Police

Biggest Police Union in the Country Endorses Trump

After Clinton didn't respond to its candidate survey, the Fraternal Order of Police endorses Trump, citing his "real commitment to American law enforcement."

|

CHINE NOUVELLE/SIPA/Newscom

The Fraternal Order of Police, the largest police union in the U.S., endorsed Donald Trump president, citing his "his real commitment to American law enforcement" and desire to "make America safe again."

In a press release, the FOP, which says it represents 330,000 law enforcement officials, said Trump secured the endorsement with the support of more than two-thirds of the FOP's board, where members were given a choice between Trump, Hillary Clinton, or neither candidate.

"[Trump] has seriously looked at the issues facing law enforcement today," national FOP president Chuck Canterbury said in a statement. "He understands and supports our priorities and our members believe he will make America safe again."

Earlier this year, the FOP sent both candidates a questionnaire on their positions regarding law enforcement issues in the country. Clinton didn't respond, a snub that did not go unnoticed.

Trump, on the other hand, has courted law enforcement over his campaign. In his response to the FOP questionnaire, he supported, among other things, reviving the controversial transfer of some military equipment, like grenade launchers and armored personnel carriers, from the Pentagon to local and state police departments.

On the stump, Trump has portrayed himself as the "law and order" candidate, invoking rising murder rates in some major cities and vowing to crack on crime. "Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this Administration's rollback of criminal enforcement," Trump warned in his July speech accepting the Republican nomination for president.

As I've reported, criminal justice groups say the rise in violent crime is clustered in a few major cities, and they've decried Trump's rhetoric as fear-mongering.

"Obviously this is an unusual election," FOP president Canterbury continued. "We have a candidate who declined to seek an endorsement and a candidate without any record as an elected official. Donald Trump may not ever have been elected to public but he is a proven leader and that's what we need for the next four years—a leader unafraid to make tough choices and see them through."

The FOP declined to endorse a candidate in the 2012 presidential election, reportedly over concerns with Mitt Romney's position on collective bargaining rights. In 2008, it endorsed John McCain.

The Clinton campaign's decision to not respond to the FOP survey or actively seek its endorsement reflect the heated politics surrounding law enforcement this election year. Amid the widespread protests over police shootings, Clinton has worked to distance herself from her old statements and positions on criminal justice, which mirrored much of the "tough on crime" rhetoric of the 1990s.

Meanwhile, the fatal shooting of five Dallas Police Officers in July led to a renewed push in Congress and state legislatures for so-called "blue lives matter" bills, which can make assaulting or killing a law enforcement officer a hate crime.

Earlier this summer, Black Lives Matter activists held protests at both the Fraternal Order of Police legislative headquarters in Washington, D.C. and the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, which represents NYPD officers, in New York City. The protesters said the unions were a major force behind "blue lives matter" bills and blocking efforts to improve police transparency and accountability.

NEXT: Former NJ GOP Rep. Dick Zimmer Endorses Gary Johnson

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hillary probably made the calculation that she couldn’t respond to the FOP survey without either (a) pissing off the FOP by making her BLM/proggy supporters happy, or (b) pissing off her BLM/proggy supporters by making the FOP happy.

    1. the union wanted a written response.
      phoning it in didn’t work this time

      1. Probably assumed cop union gets in line for Democrats because union, same way black people do because black.

        What was it Powell said about screwing things up hubris something-something?

        1. The cop unions are rapidly becoming stalwart Republican supporters. Walker swung them his way by simply exempting them from the public employee union reforms.

          1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,.,.,.,

            ——————>>> http://www.highpay90.com

          2. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,.,.,.,

            ——————>>> http://www.4cyberworks.com

    2. I Make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $75h to $86h?Go to this website and click tech tab to start your own business… Go this web…. http://goo.gl/Tn2qSr

  2. “a choice *between* Trump, Hillary Clinton, or neither candidate.” [emphasis added]

    Any grammar nazis want to weigh in?

      1. “Between” looks at the separation. “Among” looks at the proximity.

    1. Common Errors in English Usage – Non-errors
      Using “between” for only two, “among” for more

      The “-tween” in “between” is clearly linked to the number two, but, as the Oxford English Dictionary notes, “In all senses, between has, from its earliest appearance, been extended to more than two.” We’re talking about Anglo-Saxon here?early. Pedants have labored to enforce “among” when there are three or more objects under discussion, but largely in vain. Very few speakers naturally say, “A treaty has been negotiated among Britain, France, and Germany.”

      1. “Very few speakers naturally say, “A treaty has been negotiated among Britain, France, and Germany.”

        Especially not after Brexit.

        1. Well, crap. All those years I’ve been giggling after using the word buttween and now I find out it’s actually “between”. Boy, is my face red.

          1. Now *there’s* a Web site you can go to prison for visiting.

    2. For Jesse:

      Fuck off! You know what he meant, you fucking pedants!

      (I think I’m getting it, Jesse)

  3. Question: For restoring law and order to the inner cities – Ruger or S&W?

    Part II: Mosques where shooters might have attended?

      1. Oh look it’s Heroic Clown Rapper. What will he rap for us next? Let’s see:

      2. Just say no, just like Zammo, Bulletproof vest to guns and ammo.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICG0MuzEYzw

      1. Not paying that much for a carpet.

    1. Ruger or S&W

      I’d go with the 3 to 4 Hi-Points you can get for the price of either.

      1. Nah, I had a Hi-Point 45 NIB that would stovepipe at least one round per mag. I dicked with that goddamn thing for a year and could not get the bastard to function well. Finall LGS where I bought it replaced it with a new one. On that one, the grips went to shit the first time out. The finish was bad and got worse fast. That one would go two mags without jamming. I was so unimpressed I sold it and bought a P90 that has been flawless for many, many years.

        1. Sounds like that was a long time ago. The Hi-Points are much better now.

        2. The biggest hi-point issues are:

          1). The magazine being crap (the stovepiping)
          2). People not replacing the roll pin your supposed to R&R every 500 rounds for cleaning.

          I have a hi-point I acquired for a “sometimes you may not want to have a $500+ gun involved” gun. I mean truck or boat gun by that statement of course.

  4. “Earlier this summer, Black Lives Matter activists held protests at both the Fraternal Order of Police legislative headquarters in Washington, D.C. and the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, which represents NYPD officers, in New York City. The protesters said the unions were a major force behind “blue lives matter” bills and blocking efforts to improve police transparency and accountability.”

    This really is an endorsement about BLM. Trump has been public in his condemnation and his support for the police, and that’s probably a smart play. If Hillary makes a big deal about Trump’s condemnation or tries to differentiate herself from Trump on that issue and there is a bad police shooting and a riot anytime over the next eight weeks, she’s sunk.

    That being said, God bless BLM for going after the real cause of the problem.

    I haven’t seen anything as great as black civil rights leaders protesting the police unions since I saw government employee unions protesting Scott Walker. If BLM is fomenting anger towards the police unions and their cozy relationship with the Democratic Party machines that are running our major cities in the Northeast and Midwest, then regardless of whatever they’re doing wrong, they’re also doing something right.

    1. God bless BLM for going after the real cause of the problem.

      Well, kinda. The real problem is the criminalization of everything and the default to the cops to solve every problem.

      There is a particular instance in urban black communities of the problem being more acute. BLM seems to be responding to that, but a real solution requires addressing the real problem, not the particular instance.

      1. I would argue that the real problem is public employee unions and their cronies on the city councils refusing to hold the police accountable and shielding the police from accountability through their union contracts.

        As I’ve shown repeatedly in the past, from Chicago to New York City, the police unions are better represented on the city council than the Democrats–and the city councils are 90% Democrat.

        People in Chicago or New York City who imagine that the way to hold the police accountable is through their elected representatives are delusional. The police (and their unions) are not working under the supervision of the city council–it’s the other way around.

        Good on BLM for seeing through the delusion. I wish more of my fellow Americans did likewise. I hope BLM starts going after the teachers’ unions, as well.

        1. The real problem is the immoral drug war. Local law enforcement’s conversion to Storm Trooper grunts to fight the drug war, and the bipartisan tough on crime policies of the past three decades, have devastated black communities. Poverty and crime are inextricably linked. The spectre of black-on-black crime is never addressed.

          BLM is sometimes right for the wrong reasons. The man IS their enemy, but the man is likely black as well as white, and he could be wearing a suit or a uniform.

          Why would pols want to break the cycle? Tough on crime is easy. It keeps them employed.

          So clearly, the real REAL problem is institutional racism or something. Needs moar affirmative action.

          1. The real problem is the immoral drug war.

            If reason had a decent comment system so I could upvote comments, I’d upvote yours.

          2. I appreciate the problems of the drug war.

            There’s also the problem of accountability.

            I hope you appreciate that even without the drug war, the police still need to be held accountable when they violate people’s rights.

            One of the main reasons cities fail to do that is because prosecutors depend on police unions for endorsements and for support from within local government.

            Another of the main reasons is because the city council is so beholden to police unions for their seats on the council that they give the unions sweetheart union contracts that shield the police from accountability.

            These would still be problems even if the drug war ended tomorrow.

            1. P.S. Local government support for the drug war also isn’t entirely unrelated to police and prison guard unions.

            2. Important, yes. These pages made too big a deal of the tobacco product marketing restrictions as causative in the police-inflicted death of Eric Garner.

              1. I hope you appreciate that the L. A. Riots weren’t about Rodney King. They were about the way Daryl Gates’ LAPD treated black people in South Central LA and elsewhere and how LAPD officers were so unaccountable 1) you couldn’t even convict them with videotaped evidence and 2) Daryl Gates had the LAPD police chief’s job so locked up (read unaccountable) that he legally couldn’t be fired by the city council after the riots.

                Ferguson wasn’t just about Michael Brown either. What’s the old saying about “the straw that broke the camel’s back”? You can’t actually break the back of a camel with just one piece of straw. It’s all the other weight you put on it before the last straw.

                P.S. The American Revolution wasn’t just about the Tea Tax.

                P.P.S. BLM is to the Democratic Party as the Tea Party was to the Republicans.

                1. P.P.S. BLM is to the Democratic Party as the Tea Party was to the Republicans.

                  To some extent, as both started out with very strong grassroots concerns before being co-opted by the dominant force in the party. But unlike the TP, BLM hasn’t steered the direction of the party by toppling noncompliant party leaders. They’re just another identity group piglet squealing at the Dem rhetoric trough.

                  1. Yeah, they were both movements that erupted outside their respective parties because their respective parties weren’t living up to advertising.

                    The Republicans were supposed to be against overspending and bailing out banks–TARP came along, and they all screwed the pooch.

                    The Democrats were supposed to be about protecting blacks from racist cops. Instead, they’re all about protecting the police that run the Democratic Party machines in our cities from angry blacks.

            3. Of course, Ken, I totally agree with that. Ending the drug war is not a panacea. It would just be the best first step.

          3. “Poverty and crime are inextricably linked.”

            No. Millions of people are or have been poor without getting violent. Those people took responsibility for themselves. We live in a ‘no accountability, no responsibility’ culture, fueled by proggies ‘it takes a village’ nonsense. THAT is the root problem.

            Poverty and the drug war exacerbate the issue.

        2. People in Chicago or New York City who imagine that the way to hold the police accountable is through their elected representatives are delusional.

          Agreed. The way to hold the police accountable is through replacing the elected representatives.

          1. Not if the new boss is beholden to the police unions, too.

            It doesn’t matter whom you vote for if whomever you vote for will approve a union contract that protects the police from accountability.

            How many successful candidates have ever differentiated themselves on the basis that they’ll never approve a police contract that includes special protections for the police?

            Has that ever happened?

            They need a better constituency.

            The problem isn’t the politicians, and politicians aren’t the solution either. The problem is the people who vote for the politicians. The problem is the voters. It’s what’s in their heads. If BLM is bringing people’s attention to the fact that neither the drug war nor the police unions are the solution to our problems, then they’re doing the Lord’s work.

            1. I did say I agreed with you. 🙂

              I’d have to get a lot closer to the situation (Which I’m not going to do.) before I could figure out if the police unions are really running City Hall, or if they are just doing what City Hall really wants them to do. Like collect a major portion of the city budget through fines levied on those who don’t count, so the city doesn’t have to raise taxes on the voters in gated communities.

              But the ultimate cure is for the voters to man up and replace their city councils with people who are economically literate.

            2. If BLM is bringing people’s attention to the fact that neither the drug war nor the police unions are the solution to our problems, then they’re doing the Lord’s work.

              Unfortunately I suspect that what BLM is bringing to people’s attention is “there are racist cops”.

              Much less useful for gaining reforms.

              1. “what BLM is bringing to people’s attention is “there are racist cops”.

                BINGO! The charges of racism are a distraction from the underlying problem with police. But shouts of racism drive the news cycle due to our history and collective guilt. And Donkeys, race hustlers, and SJWs fan those flames. Grandstanding beats understanding.

              2. Did you read the part about them protesting the police union?

                Is there anyone else doing that?

                1. Yes, but the constant drumbeat of racism smothers the police misconduct issue for the MSM and the public.

          2. And if they string up a few of the more egregious police actors, not one fuck will be given by me.

      2. Add to that revenue-based policing. All it does is turn constables into thieves.

  5. Trump saying ‘I am the law and order candidate’ is most definitely creepy, to me. Seriously, it’s the one thing that he has said that creeps me out. All of the other stuff that he has said has all pretty much just been blown out of proportion by the media.

    That being said, I doubt it hurts him any. BLM and pretty much everyone else on the left have fallen prey to letting their dear leaders do a total deflection on this and make it all about race. Therefore ensuring that nothing will ever be done about it, since the issue is police brutality and non-accountability, not race. This is what the left does, guaranteeing that they can just prattle on forever and never actually deal with a real issue.

    1. We are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, and especially “our” children to the degree that mothers, parents and children are comfortable.

      Hell… BLM isn’t even about race any more, comrade.

      1. One of the core goals of the left has always been to tear down the traditional family. How can one be totally devoted to the great state when they spend so much time caring and worrying about silly family?

      2. Yeah, their villages are doing a GREAT job of caring for “their” children.

    2. You know who else was in favor of law and order?

      1. Brandon Tartifkoff?

      2. The Alliance?

        1. I fuckin’ loved that remake.

          Almost all remakes suck.

          That remake was totally fucking awesome. It was a great fucking action movie.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqqgrUna28w

          I wanted to hate it. I couldn’t make myself do it.

          It was an awesome action flick.

          1. Chiming in late to agree. Dredd remake was tits. I wanted to hate it, couldn’t do it.

      3. Sam Waterston?

      4. Marshall Dillon ?

        Barney Fife ?

        Wyatt Earp ? ( when he wasn’t working for the other side)

    3. Trump saying ‘I am the law and order candidate’ is most definitely creepy, to me.

      True. But he is running as a Republican, so he kind of has to say that. But does it actually mean anything by itself? It seems to me what matters is concrete policy proposals.

  6. Who are these “civil rights leaders” you speak of? That battle was won over fifty years ago.

    Has ANY black leader called for ending drug prohibition? That might actually accomplish something. Or do they just want special privileges for their own race? They’ve already gotten de facto racial quotas when it comes to public schools disciplining violent students.

    1. I have to say, even though blacks seem to be disproportionately affected by the WOD, I can’t recall seeing many blacks come out against the WOD. And there don’t seem to be many black libertarians, which is basically the only political entity that is actively making an effort to end the WOD.

      I think most blacks are just trapped thinking that only Democrats can solve all of their problems, despite the total failure of the Democrats to do anything for blacks for the last 50 years.

      1. I’m pretty sure that if a politician went to the black community and made a serious proposal for legalization, he would be accused of plotting the genoicde of black people.

      2. I’m pretty sure that if a politician went to the black community and made a serious proposal for legalization, he would be accused of plotting the genoicde of black people.

        1. Both times he proposed it?

        2. Considering that many Drug War laws were passed with the support of many black activists and politicians, and given the belief that white people are willing to sit back and let black addicts die, then there may well be such a reaction.

      3. I don’t think that’s ever going to change so even if the WOD ended the people responsible for ending it would be blamed for every crack baby.

        1. Crack babies are humbug.

      4. I can’t recall seeing many blacks come out against the WOD.

        http://stopthedrugwar.org/chro….._war_drugs

    2. They’ve already gotten de facto racial quotas when it comes to public schools disciplining violent students.

      Not to mention supreme court justices.

