybe we need to figure out why before things get bad.

  63. ‘Loving wife’ and ‘longtime girlfriend’ place dueling obituaries after N.J. man’s death

    n the first obit, his “loving wife, Bearetta Harrison Black” gets top survivor billing. In the second, however, Bearetta is nowhere to be found, but “his long-tome (sic) girlfriend, Princess Hall” appears in her place.

    Respect.

    1. Just wait till “Baby’s Momma” gets in this piece.

  64. TBI: 41 arrested in connection with human trafficking

    During the operation, undercover agents posted ads on Backpage.com. Some agents posed as underage girls. According to the TBI, 485 men responded to the ads posted and more than 5,300 responded to the ads through texts or phone.

    Assistant Special Agent in Charge Margie Quin said during the news conference that they were overwhelmed and disturbed by the amount of responses the false ads received. Quin said that on the first day of the operation on Tuesday afternoon, agents received more than 216 responses in just seven hours.

    “Even with as many of these operations that we have conducted across the state, it’s still shocking that half of the men responding to these ads wanted to pay to have sex with a minor,” Quin said. “We’re working toward helping victims of trafficking and taking these predators off the streets.”

    To those scouring the web or apps in the search for sex with our state’s children, let me say this: Be warned.”

    Be warned that…they will be charged with human trafficking for desiring sex with someone who is underage? At least the accused will not have their names publicly linked to the story, because they have not been convicted, right?

    1. it’s still shocking that half of the men responding to these ads wanted to pay to have sex with a minor

      And the other half are cops running stings*.

      *may be some overlap between both categories.

    2. Do they have examples of the ads they ran?

      (*i’m not clicking the story! I don’t even know if you’re real, Crusty.)

    3. Wait…”our state’s children”??

      *unfurls Gadsden flag*

  65. The mayor of a town with a large Muslim population courageously draws a line in the sand against terrorism and against terrorism’s handmaid, modest swim attire:

    “PARIS (AP) ? The mayor of a town outside Marseille said Thursday he intends to ban a swim-day for women at a local park next month, citing a risk to public order because swimmers will be required to cover up from chest to knee….

    “In a telephone interview with The Associated Press, [Mayor Michel] Amiel described the decision to invite women to swim covered up a “provocative act” and said the turning toward (Muslim) identity “puts oil on the fire and only maintains a deleterious climate.””

  66. Here’s a surprise: Proggy professor supports Satanists

    Only religious fanatics believe that life begins at conception.

    Telling pregnant women that life begins at conception is just the same as giving them a Bible and telling them to Come to Jeebus.

    The Satanic Temple religion is a pioneer in the struggle for religious freedom, just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    You know this is true because a leftist professor is asserting it indignantly.

    1. Of course Satan is a progressive. She is currently the nominee for America’s progressive party–the DemoNcrats.

      1. Here is a 10-minute compilation of what is going on in Hillary’s mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX5TIDLvMyw

  67. Belgium machete attacker was Algerian, say officials:

    Belgian officials say a man who wounded two policewomen with a machete was a 33-year-old Algerian with a criminal record but not known for terrorism.
    An inquiry for “attempted terrorist murder” has been launched into Saturday’s attack in Charleroi.
    The man reportedly shouted “Allahu Akbar” (“God is greatest”) during the assault outside a police station. He died after being shot by officers.

    Apparently the Algerian national was already living illegally in the country and had 2 deportation orders against him. Maybe Belgium needs some Trump.

    1. Maybe Belgium needs some Trump.

      They may get it too.

      http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnie…../1.2410731

  68. OT and no-joke TL;DR:

    “My publicity stunt just made everyone think I was a creepy narcissist, so let’s go with crazy.”

    1. that face. i was honestly like, “you’re a pretty…. boy-thing…”

      Yeah, this is what happens when people Tumblr too much. They want to have something “happen” to them so they can confess about it and milk the world for sympathy and to congratulate themselves for their “survivorship”

      That is why I am going public ? to help others with mental illness who battle constant judgments and stigmas. In sharing my experience, I hope to start a dialogue. … I’m also learning to love myself, even my mania, because it’s a part of who I am.

      You go girl. (raises fist in solidarity)

  69. Emerging Olympic Theme =

    MUCH UGH
    SO SICK OF PATRIARCHY

    The former is a (in my view, legit and overdue) bitch about the fact that the Olympics coverage is designed to pander to women… and in so doing, diminishes women’s sports by assuming women don’t actually want to watch the ‘whole event’, but instead see snippets and biographies and lots of commercials.

    NBC doesn’t necessarily have a social responsibility to cover female Olympians as the real athletes they are. But there’s no question the current setup treats them as diminutives, even while celebrating their “stories.” And this may very well turn off traditional sports viewers.

    Even if you buy NBC’s argument that the majority of the viewing public prefers edited, packaged programming over the vagaries of live sports competition, then ask yourself this question: Why aren’t NFL football telecasts tape delayed and packaged?

    The latter is manufactured outrage that NBC cited “the man behind the (medal winning) woman”. inverting the typical “supporting wife” trope. Yawn. Beats zika.

    1. Lower attention span, aging audience, and reduced appetite for novelty.

      When I was a kid I loved the Olympics; I would watch live trampoline or rings or judo for hours because I liked to see and learn about new things. Today’s kids, if it doesn’t immediately amuse them they’re back to playing with their phones.

      1. When I was 7 or 8 I stayed up all night to watch the Jerry Lewis Telethon. The Olympics, OMG… it was like 4 Christmases at once.

  70. This thread was almost worse than Wikipedia admins arguing with each other. Almost.

  71. After all, this is the same Casino Reinvestment Development Authority that notoriously joined forces with Donald Trump back in 1994 in an effort to kick an elderly widow out of her home in order to help Trump build a new limousine parking lot for the Trump Plaza hotel and casino.

    WHY U KOZMO KUCK-FAGGITZ HAVE 2 BRING TRUMP IN THIS????!!!????? MOAR PRUFE REEZIN IZ REDDY 4 HITLARY!!!!111!!!!!11!!!!!

  72. The Donald will be most displeased.

    Heads will roll for this impudence!

  73. my best friend’s mom makes $74 an hour on the computer . She has been without work for five months but last month her payment was $19746 just working on the computer for a few hours. find more information …
    ?????????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.