    3. I think Cornell West probably has.

    4. Has ANY black leader called for ending drug prohibition?

      Sure. Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell have been very vocal about it… oh, wait.

      1. They’re black, and they’re leaders, but they’re not black leaders.

    5. Drug prohibition is not the source of the inner city black community’s problems, and ending the drug war won’t solve them.

      The problems are poverty, a culture of dependency, and overbearing and corrupt government in the medium and large cities in this country, which contain most of the black population.

      1. Also welfare rules that discourage traditional family structures: i.e., you get less money if your baby’s daddy lives with the family.

  7. That deplorable basket just got a whole lot bigger.

    1. Damn straight.

      If Trump can get firefighters and EMTs on board, it’ll make Hillary look like even more of an unhinged elitist for saying that, too.

  8. Wow. I went to http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/ and got a load of the word salad. There’s a lot of third wave feminist stuff that NOBODY in the ghetto gives a fuck about.

    Black Lives Matter: (lunatic neo-marxist babble)

    Rioters: “Huh?”

    Black Lives Matter: “Off the pigs!”

    Rioters: “HELL YEAH!”

    1. “We are committed to embracing and making space for trans brothers and sisters to participate and lead. We are committed to being self-reflexive and doing the work required to dismantle cis-gender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.”

      How about Frederick Douglass:

      “Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, ‘What shall we do with the Negro?’ I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us.”

      1. Bear in mind that Douglass was upholding the egalitarian position – one law for everyone, no special attention to black people, because that generally meant screwing them.

        1. This Douglas fella sounds racist.

        2. You mean “separate but equal” doesn’t end up being equal? Who knew?

      2. Except when they take over gay pride parades, apparently.

      3. especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence

        In other words, black male hookers in drag who get beaten up when the deception is discovered.

    2. Oh, and they’re against the “genocide” of the Palestinians.

    3. Oh, and they’re against the “genocide” of the Palestinians.

  9. Some of the worse people in the country endorse Trump. I’m definitely voting for him now.

  10. With every action they take, with every press release, police unions harm their reputations even more. You wonder how much further down the tubes they can go.

    1. Bend the knee. I hear that works.

  11. Is America not safe? We’ve been on a 25 year downtrend in crime rates. What more exactly do the people obsessed about “safety” want?

    Also, is it odd that the NRA and the police union endorse the same person?

    1. and the police do not create downward tending crime statistics. having a less shitty station in life does

      1. Locking up 2 million people just might have an effect.

    2. Look at the NRA board of directors. Scan the authors in the NRA magazines and commenters on the websites. LEOs* are heavily represented.

      * Street cops, elected sheriffs. NotSoMuch appointed police chiefs.

  12. When Trump vowed to restore law and order on his first day in office and, asked how, gave that gobblety-gook answer about how he had talked to some unnamed Chicago cop expert who said that if the cops were turned loose they’d have the place cleaned up in a week, that’s how, I was worried for a second that Trump was saying the problem was one of the most-corrupt, vicious, violent gang-of-thugs police forces in the US wasn’t a violent and vicious enough gang of thugs. But then I remembered Trump was a clown and realized he hadn’t given that answer more than half a second of thought, he’s never talked to any sort of expert on the subject and I’m not even sure he’s ever even been to Chicago. Or knows what a Chicago is.

    1. Isn’t “Chicago” that sound you make when you pass gas?

      1. It’s the sound you make when you pay a permit fee for the privilege of passing gas.

      2. And then the gas freezes and you pay a fine for frozen methane hazard.

      3. It’s the sound made by a bucket of tomato sauce and melted cheese hitting the bottom of a pan of “pizza” crust.

      4. Chicago is actually an awesome city. Just a few tidbits:
        1. They reversed the flow of the Chicago River where it flows through the city.
        2. They lifted the entire city, block by block, with railroad jacks, to install the first modern sewer system in America.
        3. Get bent, deep dish is awesome.

        1. We reversed the flow of the river so we could dump shit on St Louis

        2. 1) Cool.
          2) That’s amazing!
          3) If I admit that it tastes good, will you stop calling it pizza?

    2. Have YOU ever been there?

      You might have noticed a tall Bldg with TRUMP in 20-ft high letters right on the river. That is, if you had your eyes open.

  13. Does anyone think that Hillary has made a dire mistake by not adding Gary Johnson voters to the basket of deplorables? I mean, that would mean an 8-9% increase in that basket. If you’re going to have a basket, shouldn’t it be a big basket? But then again, it’s likely that both the Trump deplorables and Johnson deplorables are armed to the teeth and might kill each other off. This has to be a serious concern for Hillary. She could wind up basketless. Then what does she have? I’d like to see Anderson Cooper bring up this topic for consideration. Did anyone notice how serious Anderson Cooper looks? When that guy talks about the newest scary drug epidemic that is threatening the children, man don’t you have to take it seriously? I mean, one time, he talked about polar bears drowning and wow! It was like I actually saw polar bears falling out of the sky!

    1. “If you’re going to have a basket, shouldn’t it be a big basket?”

      Don’t worry, Hillary is making a very big basket indeed – nobody will be left out.

      1. Someone totally needs to photoshop that into a Hillary photo.

    2. I’m just waiting for Yogi Bear to endorse Hillary Clinton based on her picnic basket platform.

      1. Ahem. It is properly known as a pic-a-nic basket.

        1. it is properly known as mashing up Phil Silvers with Art Carney.

    3. Did anyone notice how serious Anderson Cooper looks?

      A bit more serious than Alice Cooper?

  14. The FOP declined to endorse a candidate in the 2012 presidential election, reportedly over concerns with Mitt Romney’s position on collective bargaining rights.

    Thank goodness Scott Walker showed us how easy it is to exempt police unions from the defanging.

  15. We’re really fucked this election.

    1. our fucking extends for at least 4 years and a couple months after this election

  16. BLM is almost as idiotic as the FOP. Almost.

  17. USA out of America!

    The O-K Conference this week told schools that “USA” should not be chanted during high school sports games when the phrase has been co-opted to taunt an opposing team.

    Officials with the conference said in a note that fans may chant “USA” only after the National Anthem is played. Outside of that, it is prohibited.

    O-K Conference Commissioner Jim Haskins told 24 Hour News 8 that some students attending athletic events were chanting “USA” as a way of telling opponents, “U suck a**.” Haskins said the chant filtered down from colleges and started happening at high school basketball games last year.

    1. I hear the “You suck ass(hole?)” chant all the time at American soccer matches. It’s a bit… juvenile.

  18. …there is a way to counter extremism that’s potentially as effective as it is unpopular. It’s a social and intellectual strategy that aims to undermine the religious beliefs that motivate jihadists?and one of the most controversial set of ideas to emerge in the West in the last quarter century: New Atheism.

    “…The movement offered a heretofore unwelcomed perspective: That every religion has negative consequences, and that even religious moderates contribute to the problem because, by affirming that faith is a legitimate reason to hold beliefs, they enable religious extremists….

    “New Atheist ideas like these have percolated into closed, traditional Muslim societies, giving those populations an opportunity to question their beliefs….

    “…New Atheists have begun reaching out to collaborate with moderate Muslims and, arguably more importantly, ex-Muslims. Many of those former Muslims have become New Atheists and gone back into their communities to advocate for reform.”

    1. Replacing one religion with another. Seems legit.

      “The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not.”

      -Eric Hoffer

    2. Many of those former Muslims have become New Atheists and gone back into their communities to advocate for reform

      … and were gang-raped and had their heads chopped off, not necessarily in that order.

      Attacking someone’s faith makes them hold it all the more closely. That’s why the Charlie Hebdos and Draw Muhammed idiots always fail to do anything other than incite violence. Aesop knew what he was talkin’ about.

      1. incite violence

        god you’re an idiot.

        1. “incite” was probably the wrong word to use as it implies intent. I would edit it to “result in” if there were a button for it.

          1. Changing the vocabulary wouldn’t change the ‘victim-blaming*’ sentiment.

            The only people at fault for religious violence are the maniacal zealots who commit it. They deserved mockery, and they deserve to be mocked still.

            Actual “incitement to violence” requires a demand and desire for violence from the speaker. Getting up on a soapbox and encouraging a mob to lynch someone qualifies. Drawing satirical cartoons of violent jihadists does not, and isn’t something which should “result in” violence any more than this.

            1. There you go with that “should” again.

              The murderers bear the full moral responsibility for the murders. I’m not disputing that at all.

              A Klansman in full attire walking down the streets of Harlem at 2 AM shouting “Come out niggers!” at the top of his lungs, that doesn’t justify violence against him either. But you can’t plausibly argue that he didn’t bring it on himself (or that he’s not an asshole for doing it even if he doesn’t get beat).

            2. The only people at fault for religious violence are the maniacal zealots who commit it. They deserved mockery, and they deserve to be mocked still.

              Except they’re not the only ones being mocked — every Muslim is, including the peaceful ones.

              1. I should have just stuck with “god, you’re a fucking idiot”

                1. Probably. You’re not very good at countering against rational argument, so childish insults are more your forte.

      2. Atheism is moreso on the rise now in the Islamic world than any other time in human history, and a lot of it is tied into the dissemination and expose to media that is highly critical of Islam.

        “Durr attacking someone’s faith just makes them hold onto it more!”

        1. I’d probably argue that its a product of the “most devout” cutting off people’s heads and blowing themselves up, but that’s also just speculation.

          1. I’d argue that’s a part of it, but that exposure to Western media and even just being aware of and/or exposed to other interpretations, including atheism, is important. After all, the traditional Islamic practice is just to declare them apostates and not real Muslims. Now they’re flat out dropping the faith entirely.

            1. well, i think there’s multiple issues here that might be getting conflated.

              one, I don’t really think “Athiesm” is doing anything at all, or that it even matters when you talk about the ‘problems’ with Islam. I certainly don’t think the linked article proves anything about “athiesm” spreading – simply downloading and reading Richard Dawkins doesn’t mean there’s a boom in Atheism in the Middle East any more than downloads of the Koran in the wake of 9-11 was evidence of a boom in converts.

              two, what do people mean by “Islam” anyway?

              Its not just a religion; and most of what we mean when we refer to the “problem”-versions of Islam aren’t the religious part either – they’re the radical-political part of Islam.

              Anything going on among the great masses of otherwise normal everyday muslims is pretty much irrelevant to the goings on the most-radical Islamist political groups. You could have 100million people become “new athiests” and it wouldn’t have any impact on the problems of NorthWest Pakistan.

              I think most Americans think of Islam as a monolithic thing, like ‘Christianity’ in the west, which is ‘in a box’ relative to the rest of muslim society. it doesn’t really work that way. I think people would be better served reading about the recent history of Islamic revivalism than listening to a bunch of self-promoting athiests in Time magazine.

        2. Atheism is moreso on the rise now in the Islamic world than any other time in human history, and a lot of it is tied into the dissemination and expose to media that is highly critical of Islam.

          Cite? That would be a difficult study to perform so I’d love to see how they did it.

          If you’re talking about places like Indonesia and Morocco and Malaysia and Bangladesh, a more plausible explanation is that it’s due to increased wealth and opportunities for worldly contentment — the same thing that destroyed Christianity in the West, after centuries of atheist philosophical attacks failed.

          1. the same thing that destroyed Christianity in the West, after centuries of atheist philosophical attacks failed.

            Except to argue that as the sole factor and not the dissemination of counter-arguments to church dogma would make you profoundly ignorant of European religious history.

            I’d provide a cite when you provide one for your claim. And remember, correlation does not equal causation, so no just throwing up irreligious populations compared to GDP or some nonsense. Because I’ll just point to their more open press and ability to produce counter-religious works.

            1. I mean, this is why there’s so many atheists in former communist countries right, because communism produced such abundant wealth and opportunities for worldly contentment, not because their ideology pushed for an atheistic material interpretation of the world.

              1. Pay no attention to the Orthodox (and Catholic in other parts of E Europe) priests and monks and nuns shot or sent off to the gulag behind the curtain.

                Back up your atheist ideology with the coercive power of a police state and that will work too.

                1. Back up your atheist ideology with the coercive power of a police state and that will work too.

                  Yes, and the use of police state tactics in the Islamic world to suppress non- or anti-Islamic works leads to less people converting out of the fold, i.e. the exact argument you’re making with communism.

                  I’m glad that you’ve agreed to my point.

                  1. That doesn’t prove your point at all. It just means that coercion tends to make people do what the coercer wants.

                    Your argument was that disseminating atheists in the Islamic world would would make Muslims become atheists.

      3. The season opener whatever Carl Sagan used to host was about the mind of a terrorist. I believe they said something to the effect that if you agree with them “yes, western society is depraved and ungodly” it takes some of the wind out of their camels. Or something. I didn’t really watch the whole thing because no outer space.

        1. I could go for some Cosmos right about now. Watched the shit out of that when I was little.

          1. I mean, I’d drink a cosmo if that’s all there was or one was given to me, because I’m a gracious guest, but I’d prefer straight bourbon.

          2. I watched the NY Cosmos. Had free tix to the Generals before them, but couldn’t seem to get to games, and even the Cosmos I wound up seeing only when they came to play the Sting.

            1. I watched the Long Island NY Cosmos just last night.

    3. Speaking of New Atheists and Trump endorsements, YouTuber “The Amazing Atheist” just released a video, sorta endorsing Trump. His reasons? Trump’s anti free market positions. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MufUzn_xZH4 He prefers Trump for all the reasons a president Trump will be terrible.

      1. Most Hildog fans support her for all of her terrible policies as well.

        It’s stupid, ignorant voters all the way down.

  19. The out and proud voice of atheism

    “”Our fight in this world is not against Islam; it is against religion. I can tell you this for sure: No one’s head has ever been cut off in the name of atheism. No one has ever cut into human flesh and looked down a camera and said, ‘In the name of nothing.'”?Comedian Jim Jeffries…

    “Atheists don’t have a book saying it’s OK to rape children, own slaves or abuse women. And yet, it’s this atheist who sits here waiting for the hate mail from writing this article?hate mail that I have no intention of reading.”

    1. Well, strictly speaking, Stalin and Mao were killing for the greater glory of the State and/or plain old utilitarianism. But that said, Jeffries is an idiot.

    2. However, I believe this trio of cults?Christianity, Islam and Judaism?were created by men to justify the subjugation and rape of women and children.

      *Aum Shinrikyo,Ikko Ikki and the 969 Movement give each other high fives, content in the knowledge that the intellectual lightweights of the modern atheist movement continue to pretend everything outside of Abrahamic faith doesn’t exist.*

      1. I clicked the link, but I still bet 969 is some kind of perv religion.

  20. Your daily dose of enviro-derp

    It’s time for a concrete plan for replacing concrete in construction

    Everyone recognizes that there is a critical role for concrete, and it is not like we can do without the stuff; We are not likely to start building bridges and highways out of wood, although that has been done. But where we can replace concrete, we should be doing so. And buildings are a logical place to start, using established or new wood construction technologies.

    From an online publication that actively resists logging.

    1. Oh, and concrete trucks are dangerous

      For building construction, the aggregates and cement are delivered to the Ready-mix people who mix the concrete to order and deliver it to construction sites in cement mixers, again heavy trucks that have to drive through city streets on deadline- they only have so much time between mixing cement and when it starts to set. They are deadly.

      1. They do seem to have a hard time not tipping over.

        1. They’re the Guam of construction equipment.

      2. Just today I saw a concrete truck almost smash into a car.

        Of course the car’s driver, at 35 MPH, changed into the outside lane about ten feet ahead of said concrete truck, then immediately braked to turn into a driveway.

        But the lesson is about dangerous concrete trucks, right?

    2. OT- but one thing I noticed in Germany was how many concrete houses there were. There are almost no American style wood framed houses. I’m sure this costs more, but also made them last forever. People lived in houses 100 years old or more regularly.

      I wonder if that’s good though. Even 40 year old houses appear dated. A house being remade every 100 years or less might be better than one that just gets older and less desirable.

      1. I’ve never heard of older housing getting less desirable – unless the owner has let it fall apart or something. Rather the opposite.

        1. In UK it’s common to complain about state-built housing blocks built in 50s and 60s after they cleared Victorian-era residential buildings. Grey concrete towers that are near prison-like in appearance were a craze on the Continent at the time.

          Theodore Darlymple has an article about Le Corbusier and his influence on this kind of architecture.

          1. Tom Wolfe’s From Bauhaus to Our House skewers Le Corbusier and his followers thoroughly.

        2. Seriously? I think most prefer newer dwellings for a variety of reasons. Not me, but most people.

          1. I’ve heard lots of complaints that the construction on new housing is crap compared to older housing. Anyway, I’m not sure if PB is talking about high-rises which are understandably not very desirable or (say) the kind of low-rise housing that is common in Germany that does appear to be concrete but with an old-style “look” – I lived in such a house in the 80s and I would call it quite desirable even today.

            1. 1. Concrete is a miracle, and the fact that people don’t recognize that fact shows how spoiled we are. I mean, seriously? Liquid rock that you can put whatever you want, or mold into desired shapes and then move. It’s goddamned awesome, is what concrete is.
              2. Older houses were generally built with more craftsmanship, but today’s materials are, by orders of magnitude, stronger, better insulating, more fire proof, and less expensive.

              1. Liquid rock that you can put wherever you want…

                Even underwater. And its mostly made out of sand, gravel and water, with a little easy-to-manufacture cement, which makes it dirt cheap. And there’s no such thing as concrete fumes or concrete smell. It can be permanently colored, and takes a variety of finishes, from smooth to broom to rough to fake paving stones.

                “Miracle” is accurate.

                1. Yes. And it dates to Roman times. Europe actually lost very little classical knowledge during the “dark ages”, but it did lose the secret of concrete.
                  The Romans added blood (iron) to the mix in order to allow the concrete to set underwater.

          2. Older houses usually have smaller square footage, lower ceilings, smaller rooms, less open floor plans, and fewer outlets. That usually means they either become projects or are less desirable.

            I’m simply saying the trade off of higher price houses that last longer isn’t necessarily good. Not all houses become antiques, most become just old houses.

            1. The electrical is really a big deal. Like you said, much fewer outlets. But also, older wiring is simply not as safe. Electrical fires in older homes is epidemic, but buildings built to modern codes almost never have a fire start due to wiring.

        3. I’ve never heard of older housing getting less desirable – unless the owner has let it fall apart or something. Rather the opposite.

          They do when they’re made out of concrete and cinderblock.

  21. Let me post this before Reason covers it and steals my thunder (/sarc)

    “Constitution Day Town Hall live on Castle 2016 facebook page at 9:00 pm Eastern, 8:00 pm Central, 7:00 pm Mountain, 6:00 pm Pacific, 5:00 pm Alaska, 4:00 pm Hawaii. Will be video recorded and later posted on the Castle 2016 YouTube Channel.”

  22. Gilmore posted this in an earlier thread:

    2 Clinton supporters in ’08 reportedly shared Obama ‘birther’ story

    “One was a volunteer in Iowa, who was fired, Clinton’s former campaign manager said Friday. The other was Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, according to a former McClatchy Washington Bureau chief.”

    The article is from McClatchy.

    1. Vanity Fair profiled Blumenthal back in July.

  23. Editors: You should probably use a greater variety of file photos for Trump in addition to “scary face”. It looks immature to always use unflattering photos of any public figure.

  24. Wow, the liberal side of the media is coming off as insane. A Slate writer wrote a story on the Friday press conference. She completely fails to understand how nuts she sounds for her reaction to it.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/…..media.html

    1. This is the same “She” who said that Gary Johnson is a vote for recession and nihilism, or something.

      I looked him up the other day. He learned his politics working for Wonkette, alongside Alex Pareene. Exactly the sort of pedigree you’d expect.

    2. This little tidbit is pretty telling:

      Afterward, the networks reportedly held an emergency conference call on which they agreed to erase the camera pool footage of the property tour, since no editorial figure had been allowed to join. It was a small measure of revenge.

      Hey, Press Corps! You wanna know how we all know you are nothing more than a bunch of partisan hacks who view your responsibility as a journalist to be “promoting the Democrat Party?”

      This kind of open collusion for partisan political purposes doesn’t get nearly enough attention from the alternative press. They prattle on about “bias in the media”, but this kind of thing isn’t bias. It goes way, way beyond any bias.

      Back in 2004 when Dan Rather did the forged document faceplant, Drudge had a report a couple of weeks earlier that the networks were colluding with the Kerry campaign to spend a week focusing on Bush’s Vietnam record. They assigned each network one night of the week to run a major hit-piece on Bush’s military record, with the campaign doing major ad buys and speeches focusing on Kerry’s war record and Bush’s National Guard record. Rather’s report was one of those pieces.

      It still surprises me that this didn’t gather any more attention.

      1. Only FOX would run that story about network collusion. The others would shout ‘Faux’ and the sheep never hear the story.

        Do you think the NYT and WaPo et al would touch such a story, being guilty of the same thing?

        I feel understand your pain

  25. Jewett Williams update

    “Williams became almost a national symbol of repatriation for veterans. Forgotten for 94 years at the Oregon State Hospital, where he died and was cremated, he was finally being remembered and laid to rest at an historic veterans’ cemetery alongside other members of the famous 20th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment.

    “At least, that was the plan.

    “But then Maine officials did an about-face and announced that family had come forward to claim Williams’ remains. He is now scheduled to be buried not at Togus National Cemetery in Chelsea, but in a family plot three hours to the north in Hodgdon….

    “No one in Maine is more disappointed by the turn of events than Tom Desjardin, the historian who initiated efforts to bring Williams back to his home state….

    “Desjardin, a former senior policy adviser to the governor, never imagined such a noble crusade would turn into something so sordid.

    “”If I ever find the remains of another member of the 20th Maine,” he said by phone, “I’m going to keep it to myself.””

    1. So it wasn’t even family that actually knew him? Now I see why people are so pissed.

      1. Some of the complaint is the state supposedly delayed notifying people of the change of plan.

        Then there’s this:

        “[Christebell] Rose [of the Maine Living History Association] acknowledged that he may have had a dark past and that there were reasons why he never returned to Hodgdon.

        “What is undisputed, she said, is his service with the 20th Maine…”

    1. Why would anyone want to be a Grisham wannabe? Guy writes like a 10 year old. Read some novels by Gary Jennings for some real writing.

      1. I like Grisham. And metallica. U guys are way too cool.

        1. Grisham: ok
          Metallica: Most. Overrated. Band. Ever.

          1. Grisham sucks. Metallica sucks. Any questions?

              1. You are are a Meme Machine, HM!*

                (And stop wearing these ridiculous outfits!)

            1. We get it, it’s a bass drum, chill out Lars.

  26. US bombs Syrian army positions by accident, ISIS overruns position.

    Whoever the next president is, they are going to have a dangerous quagmire on their hands.

    1. Not so much. Hillary says that according to your report, everything is going as planned. Carry on, comrades.

    2. Accident? America has wanted the fall of Assad since the start, as has ISIS. Seems like everything is going to plan.

    3. We’ve been at war in Syria for 2 years now and the media have basically hidden that fact from people because they’re so desperate to protect Obama from any potential criticism.

      We pretend we’re somehow neutral in the civil war (while funding and arming and supporting one side), that we’re concerned about the “humanitarian conflict” (while effectively drawing out and prolonging the conflict out of a desire to keep it on a ‘low boil’ for political reasons), and never bother to explain to the public exactly what our issues vis a vis Russia really are (one month we’re “partnering” with them, the next month we’re threatening to shoot down their planes)

      Its all just Obama’s method for having his cake and eating it too. He can have his very own Iraq, with just as high a civilian cost, and yet never be blamed for it. The Magic of a compliant press.

    4. To my point =

      The NYT seems to have zero cognitive dissonance reporting the fact that, on one hand….

      The US is conducting offensive bombing attacks

      ….and on the other hand…. reporting that the US was “Concerned about the Unraveling Cease-Fire

      Yes – the cease fire is supposed to be between the Syrian army and the rebels = but the fact that the NYT doesn’t even bother noting that Obama’s comments on thursday =


      “Mr. Obama “emphasized that the United States will not proceed with the next steps in the arrangement with Russia until we see seven continuous days of reduced violence and sustained humanitarian access,” the statement said.””

      …were followed by attacks *by the US the very next day* on Syrian army positions. HOW THE FUCK DO YOU NOT MENTION THE INCONSISTENCY THERE?

      Do they really think they can continue to pretend that the “unraveling cease fire” is someone else’s fault?

    5. Whoever the next president is, they are going to have a dangerous quagmire on their hands.

      Yeah, Mike Pence is gonna have his hands full.

    1. I am admittedly not smart enough to address this head-on, but anytime you boil down your political argument into an anthropomorphic morality play you’ve lost me. Aesop’s fables may be great for expressing universal truths but as an analog representation of reality they fail mightily.

      1. But that’s not what he’s doing. Evolutionary biology is a real thing. It affects brain chemicals, hormones, psychology, individual and social behavior. He’s looking at broad categories of behaviors, just as Jonathan Haidt does. I’ll bet these categories map pretty well to what Haidt talks about.

        1. Evolutionary biology is a real thing – that doesn’t mean Evolutionary Biology is a *science*. As a general theory it holds some decent explanatory power but when it comes to *testing* individual assertions its a complete failure.

          Its, currently, a branch of the Social ‘Sciences’ and not actual science.

          1. Well, some sciences have inherent problems with testing. E.g. astronomy. You can’t just form a bunch of planets and see how it works.

            1. Not so, I walked in on my dad’s wife’s skitzo son staring at the wall one day and asked him what he was up to. “Creating universes” was his reply. Backed out slowly.

    2. Egghead college faggot “research”* has shown libertarians are down with the progressive rabbits when it comes to in-group loyalty

      1. When did you get so negative, dude? Come on, libertarian moment!

        1. Also, cool that the link is only the astrix

    3. Too much text for me to read, but the graphic was cool.

      Like TH((VT)) said, it’s scientific in the same sense Aesop was scientific, but I like Aesop.

    4. Wolves and rabbits. You know one of those is an endangered species and the other is so profligate it’s considered a pest? And if there’s some truth to the evolutionary bit – why 21st Century US before it shows up? It might be a more robust theory if you can show me other civilizations that collapsed when the rabbits ran off all the wolves.

      1. The endangered aspect is due to human intervention, of course.

        I have not looked into what he says about other civilizations.

    5. ‘Analyzing Politics via Neurobiology is like Dancing about Architecture

      1. The *Fountainhead* ballet is still in development.

        1. Can’t wait to see what they do with Rand’s rape fantasy.

    6. This reads like someone found Nietzsche’s Birds of Prey and Lambs quote and wrapped it in pseudoscience.

      1. yep. that was my next critique = that some scientist already had some preconceived categorization (*which they’d ripped from one of many social-philosophers), and just found some convenient and arbitrary binary- biological split to coincide with it.

        people are constantly doing this = recycling pre-existing arguments using different ‘data sets’ and fobbing it off as a new idea.

        1. I don’t think that’s entirely fair. A lot of insight has happened because someone saw similarities between different things, or at different scales. Binary splits, and extended analogies, are often valid ways to describe patterns.

          Of course, one must guard against the confirmation bias that can come with convenient explanations and “just so” stories, but I don’t think that’s a good reason to dismiss this guy out of hand.

          1. It produces a model of human which is competitive, aggressive, protective, monogamous, prone to favor high-investment family values, prone to try and delay sexual activity in the young, and prone to exhibit honor, loyalty, decency, respect for tradition, and other pro-social traits designed to help the group function better…

            For where the K-strategy advances a species, and produces ability and greatness through a selfless commitment to the group and the game, the r-strategy is simply a drive towards selfish hedonism which will inevitably devolve a species and destroy it, by eroding the bonds of the in-group, and degrading the very quality of the individuals within it.

            …Absent it, Liberals are the immoral, disloyal, pathetic cowards of our nation ? unreliable, and wholly incompetent at the types of endeavors necessary to survive in a state of nature. They are inferior in every way, to everything it takes to be a real American.

            1. Methinks this guy’s primary confirmation bias is the glorification of the Conservative (and not just any historical conservative mind you, the exact indulgent self-image of a 21st century American Conservative) into the righteous, natural and pure superman while the Liberal is some horrid combination of the worst traits of the Eloi and the Morlock. And considering the way he stresses committed to the group and ‘selflessness’ I don’t think he’s throwing the libertarians in with the K group. To draw the conclusions he makes requires you to assume the best of your side and the worst of others, not a hard thing to do.

          2. I agree with most of what you actually said, but the conceptual jump the guy makes between simply

            1) “biological factor/process X may be associated with Y behavioral characteristics” and
            2) “biological factor/process X …may ALSO be determinate of POLITICAL affiliations”…?

            ….is perfectly easy to dismiss out of hand.

            He makes a chain of arbitrary value judgements to make the science meet his political preconceptions. Its fucking stupid.

            I mean, look =

            K-selected Reproductive Strategy will also favor five traits, all exactly opposite those of the r-selected srategy(sp)”

            That’s not exactly true. Traits aren’t “opposites” (a la “hot/cold”). That’s presuming a false-dichotomy. what he means is “different”. but the presumption that certain traits are “natural opposites” (in his mind) is necessary for his later segmentation.

            more =

            …since K-selection will often evolve into groups fighting other groups for limited resources, you will become in-group-oriented. You will be loyal to in-group, and favoring of things which promote group cohesion like loyalty, decency, cultural traditions and monoculturalism.

            See where the non-scientific jump happens there? He has no idea if/how/to what degree any of those things are associated with “group cohesion”. He just assumes it.

            Its all like that. He takes the framework of the science, and shoehorns it into preconceptions.

            1. I don’t think his “opposites” are any more problematic than Haidt’s.

              It seems obvious to me that loyalty is associated with group cohesion, and that a wolf pack is more cohesive than a group of rabbits. The other three may be more arguable, but I think he’s got a point.

              1. You think he has a point because he’s echoing things you already “believe” that aren’t based in any empirical analysis. your impressions of the ‘cohesion’ of animal-groups is entirely based on anthropomophic ideas being applied arbitrarily and non-scientifically. it also requires eliding lots of obvious details which make the comparison ridiculous – like the fact that alpha males rule packs, bar any breeding by competitive males, and will kill the male young of any pack members that breed w/ others, and other types of behavior which would make your claim seem ridiculous…. and that’s just a single example. any handful of actual details about how these things *actually* behave would make the entire conception fall apart.

                You’re basically just projecting pre-existing political/cultural ideas into science and pretending that its somehow connected; it only holds together because you want it to.

  27. Explosion in NY – somebody trying to Franz Ferdinand Trump? Besides Trump, I mean.

        1. A dumpster blew up at 8:30 p.m. Saturday night in Chelsea, blowing out the lower windows of a 14-story residence for the blind.

          “witnesses claim they saw nothing”

          Blind block was 23rd between 7th and 8th, if i recall.

        2. Not the Post!!!!

          I was just flipping through the channels and saw a thing on Fox (CNN is running Obama’s address to the Congresional Black Caucus so a bomb in NYC is not news I guess) and it looked like a trash can blew up or something. I’m sure the Post is gonna play it like 9/11 redux.

          In the meantime, I’m watching tOSU v Okiehomie to see if one of the analysts’ pre-game insight was correct – he had a theory that the qb was better when he was calm and collected and not making mistakes and worse when he was rattled and erratic and making mistakes. If that counter-intuitive theory is correct I can see why he makes the big bucks for that sort of commentary.

          1. True story: I was living in OU territory (El Reno). OU’ s red. Their major rival, OSU, has orange. I was in a Dollar General in OU (red) territory, and there was this little tween asking her dad for some Halloween decorations. Now, Halloween decorations, in general, are black and orange.
            Dad replies, and I shit you not, ” You know how I feel about orange; I won’t have it in my house!”

            1. Interestingly, I have been reading this.

              1. Damnit, Eddie. I had a perfectly good comment about some dumb redneck, and you gotta appropriate it. Fuckingv Eddie.
                I joke, i jest! Salt of the earth my friend!

            2. “Orange is the New Black”

        3. The stupidest line in that article =

          “The smell of gunfire filled the air.”

          was “smoke” really not sufficient? and does the average NYC post-reporter have the first clue about the smell of gunpowder vs. some other explosive propellants?

          1. My favorite was the post-9/11 reporter in Afghanistan who described someone’s “300mm pistol.”

            1. Is that a battleship in your pocket, or are you happy to see me?

    1. Trump probably doesn’t hang out in Chelsea.

      1. Nice I was going to post same thing

    2. I think calling metallica overrated is overrated

      1. The singer sounds like Elmer Fudd. The base player knows exactly three rythms, and their lyrics are inane. Other than that? Yeah, Metallica is great.

    3. Franz Ferdinand is an awesome band.

    4. Just checked with friend who lives cpl blocks away. He heard it but didn’t know what it was til I just asked him if he heard it.

  28. OKAY!!! THAT IS IT!!! THIS IS THE FINAL STRAW!!!
    I’ve had it with all you frickin’ trolls, and all you frickin’ haters, and all you frickin’ Sonic fan fricks! YOU GUYS ARE THE ONES THAT RUINED SONIC FOR EVERYONE! CAN’T YOU SEE THAT?! WHAT THE FRICK ARE YOU GUYS DOING??? ASKING FOR ALL THIS FRICKING GARBAGE??? Why so we need Sonic Adventure 3? Why do we need Sonic Heroes 2? WHY do we need another boost-to-win title? WHY do we need a Sonic 2006 sequel? WHY DO WE NEED ALL THAT?! CAN’T WE HAVE A 3D ENVIORMENT CLASSIC SONIC GAME FOR CRYING OUT FRICKING LOUD!!!??? You guys killed the Sonic series! All you frickin’ fan fricks and your frickin’ fantasies SPEWED OUT AT YOU BY FRICKIN’ POOP MERCHANTS!!! I’M TIRED OF ALL YOU FRICKS!!! I’m so frickin’ mad… I’m so frickin’ mad… I mean, you guys… you guys… have officially made me LOSE MY MARBLES!!! WHY CAN’T YOU GUYS ASK FOR A 3D ENVIRONMENT CLASSIC SONIC GAME? This… is a NIGHTMARE!!! I’m sure no Sonic fan predict… would predict that the adventure… the adventure fantasizers would RUIN EVERYTHING!!! And now… I bet by now Se-Sega has got a frickin’ Sonic Adventure 3 in development… with frickin’ Sonic Team. ‘Cause you FRICKIN ‘FRICKS just can’t ever… be quenched… Your… ah-, your FANTASIES just can’t ever be quenched, can they?! You frickin’ fricks! When will you learn… when will you learn… THAT YOUR ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES?!

    1. YOU GUYS KEEP ON ASKING FOR SONIC ADVENTURE 3! YOU’RE RUINING THE SONIC SERIES! HASN’T IT ALREADY SUFFERED ENOUGH?! AND IT’S STILL SUFFERING! WHAT THE FRICK??? Sega just CAN’T perfect Sonic in the modern world, can they?! Oh, because we HAVE to have modern Sonic, we HAVE to have the modern characters! We have to have… we have to have an ADVENTURE title, don’t we?! ANOTHER ADVENTURE TITLE?! You frickin’ fricks! I’ve had it! I’ve frickin’ had it! YOU GUYS HAVE OFFICIALLY RUINED EVERYTHING! YOU’VE RUINED THE SONIC SERIES… the Sonic series is dead… because of the Sonic fanbase! I WILL FOREVER HATE THE SONIC FANBASE… THEY RUIN EVERYTHING… RUIN EVERYTHING… I HATE THE SONIC FANBASE!! I… HATE ‘EM!!! Why does the Sonic fanbase have to be like this?! Oh– Why is the Sonic fanbase have to be so numb-skulled?! CAN’T YOU GUYS FRICKING ACCEPT THAT WE NEED A 3D ENVIORMENT CLASSIC SONIC GAME?! HOLY FRICKING FRICKS!!! HOLY FRICKING FRICKS… Why can’t we have a 3D ENVIRONMENT CLASSIC SONIC GAME? IS THAT SO HARD TO ASK?! Why can’t we have a Sonic CD sequel?! Or… uh… a Sonic prequel?! Or.. even a proper Sonic 4… WHY CAN’T WE HAVE THAT?! WHY DO WE NEED A SONIC ADVENTURE 3?! WHY DO WE NEED THAT?! WHY?! TELL ME… TELL ME!!! TELL ME NOOOW!!! GRRRR CURSE YOU SONIC FRICKS!!!

      1. You guys ruined it! You ruined it with your frickin’ fantasies! Your Adventure fantasies! Let’s see… oooh yeah give us a Sonic Adventure 3! Give us treasure hunting! Give us shoobiding! THAT’S WHAT SONIC’S ALL ABOUT, HUH?! Right! Right, Sega, right!! Give us… frickin’… more Sonic clones!! Yeah, we need more of those! As if Shadow wasn’t enough… or Silver… Oh, oh while you’re at it… while you’re at it… why not frickin’ give us more Dragon Ball Z/ Sonic Duels! WE ALL NEED THAT, HUH?! WE ALL NEED THAT!! WE DON’T NEED CLASSIC SONIC, RIGHT?! WROOOOOOOOONG!!!
        Why do you guys ruin it with your fantasies?! Why does it have to be like this?! I’m… for MONTHS I’ve been giving everyone my ideas of a 3D environment Classic Sonic game. In the styles of Sonic 3 & Knuckles! Which is personally the BEST SONIC GAME! Okay? I– I’m… SEGA NEVER ACKNOWLEDGES SONIC 3 & KNUCKLES! That makes me SO MAD! I mean why doesn’t THAT get attention? EVEN SONIC CD DOES! This makes me so frickin’ mad! You Sonic fans had to RUIN EVERYTHING FOR YOUR ADVENTURE FANTASIES!!! Holy frick! Oh, GIVE US Sonic adventure 3! GIVE US Sonic Heroes 2! GIVE US Shadow the Hedgehog 2! GIVE US Sonic 2000 and–, and 6 2! Sonic 2006 sequel! Yeah! Give us more boost-to-win! You guys are ALREADY asking for more boost-to-win! Oooh frick Sonic Lost World, give us more boost-to-win–
        NOOOOOOOOOO! YOU FRICKIN’ FRICKS!

        1. YOU GUYS HAD TO RUIN IT! YOU GUYS HAD TO RUIN IT! WHYYY?! WHY, WHY?! Why does it have to be like this…? WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE LIKE THIS?!
          Why… WHY, WHY WHYYYYY??!! You… you SONIC FANS… the Sonic fanbase just got me frickin’ WORKED UP!! All ’cause they can’t give us something ACTUALLY ACCEPTABLE!! Just what the frick? What the friiick… This makes me so mad! You guys ruined everything with your adventure fantasies! You guys are frickin’ idiots! WHY’D YA HAVE TO RUIN EVERYTHING?! WHY WHYYYY?! Just why?! Why does it have to be like this?! I’m tired of this! I’m tired of this! The Sonic series is ruined THANKS TO YOU GUYS!!! You frickin’ fricks… Holy frick, why does it have to be this way? GRRRR I HATE THE SONIC FANBASE! SONIC IS RUINED! WHY CAN’T YOU GUYS WATCH YOUR REBUTTAL IN SEGA FOR A 3D ENVIRONMENT CLASSIC SONIC GAME?! WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE THAT HARD?! YOU.. FRICKINFRICKS!!! YOU FRICKIN FRICKS! YOU FRICKIN… FRICKS!!!

          1. +1 wall o’ text
            +1 bolding
            +1 shout-text
            +1 excessive amounts of exclamation points
            +1 cries of anguish
            +1 ellipses
            +1 just for the frickenfricks
            -1 no brackets[ ]
            Not bad for a slow Saturday night.

            1. I miss HERCULES TRIATHLON SAVINIEN. He loved cats. (My wife said, “NET!”, to the idea of a family pet.)

              1. “nyet” it’s Russian

                1. “Net,” is proper Universal Transliteration; “Nyet,” is a phonetic transliteration in English.

                  Trust me, DenverJ, I routinely translate and transliterate every day here. And that VK to which I linked, has been a definite Godsend here.

          2. Crikey, HM, what is all that bolded caps shit?

          3. This is an internet rant about the Sonic fanbase, and not a single reference to furries? I am disappointed.

          4. HM,

            I do not think that this is at all relevant.

            Side note: It’s a quick Youtube search result and any implications should be rightfully attributed to any and all whom, by making implications, own full responsibility.

            1. That’s the first time I’ve heard a mantra Enya-ed. I’m not sure I like it on the neo-Celtic tip. I prefer my mantras, shlokas, etc. to be less fusion-y.

              1. Brevity: Remain cognizant of what’s best.

          5. Please stop yelling. I’m getting a headache.

      2. Um… I have no idea why you’ve blown a gasket but really Sonic has always been pretty damn lame. Oh I run really fast and spin in circles. That’s fun.

      3. Agile at least has some artistic value. This?

        1. He’s gearing up to something, I’m sure. Probably a youtube video.

          1. No. I’m just really passionate about the Sonic franchise.

            1. No, you’re laying the groundwork for something. We’ll see.

              1. 1. Post weird shit about ancient video game
                2. ?
                3. Profit

  29. AND LIKE I WAS SAYING EARLIER… SEGA NEVER ACKNOWLEDGES SONIC 3 & KNUCKLES!! WHAT THE FRICK??? Why can’t they ever frickin’ acknowledge that game?! They never frickin’ port it! You always see them porting frickin’ Sonic 1 and Sonic 2 but NEVER Sonic 3 & Knuckles! What the frick?! If Sega just tried to make a game like Sonic 3 & Knuckles, I bet that could recover the Sonic series! You frickin’ fricks say “oooh the Sonic series can’t be frickin’ recovered!” IT CAN BE FRICKIN’ RECOVERED if you guys could just FRICKIN’ COOPERATE and frickin’ ask for a 3D environment Classic Sonic game! Holy frickin’ fricks! What the frick is wrong with you guys? Why does it have to be like this? Why can’t you guys ask for something WORTHWHILE?! Why does it have to be like this, oh holy frick, I hate all you frickin’ fan fricks! You all want Sonic 1 and Sonic 2! Those games ALWAYS get acknowledged! It’s NEVER Sonic 3 & Knuckles! THAT’S the best Sonic game! Holy frickin’ fricks! It’s not Sonic Adventure 2! It’s… it’s not Sonic ’06 like some of you say, it’s not Sonic 2006! You frickin’ fricks come onto my channel and say: “ooh Sonic 2006 is the best game!” I know it’s just you frickin’ trolls trying to frickin’… frickin’… trying to frickin’… mess with me, what the frick?! What the frick?! You frickin’ trolls just need to GET OFF HIT AND RUN RIGHT NOW!!!

    1. You frickin fricks! I hate all of you! Why does it have to be like this… Why can’t you guys just frickin’… why can’t you guys just frickin’ be good people? And… the Sonic fanbase! Curse the Sonic fanbase! You guys are the ones that ruined the series! You ruined this entire series! Holy frickin’ fricks! And guess what? You fricking fricks… Okay, you know what? MARIO’S doing much better right now! I mean… when fans requested… when fans requested a 3D environment classic mario game… Nintendo frickin’ did it! Why can’t Sega be the same?! I thought when Sonic Lost World was announced, it was a 3D environment Classic Sonic game! But guess what? Instead, we get Super Sonic Galaxy! You frickin fricks! I hate all of you! Why does it have to be like this… Why can’t you guys just frickin’… why can’t you guys just frickin’ be good people? And… the Sonic fanbase! Curse the Sonic fanbase! You guys are the ones that ruined the series! You ruined this entire series! Holy frickin’ fricks! And guess what? You fricking fricks… Okay, you know what? MARIO’S doing much better right now! I mean… when fans requested… when fans requested a 3D environment classic mario game… Nintendo frickin’ did it! Why can’t Sega be the same?! I thought when Sonic Lost World was announced, it was a 3D environment Classic Sonic game! But guess what? Instead, we get Super Sonic Galaxy!

      1. Okay, I’m sorry, I’m sorry, that… okay I actually like Sonic Lost World, I’m sorry. I’m just getting frickin’ worked up because of you Sonic haters! Holy frickin’ fricks! It just makes me SO MAD!! You frickin’ fricks just ruined everything with your frickin’ Adventure fantasies! YOUR FRICKIN adventure fantasies… You frickin’ fricks ruined everything… You frickin’… Your fantasies… WE CAN’T GET A SONIC 2006 SEQUEL YOU IDIOTS! ‘CAUSE THAT’S WHAT ruined sonic in the first place… You frickin’ fricks! YOU GUYS HAVE TO RUIN EVERYTHING!!! I HATE YOU FRICKIN’ TROLLS!!! FRICK YOU!!!

  30. Please, Sonic fans, I beg of you. Please stop supporting Sonic Adventure 3, and support my idea of a 3D platforming Classic Sonic game! PLEASE!!! Please… please, all Sonic fans out there, we can assemble, and heal Sonic for good! WE DON’T HAVE TO LISTEN TO THESE ADVENTURE FANTASIZERS! THESE FRICKIN’ FAN FRICKS. YOU DON’T HAVE TO FRICKIN’ LISTEN TO THEM! PLEASE SONIC FANS, PLEAASE! STOP SUPPORTING SONIC ADVENTURE 3! STOP RUINING SONIC! YOU FRICKIN’ FAN FRICKS RUINED SONIC! FRICK! FRICK! * OH FRICK! FRICK, FRICK! THIS IS FRICKIN’ STUPID! CURSE YOUUU! CURSE YOU SONIC FANBASE!

    1. I have no idea what the backstory is here, but I’m guessing the internet just spouted a fresh gusher of fan wank.

    2. This is the most passionate anyone has ever been about a hedgehog since Joe Biden’s “indiscretion” a couple years ago.

      (just kidding)

    3. Okay HM, you officially wrote so much that I can’t be bothered to read it. Congrats. Have a cookie.

      1. If it’s oatmeal raisin, God help you.

    4. These Agile Cyborg rants are getting really abstract.

      1. Shawn Kemp and his 13 kids are unstoppable! At the China Buffet…

  31. Playing some DOS 2 EA. I’m liking it so far. No voice acting yet, but the soundtrack and game play are excellent so far. Buggy, bug soup, tasty bug soup. I want to kill … and that makes me know this is a good RPG.

    1. Playing some DOS 2 EA.

      english?

      Dungeons of Slutty 2: Extraterrestrial-Anal?

      1. EA had some great games on DOS and C-64.

        1. I looked it up.

          Divinity: Original Sin 2 is out now on Early Access

          I, like any reasonable person, make judgements about games entirely from screenshots, and it looks like “Dragon age” to me.

          that was the last… what do they call games like this – isometric? no, that’s not it. Anyway, 3rd person? when they’re little …like… army-men sized…. fuck it, you know what i mean.

          I only like RPG’s where you get to be really evil and enslave people and/or blow up their homes with nuclear weapons. Ergo, Fallout 3 was the last decent game i’ve ever played.

          1. There was a recent indie title set in the cyberpunk genre that was like that. It got a lot of critical acclaim, but I can’t remember the title. The protagonist is some redhead chick.

              1. No, not Shadowrun. I’ll see if I can find it.

            1. Transistor? It’s got a big dumb Guts sword right?

                1. She seems too cute to be enslaving innocent people

              1. Also Obsidian has a game coming out soon called Tyranny, which is basically a fantasy world where you work for the douchebag evil player character who conquered it.

                1. That looks like a great game!

                2. My complaint about Fallout 4 is that they basically decided to have “3 good-guy endings” rather than have any honest-to-goodness “bad-guy” story options

                  You could argue that the BoS were the baddies, as they let you rob the locals and murder the faction who “liberated slaves (robots)”… but not really. (*the railroad was lame and i never liked their sanctimonious ‘save the robots’ gig)

                  The new “Nuka World” DLC lets you become a leader of raiders, and go out and destroy and conquer the entire settlement network YOU JUST SPENT 100 HOURS BUILDING.. which seems to me to be a completely stupid and pointless ‘tack on’ to the game concept. Its like kicking over your own sandcastles.

                  What they failed to do was make “Being Evil” from the very beginning a potential story-based option. I think any decent RPG should have in its list of speech-choices “Fuck you, give me your money” or something like that. If you don’t ever have any real moral choice in the matter, then there’s no actual “virtue” in doing the right thing anyway. Its pre-determined.

                  Its not that i necessarily always take the Evil route because its better (*in fallout 3 i think i played a good-guy 3 times before doing a “Complete Douchebag” run); it just needs to be an *option*, imo, for any ‘good’ RPG to feel like the choices actually matter to the story.

                  FO3 (and new vegas) pretty much got it right. the new one failed.

                  1. Best stupid evil thing to do in any modern Fallout game:

                    Sell your companion to the cannibals at the Ultra Luxe on the Strip in New Vegas.

                    1. AH! See? I never did that. And it never even occurred to me. Now I need to play it again sometime.

                      Up until now, i’d thought it was “save the child from the mutants, but then sell them to slavers”

            2. Its not in the cyberpunk genre, it just borrows some of the aesthetic. Its more high-magic fantasy than anything.

          2. Play FNV – you can do all that (except blow up a town with nuclear weapons) as you seize control of your very own city-state in a GoTesque political battle.

            And you get to throw a dude off a dam.

          3. It’s a lot like DA, except that the combat is turned based. And like DA, you can zoom all the way out to isometric top down and in to 3rd person.

            Fallout 3 sucks. If you want to play Fallout, NV is the best. 4 is pretty good also.

      2. ‘Dungeons of Slutty 2: Extraterrestrial-Anal’
        Finally, an RPG we can all appreciate.

        1. You should start a kickstarter for that.

    1. Freakity frackin frick fack.

    2. I was specifically referring to you and your fantasies.

      1. Oh, God. What do we do now? Huh? Huh? What do we do now, huh, boy producer? Huh? Mister win-an-Emmy, social-conscience, whale-shit, save-the-rain-forest, peacenik-commie, fuckin’-hire-a-convict-shithead? Huh? What do we do now, liberal, affirmative action, shithead, peacenik commie fuck? What do you want to do now?

        1. What I really want to do now is discuss whether or not if the Thundercats and Silverhawks were supposed to be in the same universe, and if so, what is the temporal relationship between the two series.

          1. You forgot the Tiger Sharks, HM. Clearly, you’re past your expiration date. Please report to the nearest Self-Immolation Centre immediately.

        2. “What do you want to do now?”

          Always with the subservience, CJ?

  32. Well, I stopped playing console games when the controllers started having more buttons than I had thumbs so the last game I played was one of the Donkey Kong games on the Nintendo 64 IIRC – but I’ll pretend to be outraged about a Sonic game if you want. Is there a petition I can sign or a hashtag I can…. hash? I guess? I don’t know what you do with a hashtag. (Wasn’t sure at first if you were talking about Sonic Drive-in or the Seattle Supersonics.)

    1. Top 5 arcade games of yore:

      1. Centipede
      2. Frogger
      3. Dig Dug
      4. Tempest
      5. Defender

      IMHO

      1. Switch out Tempest for Zaxxon and we have a deal.

        1. Disqualified. The correct answer is: “TRON”. You now may commit seppaku forthwith.

          1. You spelled “Galaga” wrong.

      2. What is this…Arc-ade you speak of?

        …Oh, that thing John Connor went to in Terminator 2.

        Why couldn’t they just play their game at home or on their phone?

      3. Styx “Grand Illusion” in the tape deck, Breakout in the Atari, a couple of bowls laid out on the coffee table and next thing you know it’s past midnight. Good times.

      4. 1. Galaga
        2. Galaga
        3. Galaga
        4. Xevious
        5. Galaga

        1. Yes, Xevious!

          And… Gyruss.

          1. And Sinistar.

    2. Who plays console games? That’s for babies. Real gaming is done on a PC.

  33. They’ll be sorry when he deports all the minorities they like to beat.

  34. Gamers: Anybody have an opinion on the post apocalyptic open world horror game 7 Days to Die?

    It’s early access on STEAM. Looks like an epic time sink of crafting and zombie slaying.

    1. That’s the best crafting/building game ever created. It’s very good, I recommend it. And I have 194 hours in it, so I think I’m qualified to comment on it.

  35. I’ve gotten drunk and stoned enough that I’m not able to actually understand other posters. So, get the hell off of my lawn!

  36. Buckeyes look pretty good

    1. I can’t watch the good college teams. The games are just so uninteresting.

      I’m watching UCLA – BYU. UCLA is fun to watch because Rosen is a great QB but the team sucks, so it keeps the games close.

      1. Well I’m a Buckeye fan so I like to watch the development week over week.

        1. Ah, I’m a Jets fan, so we’ve got a bunch of your former players on the team. Although I guess every NFL team could say that.

      2. “I can’t watch the good college teams. The games are just so uninteresting.”

        We’ll see if Playa’s innertoobze connection is working as the evening progresses..

        1. Wifi at the hotel is spotty. I might call on you for assistance.

          1. Playa is gulping down his sculpin right now

            1. Cal wins. Playa is definitely gulping sculpin now.

              1. Oh god. He dropped the ball before the goal line?

              2. They have Sculpin on tap here, but I’m pretty sure the bar is closed.

                1. Thanks to Playa, I am hooked on Sculpin.

        2. Yeah, it’s busted. Do you have the score?

          1. 50-43, Cal. Should have been 57-43. But your guy dropped the ball before he was in the end zone. Apparently, Texas didn’t pick up the ball fast enough, so Cal still had the ball at the 1, and was able to run out the clock.

  37. NY and NJ related or coincidental?

    1. I wonder if the three pipe bombs in NJ actually were pipe bombs or if they were pressure cookers like the NY bombs appear to be.

  38. So I’m listening to news about the bombs that were found/went off in NYC, and I go digging for more information. And this chick just tells me, “It wasn’t terroist”.

    I go, “What do you mean it’s not terrorist? It’s two bombs on a public street. How can it NOT be terrorist? Even if it isn’t Al Qeda or ISIS, it’s terrorist”.

    And she says, “Well, I just looked it up at the BBC, and they say it isn’t terrorist”.

    Well, how do you argue with something like that? If the BBC says that up is down and right is left, then i guess that means it’s no reason to vote for Trump?

    Nah, first thing you do is ask for a link:

    Here’s what the idiots at the BBC have to say:

    “At least 29 people have been injured in an explosion in the Chelsea district of New York City, officials say.

    The cause of the blast late on Saturday remains unclear. Mayor Bill de Blasio described it as “intentional” but said that there were no known links to terror.”

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37399592

    We live in Orwell’s world now. People setting bombs off to murder, maim, and terrorize civilians isn’t “terror” anymore–especially if it means Americans might draw the wrong conclusions about Muslims or support Trump or something, I guess?

    1. Fellow citizen, terrorists are not terrorists. What is your boggle?

      1. I guess they’re holding out hope that they can blame it on Trump, or the militia movement, or Dick Cheney, or somebody?

        Science isn’t a method of inquiry. It’s a collection of pronouncements to be believed because they’re spoken by scientists.

        News isn’t a collection of events and associated facts either. It’s a collection of pronouncements to be believed because they’re spoken by professional journalists.

        And terrorism, likewise, isn’t an attack on civilians meant to spread terror. Oh no! It isn’t terrorism unless it’s perpetrated by a group of people that professional journalists have pronounced terrorists.

        Thinking for themselves, that’s why libertarians get themselves into so much trouble!

        1. Fellow citizen, Demolition Man references are meant to be funny. What is your boggle?

          1. I don’t recognize that shit without three shells references.

            You know how Peter Griffin said that he didn’t like The Godfather because it insists upon itself?

            Demolition Man doesn’t take itself seriously enough.

            I like campy movies. The Angry Breed. You’ve got the original surf Nazis. Mod chick gangs. The whole shin dig. But it takes itself more seriously than Demolition Man.

            Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine doesn’t take itself seriously enough either. Just because it’s campy isn’t enough. It has to take itself seriously enough.

            It’s like the difference between the original Star Trek or Space: 1999. We look at them today, and they seem campy as hell–but they took themselves seriously. Compare that to Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, and that latter show, it’s all tongue in cheek.

            You lose me with that.

            Demolition Man laughs at its own jokes.

            1. Demolition Man doesn’t take itself seriously enough.

              That’s the point. It wasn’t meant to be serious in any way, and yet, it is the most prescient movie of our future.

              1. it is the most prescient movie of our future.

                What happens when nubile Ukrainians eat Taco Bell. Naturally, I blame Chjornobyl. And Heroic Mulatto.) Note the lack of The Three Seashells…

              2. + Idiocracy

    2. “Law enforcement officials said that the device found at the second Chelsea location appeared to be a pressure cooker attached to wiring and a mobile phone”

      It actually says that later in the BBC story!

      What do they mean, “The cause of the blast is unclear”?! They found a motherfuckin’ pressure cooker attached to wiring and a mobile phone!

    3. We’re also not at war in Syria. See, if you say, “Whoops” afterward? Its just an accident when you drop bombs on another nation’s military personnel.

      1. We came, we saw, they died. ::Cackle::

      2. If I were a pilot and Obama had me dropping bombs on Syrian rebels on behalf of Russia, Hezbollah, Erdogan, and Asaid, I might be tempted to accidentally drop bombs on Assad’s forces . . . by accident.

        It was a fuckin’ malfunction is what it was. I don’t know. I just fly these things five days a week. My knee hit a button and somethin’ went boom. That’s all I know.

        Oh, that was Assad’s forces down there? Tell them I’m sorry. Know what, I’ll send ’em a fuckin’ fruit basket, okay?

        1. My issue is that there is absolutely no one in the media saying, “Are we at war w/ Syria or not?”

          The fact that we’re in their country, dropping bombs willy nilly, “occasionally” killing some of the wrong people? Should be provoking questions as to what the actual objectives are, and how current US policy is supposed to be addressing them.

          instead the media has literally given the admin a blank check and said, “We won’t say shit until you tell us how to play it”. And no one finds it the slightest bit odd. (much like your “bombs going off in the middle of a city” = ‘not terror’ until we’re told so)

          1. I appreciate that we should be talking about an authorization for military force.

            Believe it or not, if Obama says ISIS is in any way connected to Al Qaeda, then according the AUMF, he is 100% to do whatever he wants, anywhere in the world, without any further input from Congress.

            Just because we don’t like what the AUMF says doesn’t mean it doesn’t say what it says, and what it says is:

            “The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

            http://tinyurl.com/bl38ta9

            ISIS was once Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda was the organization that planned, authorized, committed, aided, . . .

            They’re covered.

            We need to repeal that stupid authorization already. Not putting a sunset clause on the AUMF was stoopid.

            1. I sincerely doubt the AUMF covers starting a war with Syria

              1. *which being in their territory, and acting unilaterally, is de-facto doing.

                In afghanistan/iraq, we overthrew the govts of the countries we operated in. the current scenario begs an answer as to whether that is in fact what we’re doing in Syria, again.

              2. Well, according to the AUMF, if the President determines Syria in any way helped Al Qaeda, then he is authorized. Not that he’s doing that in Syria now. What they’re doing now is going after ISIS/ISIL, formerly known as AQI.

                If Barack Obama–by himself, using his own judgement–decided that PepsiCo or Ken Shultz were in any way associated with Al Qaeda, then he could use military force against PepsiCo or Ken Shultz citing the AUMF, and if the AUMF is never repealed or sunsetted, then it will remain that way forever.

                In fact, the AUMF has been cited by both Bush and Obama administrations as the authorization for both warrantless wiretapping and NSA surveillance. Who needs a warrant when you have the AUMF? You don’t like me assassinating U.S. citizens with drone strikes, too bad! The AUMF says I have that authorization, bitches!

            2. ISIS was not once ‘al Qaeda’ in Irag. ISIS may not contain some surviving members of that organization though.

              To say its a related organization would be like saying the government of the CIS is just an offshoot of the USSR.

              1. “The group has had various names since it was founded in 1999 by Jordanian radical Abu Musab al-Zarqawi under the name Jam??at al-Taw??d wa-al-Jih?d (lit.?”The Organisation of Monotheism and Jihad”).[37] When in October 2004 al-Zarqawi swore loyalty to Osama bin Laden, he renamed the group Tan??m Q??idat al-Jih?d f? Bil?d al-R?fidayn (lit.?”The Organisation of Jihad’s Base in Mesopotamia”), commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq or AQI.”

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_ State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Historical_names

                Yes, Al Qaeda in Iraq was one of the group’s names.

                They split with Al Qaeda, especially, over AQI’s willingness and enthusiasm for targeting other Muslims, especially Shia. bin Laden and his leadership didn’t want them doing that. When they split with Al Qaeda, they changed their name–and kept the same leadership. Hell, even if the organization had changed leadership, they’d still be the same organization. Even if Datsun changes their name to Nissan and hires a new CEO, they’re still the same organization.

                1. I may have left off the back-end of a bold tag somewhere.

                  I’m just sayin’.

                2. OK – but in 2004. So its not a group that aided, abetted, supported or any such thing, the 9/11 attack.

            3. No. It doesn’t say “…against anyone associated with those nations,…”

              ISIS can’t possibly fall under that criterion as it didn’t exist in 2001, and is not part of al-Qaeda (in fact they are enemies in most of the Muslim world).

              1. ISIS was founded by Zarqawi in 1999.

                “The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

                —-AUMF

                If the organization that now calls itself ISIS joined with Al Qaeda, then the President is absolutely authorized to go after them anywhere in the world–forever.

                Again, just because we don’t like the authorization doesn’t mean it doesn’t say what it says.

                Hell, even if they had never been associated with Al Qaeda, the facts don’t matter according to the authorization. What matters is that the President “determines” they did so. If he’s wrong n his determination, I don’t see in the authorization where that makes any difference. He’s authorized to do what he wants based on his own determination anyway.

                1. Again, just because we don’t like the authorization doesn’t mean it doesn’t say what it says.

                  Except that’s not what it says. You’re making up extra words that are not there. ISIS is not al-Qaeda. Whether they associated with AQ in the past (but after 9/11) is irrelevant.

                  Hell, even if they had never been associated with Al Qaeda, the facts don’t matter according to the authorization. What matters is that the President “determines” they did so.

                  I agree that the wording is open to all sorts of abuse, but the president hasn’t determined that they did so. If he comes out with a determination that ISIS went back in time and planned the 9/11 attacks, then under the law he has authorization for military force, yes. But he hasn’t done that, so he doesn’t.

                  1. “Except that’s not what it says. You’re making up extra words that are not there. ISIS is not al-Qaeda. Whether they associated with AQ in the past (but after 9/11) is irrelevant.”

                    You keep ignoring words in the AUMF (and facts)–apparently because you don’t like them.

                    If the President determines that ISIS/AQI is Al Qaeda, then the President already has all the authorization he needs to do whatever he wants.

                    And it doesn’t matter whether we think that’s the way it should be or whether his interpretation is correct–according to the AUMF, it’s all up to his personal determination.

                    If we don’t want it to be that way anymore, then we have duly elected representatives who can repeal that legislation whenever they want. They haven’t repealed it, so that’s the way it is.

                    Pretending that things are other than the way they are because we don’t like the way they are is Tony territory. That’s the way progressives operate. It isn’t just intellectually dishonest either. The problem is that when people come to imagine that there isn’t any problem with the AUMF, it makes them less likely to repeal it.

                    1. And the AUMF needs to be repealed for a number of reasons.

                      1) It’s the basis of Obama’s claim to be able to execute American citizens without a trial. Just because we don’t like that the AUMF says Obama can kill any American citizen anywhere in the world for being affiliated with Al Qaeda whenever he wants doesn’t mean that the AUMF doesn’t say what it says.

                      If the President determines by his own criteria that an American citizen is affiliated with Al Qaeda, then he can have that person executed without any further qualification.

                      2) It’s the basis for both the Bush and Obama administrations’ claim that they can do mass surveillance. As long as the President is looking for persons affiliated with Al Qaeda, in his own judgement, he is authorized to use all “necessary and appropriate force” against those persons.

                      I can only think of one instances where the Supreme Court limited the President’s war powers as commander in chief after he was authorized to wage war. It’s a hard thing to get the Court to do–especially when Congress can repeal or sunset the war authorization whenever they like and have chosen not to do so.

                      Rand Paul has been trying to introduce legislation to repeal the AUMF for years.

                      No takers.

                    2. 3) It’s an open ended, blank check for the President to wage war at his own discretion for eternity without a sunset clause.

                      If we don’t like those things, then the solution is not to pretend it says something other than what it says. The solution is not to pretend that ISIS isn’t AQI or that it matters what the facts are as we see them rather than what the President says. The solution is to repeal the AUMF, and if my fellow libertarians are unwilling to face reality on the issue, how will we ever convince the rest of the country to do for libertarian reasons?

                    3. If we don’t like those things, then the solution is not to pretend it says something other than what it says.

                      I think you’ve misunderstood the entire point of the argument i’ve made.

                      Its not about the “authorization” that the administration has for waging war (or not)

                      its the fact that they’re waging a war without acknowledging it as such. its the fact that the “political cost” is Zero. When the US acted in Afghanistan or Iraq, it did so with an acknowledgement of the (general) objectives and at least some degree of owership for what it was doing. and there was a public acknowledgement that the end-goal was regime-change.

                      Obama is doing the same shit in syria, but pretending that all he’s doing is babysitting some very amorphous “humanitarian conflict”

                      What they’re actually doing now is closer to what the US did in Central America in the 1980s; intervening in other nation’s affairs while pretending they’re not.

                      My point is mainly about the mendaciousness of the Administration and the press, and their ability to basically “have their war for free”. The US gets to pretend it isn’t at all responsible for the status quo, while being deeply deeply invested in it.

                    4. It’s the fact that they’re waging a war without acknowledging it as such.

                      Obama actually tried to do the right thing to get an authorization to go after the Syrian government. He was rejected, and it became a big source of embarrassment.

                      That’s why his “red line” statement on Syria was such a joke.

                      Later, Obama went to Congress to seek an authorization (that they didn’t really need) to go after ISIS, specifically, but they couldn’t get that either.

                      The Atlantic basically gets it right in this article:

                      http://tinyurl.com/qb6mbpw

                      The only people who would criticize Obama for doing something unconstitutional is the Republicans, but the establishment Republicans aren’t about to complain about Obama going after ISIS.

                      So, you know, the honest liberal went the way of the dodo bird.

                    5. “The White House, after a long delay, sent Congress a proposed authorization for the use of military force in February. (The AUMF has become the modern-day equivalent of a declaration of war.) Never mind that the U.S. military had already been bombing ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria for half a year, nor that those airstrikes have continued throughout the two months that Congress has spent reviewing the three-page proposal.

                      In the last week, the top two Republican leaders in the House have confirmed that Obama’s war proposal is going nowhere, and lawmakers are in no hurry to pass an alternative. Kevin McCarthy, the majority leader, told reporters the administration’s draft simply could not garner the 218 votes it needed to pass the House. In effect, the president had invited Congress both to approve and to limit his authority to take on ISIS. The proposal’s prohibition of the use of “enduring offensive ground combat operations” was intended to draw support from war-weary Democrats, but it ran into opposition from Republican leaders who didn’t want to constrain the military. And with liberals complaining that even that language was too broad, it seems nearly impossible that Congress will achieve a consensus on exactly what it wants to allow Obama to do.

                      . . .

                    6. . . .

                      The whole exercise has bordered on the absurd. A quick recap: The administration has argued all along that it doesn’t actually need new authorization for the war, because the 2001 and 2003 resolutions that Congress passed?and never repealed?allow for military action against ISIS as a terrorist group that branched off from Al Qaeda in Iraq. Speaker John Boehner demanded for months that Obama submit a formal proposal, but when the White House finally did, he left it for dead.

                      Aides to the speaker told me on Wednesday that GOP leaders are “still interested in passing an AUMF, but we want a real, robust AUMF that reflects a real, over-arching strategy to accomplish what the president says is the goal: destroying ISIS.” Obama’s proposal, they said, “actually provides him with less authority” than the existing war resolutions Congress passed in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001.”

                      —-The Atlantic

                      http://tinyurl.com/qb6mbpw

                    7. The thing to draw from this is that if you don’t want the United States to invade Syria with ground troops, sparking another Iraq style quagmire, then you don’t want a Congressional authorization specifically for Syria.

                      We tend to think that disengagement would mean our own preferences would prevail if not for the present situation, but that may be a cognitive bias.

                      I’ve known and talked to Muslims who imagined that if the United States broke off its relationship with Israel, then the Israeli government would start treating the Palestinians with respect. It didn’t seem to occur to them that if the United States broke off its relationship with Israel, then Israel would have little incentive not to wipe the Palestinian people from the face of the earth.

                      Our preferred position often seems like it should be the default position, but when the default position isn’t our preferred position, the outcome may not be what we prefer.

                    8. Thus, if Obama seriously seeks another authorization from Congress to fight ISIS in Syria, the outcome from that would NOT be a rejection of another ground war in Iraq and Syria. The authorization he got (and future presidents inherited) would be an explicit encouragement to invade Syria with American ground troops and engage in nation building to an even bigger and more dangerous extent than what we did in Iraq (Iraq cost thousands of American lives and $2.4 trillion in taxpayer money).

                      Constitutionally, Obama doesn’t need a new authorization to fight ISIS–he’d probably need one to fight the Syrian government. He sought a new authorization that would explicitly prohibit the use of ground troops–but his request was rejected (without bringing it to a vote) specifically because the authorization he sought prohibited the use of ground troops.

                      If that’s our default scenario (authorizing the invasion of Syria), then Obama is doing the right thing. He’s even doing the constitutional thing because he already has the AUMF. The thing that will keep Obama from doing anything in Syria isn’t seeking a new authorization or a new declaration of war from Congress. The thing that will keep Obama from doing anything more in Syria is to repeal the AUMF he already has–but few in Congress outside of Rand Paul are willing to do that.

                    9. If the President determines that ISIS/AQI is Al Qaeda, then the President already has all the authorization he needs to do whatever he wants.

                      Which he hasn’t, so he doesn’t.

                    10. Re: Syrian war and the media:

                      Martin Luther King Jr. ? ‘Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.’

      3. Any ideas on what would happen if a Russian plane “accidentally” dropped bombs on a position held by US troops?

        1. What’s “fair” have to do with anything?

          1. Are you responding to the wrong comment?

    4. I see it like Schrodinger’s cat.

      It isn’t terrorism until the links become known. But either way…

      1. Terrorism is about targeting civilians.

        If somebody targeted random civilians with improvised bombs, then it’s terrorism no matter who did it.

        It doesn’t matter if the Future Farmers of America did it to protest the cancellation of their ice cream social, it’s still terrorism.

        If some guy set up two shrapnel bombs to take out his ex-wife, maybe it isn’t terrorism.

        1. “Update 1:10 AM ET: In a press briefing, police officials confirmed that the suspect made “references to Allah” while conducting the terrorist attack and “asked at least one person if they were Muslim when they assaulted them.””

          Ken, this would be the stabbings in Minnesota.

          1. “Anderson said the attacker, who was armed with a knife, reportedly made references to Allah during the attack and asked at least one person whether they were Muslim. But Anderson pointedly declined to call the attacks an act of terrorism, saying the motive isn’t yet known.”

            1. “Well, Watson, this is a case involving no little difficulty. What is the significance of these facts? The attacker goes around stabbing people, refers to Allah, and asks people if the are Muslim. How do all these circumstances fit together?”

              1. “Indeed, Holmes, this is a most perplexing…”

                “Shut up, Watson, I was being sarcastic. Damn, I need more cocaine.”

            2. Someone took their tent?

    5. We’ll know it’s “terror” terror if and when the passive voice makes its first appearance. “A bomb was placed”, “shards were projected into the victim”, etc.

  39. http://globalguerrillas.typepa…..urope.html

    Really interesting piece on the effects of terrorism on Europe. It turns out, unsurprisingly, that a lot of small attacks have a much greater effect on a society and an economy than one or a few really big black swan events like 911.

    The Libertarian response to terrorism seems to be to ignore it because even under the worst conditions the number of people actually harmed by terrorism is a very small proportion of society as a whole. The problem with that position is that people will not just ignore terrorism. They are naturally risk adverse and to expect them to ignore such things is just not realistic.

    Expecting people to ignore a series of even small terrorist attacks and thus avoid the effects such attacks have on society and the economy is every bit as unrealistic as expecting people to work for the collective in a socialist system. Libertarians understand that human nature being what it is makes socialist expectations that people will continue to work and create when the benefits of such go to the collective not to the producer completely unrealistic and absurd. Well, human nature being what it is makes Libertarian expectations about people’s reaction to terrorism just as unrealistic and absurd.

    1. That people are collectively stupid and irrational is no great revelation. In fact, the whole point of having a Bill of Rights is to prevent said collective of idiots from trampling others with democracy whenever they get scared.

      Europeans do not have that tradition in their political histories and cultures so I think it’s fallacious to compare that with American society.

      Democrats are trying to use fear of terrorism to push for greater gun control. Should we just give in because we acknowledge that this is normal and understandable?

      1. That people are collectively stupid and irrational is no great revelation.

        It most certainly is to Libertarians, at least on the subject of terrorism. And if anyone is stupid it is the people who pretend that you can get people to act based on mathematical calculation of individual risk, especially when the people advocating that are the least likely to lose the bet.

        Europeans do not have that tradition in their political histories and cultures so I think it’s fallacious to compare that with American society.

        We are talking about human nature not culture. I fail to see why Americans are as a group any more or less rational as you see it than anyone else. People’s nature is what it is. You just want to pretend otherwise and can’t think of a good reason beyond “but it is Europe” as if that self evidently matters.

        Democrats are trying to use fear of terrorism to push for greater gun control. Should we just give in because we acknowledge that this is normal and understandable?

        No. We should understand that “suck it up and take your chances” is not an answer and trying to pretend that it is accomplishes nothing except ceding the field to people who have some answer no matter how bad that answer is. Democrats are doing that. And sadly, Libertarians are as useless as tits on a bore in answering the challenge posed by that.

        1. It most certainly is to Libertarians, at least on the subject of terrorism. And if anyone is stupid it is the people who pretend that you can get people to act based on mathematical calculation of individual risk, especially when the people advocating that are the least likely to lose the bet.

          The fuck? How am I less likely to be killed by a terrorist than you? I live in the nation’s 6th largest city.

          We are talking about human nature not culture. I fail to see why Americans are as a group any more or less rational as you see it than anyone else. People’s nature is what it is. You just want to pretend otherwise and can’t think of a good reason beyond “but it is Europe” as if that self evidently matters.

          Why do people like Rand Paul and Ron Wyden keep getting elected if people are that scared of terrorists?

          No. We should understand that “suck it up and take your chances” is not an answer and trying to pretend that it is accomplishes nothing except ceding the field to people who have some answer no matter how bad that answer is. Democrats are doing that. And sadly, Libertarians are as useless as tits on a bore in answering the challenge posed by that.

          This is as asinine as saying libertarians cede the field to socialists on issues like addressing poverty or to prohibitionists on drug abuse. It’s so stupid and inexplicable given that you really ought to know better I don’t even feel like getting into how stupid it is.

          1. You are ceding the field. You are pretending that human nature is something other than it is. You are no different than a socialist who claims that people can be changed such that they will work for the collective. Your answer is completely fucking asinine. Hey everyone just stopping acting like people and be something other than what you are. You are no brighter on this issue than a socialist is on economics and scarcity. Socialists want to pretend that there is such a thing as a free lunch and you want to pretend that terrorism really won’t work if we just believe hard enough.

            I am not surprised you have resorted to name calling. The truth hurts.

      2. How about coming up with some feasible antiterrorist ideas, like training civilians in the use of firearms, etc?

        1. Yes. But doing things like that requires admitting that terrorism is a problem that needs some measure of a collective solution.

        2. Libertarians are suddenly opposed to more people learning how to use guns?

          1. No, They are just opposed to them giving some thought about who to use them on. Libertarians are all about self defense and civilians taking control right up until they start doing that in way Libertarians don’t like, which they inevitably will.

            1. No, They are just opposed to them giving some thought about who to use them on. Libertarians are all about self defense and civilians taking control right up until they start doing that in way Libertarians don’t like, which they inevitably will.

              Well that’s not an ominous statement. Tell me, who should civilians buying guns be thinking about using them on?

            2. Pretty sure libertarians support using guns in self-defense against terrorists during a terror attack.

        3. Depends on where the money for that program comes from.

          If it’s privately funded, we can get to work on it this minute with no politics required.
          If it’s taxpayer funded, libertarianism would be against it.

          1. If it’s taxpayer funded, libertarianism would be against it.

            Yes they would. And that is one of the reasons why they are so stupid and worthless on this issue.

            1. When are you going to get it? Doing anything about muslim terrorism is stupid because of stats and collectivizing.And all u people who disagree are mouth breathing, pants shitting yokel bigots.

            2. Whoa whoa whoa. You’re saying that you support taking money at gunpoint from taxpayers and using it to subsidize gun training?

              Without even considering whether gun training is really going to be useful against most terror attacks, how are you any better than the leftists who want to take taxpayer money by force and use it to support the activities leftists like?

  40. The interesting thing about the police union endorsing Trump has nothing to do with Trump. What is interesting is that it shows that the Obama coalition of racial identity politics, public sector unions, and the white gentry Progressives, can’t hold. Eventually the diametrically opposed interests of the various groups in the Obama coalition was going to show itself. This is just an example of that.

  41. Naive NC Republicans are floating a scheme to repeal H. B. 2 in exchange for Charlotte repealing its Human Rights and Puppies ordinance. That’s the ordinance which tells private businesses what policies they *must* have vis-a-vis employees and customers, and forces them to let men into the ladies’ room and vice versa.

    Fortunately, Charlotte politicians won’t let their adversaries sell out. It’s all or nothing:

    “They do not want compromise.

    “They do not want equality.

    “They want dominance and compliance. The comfort and safety of your wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters mean nothing. They will be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and the LGBT agenda. Period.”

    1. Of course not. They’re winning, thanks to liberal states abusing their power over where their taxpayers’ money is spent and giant non-NC corporations looking to prove how tolerant they are by boycotting NC.

      When just a few people can dictate the laws to every state in the country, that’s a problem. Big business is as much an enemy of freedom as big government.

  42. You Get More of What You Reward, Part 987,346,123

    Everybody wants to be a part of it and I feel like it’s no different on our team,” Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins told Glen Macnow of WIP in Philadelphia on Friday, via CSNPhilly.com. “We got guys, especially myself, who feel very strongly about the topic. Last week, we talked about doing some stuff, but we wanted to make sure we didn’t do anything to take away from the folks, the families, that suffered from 9-11. We didn’t want to mess with that day, so we left last week alone. But moving forward, I’m sure there will be guys that will probably join in.”

    Jenkins said he possibly will be one of the players who participate in the demonstration.

    “For me, it has nothing to do with this country or the flag or the anthem in itself,” Jenkins said. “Really, it’s just to continue to push for the conversation about social injustice. And that’s a range of things from police brutality to wages and job opportunities to education.

    …”And life is precious, and god, and the bible

    1. “So”, followed up the sports journalist, looking askance at the man who is paid millions to play a game with a ball once a week, “You feel there’s some inequity in …wages?, then. And your ‘demonstration’ does what about that, exactly?”

      “Yeah, and you know, sitting during the one day a week we work, it uh, you know, sends a message. To the youth and stuff. Also, Education and shit.”

      The journalist adjusts his tie, remembering that this player had attended played for Stanford, while he himself had worked 2 jobs to get through a state-college…

      “…and your team-mates; they all discovered their social-conscience… at the same time?”

      “I mean, well, yeah. I mean we like saw this bench-riding motherfucker was all over the news and shit, and its like…. hey, Justice is like important, you know.”

      “So i guess maybe that whole “Visiting Sick Kids In the Hospital” thing once a year was getting old?”

      “Fuck yeah, man, and it aint like nobody pays any attention during the commercials when they tell them about that anyway. My agent says this shit is ‘Trending’, whatever that means, so, tough for the Cancer-Kids, but hey, it is what it is, you know”

      1. I suppose it will be interesting to see how long the NFL tolerates it. At some point they will certainly decide that pissing off half their fans and allowing their brand to be tarnished is not worth silly notions like “they’re free to do what they want during the anthem”.

        1. Correlation does not of course necessarily mean causation. But viewership was down anywhere from three to eight percent across the board during week 1 of the NFL season.

          http://awfulannouncing.com/201…..-peak.html

          How much of that is a result of this nonsense is anyone’s guess. It is however a pretty good bet that some of it was. The NFL is nuts not to put a stop to this nonsense.

          1. It’s a damned if you do-damned if you don’t situation. If they did put a stop to it BLM would be all over them. They would probably have a bigger PR problem if they did crack down.

            Of course the NFL is completely hypocritical when they claim to respect different viewpoints, seeing as how they threatened to pull events from Charlotte and Indianapolis over the religious freedom laws.

            1. I think the financial calculus favors not losing millions of fans who are tired of BLM’s antics.

              1. In my experience? It pays to do what assholes favor rather than good-natured people favor, because the latter won’t hold it against you as much.

    2. If you haven’t seen the new South park yet…. they handled this perfectly

      1. Oh, and I believe their take on trump re: the election may be dead on.

  43. Ken Shultz: News isn’t a collection of events and associated facts either. It’s a collection of pronouncements to be believed because they’re spoken by professional journalists.

    Dang, I had started writing a piece the other day and I don’t think I ever posted it – did anybody else see Chris Cuomo on CNN Friday morning all but give the game away? CNN was all Trump Birther, that was not only the most important story, it was the only story on CNN Friday. So they’ve got David Stockman and some other economist they’re interviewing about the economy, and all they want to know is what do they think of the Trump Birther story? So the whole three-minute segment is nothing but the reporter trying to get these two economists to answer the question and the two economists trying to explain that that’s not important and what’s important is the state of the economy and what needs to be done to fix it.

    1. Next segment is Chris Cuomo and two other guys (don’t know who they were) and they start the same shit – all Cuomo wants to know is what they think of the Trump Birther story and they insist it’s not important. Cuomo is clearly agitated. One of the guys says Cuomo is editorializing – and Cuomo gets irritated. He flat out tells the guy that he’s not editorializing, he’s jut reporting the facts, and when the guy tries interrupting to say again that the facts he’s reporting are not important, now Cuomo is pissed. He tells the guy in no uncertain terms that it is important, because if it wasn’t important Chris Cuomo wouldn’t be talking about it. He’s a journalist, dammit, and that’s his job – to report the important facts.

      Cuomo comes this close to just flat out admitting the truth – I’m Chris Cuomo, and I get to decide what’s important and what’s not. And that’s your fundamental media bias right there.

      1. Looks like Cuomo was going off all day.

        Here’s what I found on YouTube:

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

        The guy says Cuomo is editorializing, and Cuomo says he’s just reporting the news.

        The guy responds by saying that Cuomo’s “news” doesn’t have any sources, and Cuomo goes off about how he’s a reporter–and then Cuomo becomes unhinged.

        Nobody but Cuomo, in the studio or watching at home, has any idea what Cuomo is ranting about or why.

        It’s hilarious.

        1. “Le news, c’est moi.”

    2. Stockman sounds like how I felt in the break room Friday. I couldn’t even.

  44. re: the “intentional explosion” in NY……

    Ok, they don’t want to call it terrorism…as if random crowds of civilians are regularly bombed by hooligans who are just bored or having a bad day….. whatever, but

    1. “Intentional” is so obvious as to be fucking insulting to everyone’s intelligence. Was the bombing also loud and painful to those who were injured?

    2. Something tells me the mayor/press/law enforcement would be falling over themselves screaming about right-wing terrorism if the target of the explosion had been a mosque

    1. “At this time there’s no evidence of an international terrorism connection with this incident, but it is very, very early in the investigation, and it’s just starting,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo told reporters Sunday, a day after an explosion injured 29 people in New York City’s Chelsea neighborhood.

      “It depends on your definition of terrorism. A bomb exploding in New York is obviously an act of terrorism, but it’s not linked to international terrorism,” he said.

      WE KNOW NOTHING BUT WE’RE RULING OUT ANYTHING POTENTIALLY UNPOPULAR

      1. A bomb exploding in New York is obviously an act of terrorism, but it’s not linked to international terrorism

        Good. So right-wing terrorism isn’t totally ruled out, yet. Maybe they just want to keep the motive up in the air for as long as possible so they can pretend it’s something they would prefer. Mmmm right wing terrorists.

    2. Re: intentional, I heard a talking head say that well maybe there was some flammable stuff in the garbage can and someone innocently walked by and threw a lit cigarette in it.
      I’m not joking.

      1. How is that not possible. Most explosions are accidents.

    3. Oh come on. There are such things as unintentional explosions.

      1. and they are not called “unintentional explosions” they are called “natural gas explosion” or “Note 7 battery explosion” because people are less inclined to be manipulative douchebags when there is non agenda to be promoted.

    4. I left the radio on overnight, woke up in the wee hours to hear some supposed news pro interpreting the official anmt that the explosion was intentional but that there was yet no way to tell if it was terrorist as a statement that terrorism had been officially ruled out because the explosion was intentional! WTF he think “intentional” means?!

      1. They are showing their bigotry. They are indicating that in their eyes only Muslims are terrorists, so this little event may not be real terrorism.

        They pronounce only terrorism in the term ‘Islamic terrorism.’ The Islamic is understood.

  45. Reporters Point to Compliance With Regulations As Proof Regulations Are Warranted

    Some of the states contesting the rules say they object to strict timelines.

    “The CPP is very dramatic in the speed at which it would require things to happen,” said Chris Nelson, chairman of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission. “If you let the market play out, those things take care of themselves.”

    Texas also has protested the CPP’s timetable, saying it would require the construction of transmission lines that could raise costs for consumers. But the state already has moved heavily into wind and solar in recent years, and is nearing its 2030 goals.

    John Hall, Texas director for EDF and a former environmental regulator for the state, said Texas could profit from the rule, noting the state ranks at the top of the list of wind energy producers and is making big moves into solar.

    “The CPP would enable Texas to make money by exporting wind and solar electricity,” he said.

    How can you complain about Regulations!? Why, these mandates are helping your businesses make money? And sure, some states may not find complying to be a win-win boondoggle which forces consumers to pay for unneeded upgrades/conversions, but that’s probably because they’re poor, and probably racist.

    1. The essence of the story is,

      “regulations which force people to do things they would probably (inevitably) do anyway have no reasonable objections”

      as though regulations which penalize people for failing to mow their laws are completely reasonable, because, well, *you should*, you know? And if anyone complains they’re being told to do it 3 times a week when there’s no need…. well those people are just greedy fat-cat capitalists aren’t they? Don’t they care about those hard-working lawn-inspectors?

    2. How can you complain about Regulations!? Why, these mandates are helping your businesses make money?

      They are when your company lobbyists wrote the regulations.That’s the point.

    3. Reminds me of making a law saying everybody has to buy insurance or get Medicaid, then dancing in the end zone when more people have insurance/Medicaid.

      1. Exactly.

        And it presumes that the regulation is what is affecting the change, as opposed to the market-forces which already make Natural Gas generation far more affordable than it used to be, and incentivizes replacement (for SOME states).

        The *actual* conclusion of the story (if the reporter actually ever asked anyone questions) would be that the industry is getting more green without government involvement at all – and that imposing these arbitrary timelines and mandates is just creating huge amounts of waste and making things more expensive.

  46. Why, it appears SF’s ‘homeless’ problem might be an effect of gov’t regulations!

    “Tiny apartments for homeless hit snags over labor, land”
    […]
    “The main construction unions that would be involved are balking at the fact that Kennedy’s metal boxes would be built in China, not by American union workers, and say they believe building-code requirements are less stringent for modular construction”
    http://www.sfchronicle.com/bay…..337acedb71

    Hey, look over there: darned landlords and tech industries!

    1. I think its funny that the concept of “Rent Seeking” should be so intertwined with (ostensibly) ‘Free Housing’.

      I think Robert Altman would be needed to write a story around that. Scenes in the board room where various city & union interests debate how best to use “Putting homeless people in boxes” as a means to funnel taxpayer money between each other.

      1. I’m waiting for the inevitable complaint that the boxes are “demeaning”.

        1. Like when nyc criminalized SROs.

          Based on 50 years of evidence, using logic and reason, it would be easy to conclude that liberals are trying to hurt poor people.

    2. When your avg 500 sq ft bungalow is 1.5 million dollars and similar sq ft rental is 5000 a month, that might have something to do with it.

  47. Witness Retard-Logic (*Demonstrated Above) In Action

    Suit Filed Against Black Lives Matter by Dallas Cop for Inciting Anti-Police Violence

    Incitement” has very specific requirements. For stupid people, its a handy tool to simply claim that ‘offensive speech’ should be censored/have prior-restraint imposed because of the potential actions of others. Once the idea becomes part of popularized rhetoric among citizens, it takes a split second for the state to agree-wholeheartedly and wield it as a weapon against its own critics.

    *No, retards: making fun of the NFL player’s social-signaling exercises isn’t endorsing a prior-restraint of critics of the state.

    1. I really don’t get inciting laws. Seems to me they were always ripe for abuse.

  48. Reason writers are getting lazier. Isn’t there typically a single thread for Sunday? And now we just get Saturday leftovers?

  49. Luddite Democrats vs Uber

    And in other news, Hillary’s lead down to .07 in today’s RCP avg. And it seems like the media have almost given up on her. They’ve went from screeching race card and health conspiracy theory to near silence.

    1. Have you noticed how reason’s Trumpapolooza has suddenly come to a halt? The election doesn’t seem to be as interesting to the reason staff as it was a month ago for some reason.

    2. Hillary’s lead down to .07 in today’s RCP avg

      I think anything less than the average margin of error (~2-3%) isn’t worth futzing about

      all that matters are the ‘battleground states’ anyway, not the net-polling

      God help anyone who lives in those places. I expect there to be a mountain of examples of voter-fraud accusations and retorts of racist poll-blocking, etc. it will be like Florida 2000 x10

      1. I live in one of those battleground states. I’ve been seeing Hillary ads for about a month if I watch TV for more that a hour hour. I’ve seen a couple of Trump ads. I’m going to have to use DVR a lot and watch a lot of DVDs if I want to watch something without going crazy.

        1. Half hour not hour hour. Maybe I ought to be drinking already.

        2. Hillary-only here in NY. Why she’s wasting her money here is beyond me.

          1. Why she’s wasting her money here is beyond me.

            Wasting money with the ‘right people’ is part of the game.

            NY and CA are guaranteed for the Dems… but they still need to pump lots of cash through their patronage machines, and ensure the ‘influencer’ population remains steeped in their propaganda. Think of all the Brooklyn internet-journalists who dominate millenial media – god forbid they stop being steeped in bias-confirming ideas? They might end up dwelling on the whole “how the DNC fucked Bernie”-thing, and stop berating people on the internet for failing to ‘Stop Trump’.

            1. Perhaps. It’s not like she’s flooding the airwaves. More like, she’s just letting us know we’re in her thoughts.

    3. The Left has played by one rule for a long time, and that rule is “we get to make the rules”. They set the terms of the debate. It’s that “one-way ratchet” – the left is always on offense, the GOP is always on defense. The left can either score a touchdown or the GOP can stop them from scoring a touchdown, but the GOP never gets the ball, never gets a chance to score.

      Look at Obamacare right now – Obama’s plan for universal health care didn’t work out, but if the GOP wants to criticize it it’s incumbent upon them to explain their plan for universal health care. The idea of not having universal health care at all ain’t on the table. Every big proposal the left comes up with “for the children” (or the poor, women, minorities, whatever) – if the GOP opposes it it means they must hate children and if they want to argue they don’t hate children they’d better produce proof in the way of their own big proposal “for the children”.

      1. Trump ain’t playing their game – they don’t get to set the terms of debate, they don’t get to say what we’re going to talk about and how we’re going to talk about it. The media gleefully jumped all over the all-trump-all-the-time format because “everybody look at this clown, listen to the nonsense he’s spewing” worked to draw the eyeballs and the clicks – and now that they got what they asked for and everybody’s looking and listening to Trump, they’ve realized “oh, shit, they’re looking and listening but they ain’t laughing”. They willingly handed the mic to Trump and Trump grabbed it and started talking about what he wanted to rather than what they wanted him to. And now they don’t know how to get their mic back.

        1. If they really wanted to beat Trump, they’d just stop talking about Trump, just ignore him. But they can’t – he draws the eyeballs. If they don’t talk about Trump, what else have they got to talk about? If they were smart, they would realize he isn’t a conventional foe and they can’t use the conventional tactic of attacking his policies and expecting him to spend all his time defending them like they do with every other GOP candidate. Trump is a thin-skinned, petty egomaniac – go after him on a personal level and watch him take the bait. Get him off the topic of his policies, get him talking about his favorite subject Donald Jesus Trump. Criticize his tiny hands, his godawful toupee, his bad breath and his B.O., how cheap and ill-fitting his suits are, how ugly his kids are, what a whore his mother was. That’s the last you ever hear of Trump saying anything substantive.

          1. It’s all about the PC doctrine. It doesn’t work with Trump and that’s why all the hate for him, he’s not playing by the rules.

            1. He’s not playing by the rules, and still losing to somebody who sucks. How pathetic is that?

              1. Actually, according to the LA Times Trump is winning by 4-5 %. He has taken the lead in FL and OH, and is close in PA and MI.

                Trump will win by 5-6 % and take 300 EC votes. He’s in full pander mode right now – and it is working.

          2. Thankfully reason finally realized that the best way to deal with trump is to ignore him.
            This place was unbearable before.

      2. Bull. The left set the narrative in this campaign too, which is that Trump is a hateful misogynist racist bigot, and he’s played into that narrative.

        The race getting tighter has everything to do with Clinton’s collapse and nothing to do with Trump doing anything right. Had either party nominated pretty much anybody else from their primary field, they’d be ahead by double digits.

        1. I don’t think so. Trump is Hitler, just like every other GOP candidate. That worked before because every other candidate has felt the need to prove they’re not Hitler, which not only keeps them busy defending the charge rather than talking about what they want to talk about but also makes the general public think, well, okay, maybe he’s not Hitler but if we’re all spending so much time talking about it there must be some reason to suspect he’s at least Hitlerish.

          Trump has brushed this off because he knows it’s just a tactic they’re using and he ain’t playing that game, the general public has heard the story of The Boy Who Cried Hitler one too many times to pay any attention – and on top of that there’s those who say so what if he’s Hitler? For 50 years the left has been preaching that people have to vote their self-interest. Black people gotta vote black, women gotta vote women, gays gotta vote for gay interests, poor people for poor people’s interests…. And now you’ve got white people voting white people’s interests and suddenly that’s not cool? Fuck you. You said those were the rules and we’re playing by your rules. I’m a straight white male, I’m voting for the straight white male candidate who’s looking out for straight white males – just like you told me to.

          1. Trump is Hitler, just like every other GOP candidate

            One of the few actually-interesting hand-wringing editorials from the NYT focuses on exactly this conundrum = Dems so used to calling “everyone” a racist and a nazi, now find that their rhetoric falls on mostly-deaf ears.

            iow, ‘Crying Wolf’ has a cost.

            The part the editorial doesn’t quite address is the false impression that the media has created… that presidents are so all-important, that a given win or loss either means the imminent end-of-the-world or its avoidance; it basically perpetuates that idea regardless.

            1. No, you see, now the Republicans are double-secret racists.

    4. Which means that any other GOP candidate would be ahead by double digits.

      1. Well, none of them could come close to beating Trump in the primaries, so it’s a moot point.

        1. Hardly moot. It means the Trumpists fucked the GOP and by extension, the country. They need to repent or be purged from the party once this election is over.

          If they want to form a third party around Trump, they’re more than welcome. Let a thousand flowers bloom, even the ones that smell like ass.

          1. You poor deluded silly bastard.

            They ain’t purging the Trumpistas – they’re purging the NeverTrumps.

            1. We shall see. If the GOP becomes the party of Trump, I’ll happily purge myself from it.

          2. Hardly moot. It means the Trumpists fucked the GOP and by extension, the country. They need to repent or be purged from the party once this election is over.

            So the Trump supporters need to ‘repent or be purged’ based off of a vague hypothetical possibility that you believe to be likely but have no actual evidence of because it never happened…

            Alternate history based purely on your own assumptions and bias, that’s a winning argument.

            1. “I don’t know whether sticking my finger into that spinning lawnmower blade was a mistake, because the world where I didn’t stick my finger into it is just a hypothetical alternative reality, with no evidence of whether I lose my finger in it”

              1. “I have absolutely zero evidence that any other Republican candidate would actually be ahead by double digits, in fact it can be equally said that they’d be doing just as bad or worse as the media constantly dogpiles them and they fight on an ineffectual defensive. Of course I have plainly shown my dislike for Trump in my posting history, and there is no possible way that I am fantasizing about the possibilities of other republican candidates to try an validate my own emotional response.

                I’m now going to be stupid enough to claim that my vague predictions about extremely complex political interactions is exactly the same as knowing a verifiable simple outcome that can actually be supported by evidence and experimentation.”

          3. They need to repent or be purged from the party

            Your opinions seem reasonable when taken generically. I think I’ll listen to you.

      2. You’re an idiot. They made milqutoast Romney into a misogynistic wife and puppy killer, not to mention Ryan as a grandma killer.
        They’d be having a field day vs booooooosh or cruz.

        1. No shit, you could put Jesus Christ come to earth in front of the Democrats and they would employ the exact same tactics, you’re a racist, xenophobe, homophobe, blahblahblah. The only reason they are going extra insane about Trump is that he won’t play their game. Bush would have been nothing but a 24/7 apology and blubbering pussy. Cruz is a SoCon and that’s not electable these days.

          That’s why the GOP has Trump, basically because despite all of his faults, he’s not a pussy or an evangelist SoCon.

  50. http://nypost.com/2016/09/18/b…..-new-poll/

    Trump saw a 16.5 percentage-point increase in backing from African-American voters in a Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California tracking poll, up from 3.1 percent on Sept. 10 to 19.6 percent through Friday.

    Meanwhile, the same poll showed Clinton’s support among that group plummeting from 90.4 percent on Sept. 10 to 71.4 percent.

    If this is even half true, holy cow. Yet, a shit ton of conservative journalists are convinced Trump is making the GOP into a white nationalist party. Really?

    1. The same poll has Trump 6 points ahead of Clinton among all voters. That screams outlier.

      We’ll see if other polls agree.

    1. I love how the political professionals forever blame every loss and credit every win to get out the vote efforts. It never seems to occur to anyone that the success of failure of getting out the vote is directly tied to the appeal of whatever candidate is making the effort.

      1. That’s because GOTV is the consultant apparatchik’s gravy train

    2. Trip Gabriel sounds like the name of an Elmore Leonard villain.

    3. I love the citation of some academic as a “political scientist”

      this ‘unclarified’ statement was sort of interesting =

      Representative Alcee L. Hastings, Democrat of Florida, said recently that the Clinton advertising push was a failure.

      “You give us $22 million, and I’ll produce more votes for you than a damn television ad,” Mr. Hastings told a meeting of Democrats, arguing that television does not reach young voters.

      I can only presume he intends some combination of “Viral Videos/Animated GIFs” and a Free-Weed/Voter-registration push

      I don’t know if that’s on top of the normal, “buses from the ghetto to the polling station”, or a replacement for it, or what.

      1. A good voting machine hack only costs a few mil, Hastings will just pocket the rest.

      2. He might mean “walkin’ around money”.

        1. Yeah, that’s what i initially took it to mean.

          i thought the suggestion he could ‘buy millenial votes’ was funnier tho. While he might say that’s the reason, the reality is probably closer to what you suggest.

    4. Hillary is going to lose FL and OH. I think the contest comes down to PA and at this point, it looks like they are determined to drag Hillary’s bloated corpse across the finish line.

      It will be interesting to see what happens in 4 years of a presidency where a president is ruling from the shadows because they’re too sick to appear in public most of the time. I look for Hillary to completely disappear from public for months at a time and for the media to spin all manner of twisted fabrications to cover it up. I think if she dies, we might not even know it for 6 months and only then because some Wiki leak spills out and the media finally has to concede that the queen is dead.

      1. Possibly. But then again there might be something really interesting in the next batch of Wikileaks that drops her a few more points. If Trump gets Colorado, Nevada and NC he probably won’t need PA.

      2. “It will be interesting to see what happens in 4 years of a presidency where a president is ruling from the shadows because they’re too sick to appear in public most of the time.”

        See Wilson, Woodrow.

  51. Zurich is “green” and nobody can afford to live there. I’m sure that’s totally a coincidence.

    1. I was shocked how much more expensive it was when I finally made it back this year (hadn’t been since 1997). It is bigger and busier too.

      1. Interesting. Everything is way more expensive than NYC – except rent. With rent, it’s a wash.

  52. MSNBC reports that Pepe the frog is a white nationalist symbol:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo48WDMXqoE
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im2V2tgfB1Y

    Meanwhile, people are appalled that Trump’s son killed endangered dinosaurs on safari hunt:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc4Mi4ocyDw

    1. I dunno… his top-hat says “orphan mines” more than “white power”.

  53. Black lives take note! Maybe now those large bore handgun blasters the NYT wanted issued to police–because regular firearms are useless against “cocaine negroes”–will finally be issued with the new License to Kill. Those stories were first published a week before the vote on the Harrison “Narcotic” Act. The remake version should be hitting the streets of New York about the last week of October.

    1. Cocaine Negroes is a good name for a Blackface minstrel show Ike Turner tribute band.

  54. ISIS claims responsibility for MN mall attack
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/18/…..index.html

    Cuomo admits NYC bombing an act of terrorism:
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/18/…..index.html

    1. ISIS claims responsibility when my cat pukes on the carpet.

      1. Proves the Minnesota stabber was a lone wolf. I guess.

      2. “THE HEART OF THE GODLESS INFIDEL HAS BEEN STRUCK!! ALLAH PRAISE THE GLORIOUS EFFORTS OF BROTHER (checks notes) FUZZY NUMKINS. THE OPERATION SHOWS THE CRUSADER THAT NOWHERE IS HE SAFE FROM THE JIHAD. WE SALUTE ALL OF OUR FELINE COMRADES, AND SHARE THEIR DISGUST FOR THE ZIONIST IMPERIALIST”

        1. AL-HAMDU ‘LILLAH, THE ZOOK STAINS THEIR CARPETS!!!!

      3. So you think your cat self-radicalized?

        1. She hasn’t visited Syria that I know of.

          1. She sleep on your Persian rug?

      4. Cat probably thinks it’s doing you a favor, because the vomit can be “buried” in the “soft ground”, rather than just sitting on a hard surface.

        1. At this stage in their lives, they just let loose wherever they happen to be.

    2. Have they banned knives yet?

      1. No but a CCW holder took him out so it is a double narrative strike bonus.

        1. He was some kind of off duty part time cop. So the narrative I’m seeing is hero in blue, not ccw holder saves the day.
          Fuck.

          1. at least he did the right thing

    3. When and where is this anti-Muslim backlash coming? They’ve been predicting this horseshit for fifteen years now.

      Maybe you’re less worried about anti-Muslim backlash than they are more Islamic attacks.

  55. FOP is an example of an organization that should be disbanded and made illegal.

  56. So for the last month there was like one Saturday thread and several Sunday threads. This week there’s a bunch of Saturday threads and no Sunday thread.

    How am I supposed to plan my weekend?

    I can’t even. Can you even?

    1. Sunday cocktail parties to blame. Bored Reasonoids hardest hit.

    2. Sunday is the day of rest, you godless sodomite heathens. Robby’s got Sunday School for most of the morning and then family time for the rest of the day.

      1. Hunting helps sterngthen the herd by culling the slow and the old and the sick and the weak. You’re doing God’s work, my son.

        You know who’s old and sick and weak right now? God’s work, my son.

    3. It’s this or Sheldon Richman article + Dalmia repost. I know which I prefer!

      Though it would be more convenient if someone queued up “It is Sunday. What are libertarian implications of 7-day week?” two-paragrapher or something along those lines, just to keep the thread from exploding.

      1. Taking one day with another, the commentariate here is more interesting than the staff anyway.

      2. It would be more convenient if we had Libernet-d, or any number of open-ended, peer-to-peer forums like that.

  57. Zombies are real!

    WTF? Is she being kept alive with vampire blood and formaldehyde? That pneumonia really takes a toll on you!

    1. Having a worn out, extremely tired looking Clinton standing next to a ‘Stronger Together’ poster is a pretty apt metaphor for her campaign. We’ve got the group-tested media branding claiming one thing while we can plainly see the Cryptkeeper in front of us.

    2. Imagine how crazy Trump must be to hear about the explosion in New York and think it was a bomb. New York garbage bins are famous for spontaneously erupting and injuring a couple of dozen people.

      Trump being himself New Yorker certainly knew that and should have kept quiet until the experts figured out what went on.

      Imagine a guy this impulsive holding the nuclear war remote control in his small hands. I am at the point of incontinence just thinking about it.

      1. Why couldn’t he just let New Yorkers enjoy their gelato?

    3. How does a new-aggregator i’ve never heard of get 4000 comments on that sort of thing in one day?

      1. “news”-aggregator…

        1. Nudes aggregator needed

      2. I see that sort of thing at the derp-sites you masochists post and wonder who the hell has the time to read all that? Or do they just drive-by post?

  58. LOL – OT

    Hyperion|9.17.16 @ 10:16PM|#

    Playing some DOS 2 EA.

    GILMORE?|9.17.16 @ 10:33PM|#

    I looked it up.

    “Divinity: Original Sin 2 is out now on Early Access”

    Just saw this from last night. I didn’t pay much attention to the original comment – I just assumed that EA was EA and DOS was DOS. I assumed EA Games had put out a catalog of some of their console games in a format that could be played on a computer with an emulator and that’s what Hyperion was doing.

    1. I’ve pretty much sworn off early access games. But Larian is a solid developer, I trust them to actually finish this and for it to be good. It’s pretty buggy right now as to be expected. I just liked the first DOS so much I had to check this out.

      1. The original DOS or DOS EE? DOS EE is much more polished and fully voiced.

      2. Just be careful about those follow-ons… Don’t want to be DDOS’d.

  59. This should put the nail in the coffin of the idea that any libertarian should support Trump.

  60. Trump, Trump, Trump of Team Red
    Friend to you and me!

    ‘YUUUU-UUUUU-UUUUUGE!

    Watch out for that tree!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaXWy-HQefc

  61. from a youtube comment:

    I am the very model of a social justice warrior
    I want to ban free speech from each and every college corridor
    I know I’m a progressive, and I think that I’m above reproach
    And on the rights of others I’ve no shame at all when I encroach;
    I’m very well acquainted too with all matters grammatical
    I understand which words are fine and which are problematical,
    About the gender theories I’m teeming with a lot of lies —
    With innacurate claims about the behavior of college guys.

    I’m very good at victimhood and blaming the establishment,
    I know how to protest to bring about a change in management;
    In short, I want to ban free speech in every college corridor
    I am the very model of a social justice warrior!

    1. That’s pretty good. Youtube?!

  62. C. Martin Croker, voice of Zorak and Moltar and lead animator of Space Ghost Coast to Coast, has died suddenly at 54.

    🙁

    1. Must’ve owed Hilary Clinton money.

    2. Croker croaks.

    1. Damn, Bill Deblasio’s kid really let himself go.

    1. A 20 ton, 33-foot whale was emaciated? Just an off-the-cuff calculation shows the fat bastard had a BMI that put him at about eight-and-a-half tons overweight. Probably had a heart attack from all the clogged arteries.

  63. NYT = Waits Until Last Possible Moment of the Obama Presidency to Finally Take Note of the Fact That Afghanistan Has Been a Complete Failure

    Asks questions like, “why are we fighting the Taliban anyway?” – if they’re not actually any real international-terror-threat… and “what is the purpose of keeping 8-10,000 troops there indefinitely?”… both things they could/should have asked repeatedly in 2010, 2012, 2014…etc.

    But American taxpayers and Afghans, who have endured decades of war, need a plan better than the current policy,

    Well, NOW you tell us!

    1. The US has over 35,000 troops in Germany. Get used to it, Afghanistan.

      1. I don’t think the fact that we have bases overseas in allied countries really has anything to do with our inability to recognize bad-policy and simply end it.

        1. Heh, now Germany is an ally.

          1. You know who else thought Germany was their ally…

          2. Touche

            still = not sure post WWII europe provides much in the way of an analogy

            1. Maybe we’ll use Afghanistan as a platform to launch further adventures fifty years from now.

    2. I don’t know what the Afghan’s plan is, but I think the American taxpayer’s plan is to elect a different President.

      1. And I’ll bet the NYT ain’t gonna like that plan, neither.

  64. Dang, Louisville jumped into third for thrashing FSU? No chance the “experts” are going to admit the reason Louiville thrashed FSU is not that they were wrong on how good Louisville is but that they were wrong on how good FSU is? It’s like after the tOSU/Oklahoma game and all the experts who, before the game, were agreed that Oklahoma was just far too good for tOSU to have any chance of winning after the game admitted tOSU was a lot better than they thought. No chance Oklahoma just wasn’t as good as you thought?

    1. Bah. They were the USAAF, and someday, God Willing, again!

  65. A weekend post up for over 24 hours and a measly 500 comments is all you idiots can come up with? Sad.

    1. They know they’re being trolled but they can’t resist because Trump.

      1. They at least try to focus on the actual long term alt-right ‘establishment’ that’s been around for years, they covered Spencer and Taylor and touch on the general immature internet culture surrounding it. But then they also try to broadly connect it to Bannon’s “alt-right”, which is at least better than the idiots who are trying to connect it to Yiannopoulos’ “alt-right”.

        Of course they also fail for multiple reasons, the main being that they try to broadly connect it to some insidious ‘old strain of American thought’ when in reality the alt-right is much more ‘white supremacist of the modern age’ than a callback to the KKK or the Confederacy. The alt-right is way, way more internationalist than any of the more classic European and American white racial movements, calling for a grandeur Pan-Europa version than any obsession about Anglo-Saxons or Aryans.

        The other stuff being, of course, the dishonest connection they frame between Trump and the alt-right with quotes like “Mr Trump has denied knowing what the Alt-Right is, even that it exists?unable, as usual, to disavow any support, however cretinous, or to apply a moral filter to his alliances or tactics.” while having no problem with say, communist parties who call for a radical upending of American society supporting the Democrats.

        1. Mr Trump’s rise and the Alt-Right were both cultivated by the kamikaze anti-elitism of the Tea Party

          I stopped reading there.

          1. I think very few people outside the Tea Partiers themselves and maybe libertarians ever saw them as anything except a “Racist Backlash Against Obama” – because that’s exactly how the media treated them….

            even when they were a mainly-fiscal-conservative movement, aimed at evicting incumbents, and demanding a more-responsive congress… they were tarred as “radical/racists/hyper-conservative”, despite having zero actual so-con agenda

            By the time Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck showed up and co-opted the brand-name… most of the original Tea-Party types were already gone, and it morphed into exactly what people had been accusing it of; because why not? they were already being ostracized as such.

            I think its particularly unfair the way it has been remembered in the press, because it was – to my mind – the only quasi-successful, coherent grassroots political mobilization in a very long time.

            Compared to, say, “Occupy Wall St”, for instance, the Tea Party was phenomenally successful; and comparatively inoffensive, frankly

            But the media-memory seems determined to cast them as some sort of vile, reactionary, cultural backlash rather than a sincere demand for more-fiscally-prudent government.

            1. The Tea Party lives. Every time some RINO gets primaried w/o any help from the state or national party establishment that’s the Tea Party

          2. I almost dropped out when they spent the first half paragraph furiously apologizing for even mentioning the existence of the alt-right and pretending that their article is actually some kind of journalistic analysis of a substantial, influential group on the election rather than shallow clickbait about a group of internet whiners. It’s hilarious some of the connections people are trying to weld onto the alt-right (Ben Sharpino claimed they were partially the remnants of Gamergate awhile back). But hey, hacks are going to hack.

            1. people in the media world tend to suffer from an amplified version of =

              “Gell-Mann Effect”-Meets-“Telephone-Game”

              Its basically about how journalists shape their views mainly through reflection on what *other journalists say*, and assume those other journalists to be credible.

              on any given topic, they might actually “know” 10% about something – information they’ve gleaned through actual primary-research, firsthand experience, etc – and the rest? (usually, the “what to conclude about it”-part)… is 90% simply ‘fill in the blanks’-provided by reading what their peers have to say about it.

              in that process, the 10% ‘original information’ may actually even be diluted, or tossed out entirely. Consensus views can actually over-rule their own firsthand experience.

              The “Gell Mann” part of the equation is basically that – the assumption that the journalist consensus MUST be wiser and more informed than their own personal knowledge.

              The second part – the “Telephone Game” is how things become increasingly distorted and exaggerated through repetition.

              e.g. What began as a single reported incident that turned out to be false – turned into a widely accepted, endlessly repeated narrative that the Tea Party was fundamentally about racism

  66. I’m never going to be mistaken for a Trump supporter I hope, but I simply do not understand the latest media freakout over Trump. Do they think they’re actually hurting him with this ridiculousness?

    Donald Trump on Saturday night quickly described early reports of an explosion in New York by telling his supporters here that a “bomb went off” in that city.

    Trump made the statement before local officials had publicly confirmed details of the incident or what caused the explosion. Typically, national political figures use caution when describing unfolding situations and law enforcement actions.

    […]

    The Trump campaign did not respond to numerous requests for comment Saturday night on whether Trump had any evidence the explosion was a bomb or whether he was in contact with NYC officials.

    Are they trying to imply that he knew about the bomb beforehand? Also, since when has B.O. been “cautious” about jumping into the middle of a law enforcement controversy involving a racial minority?

    1. This instance of him jumping to the correct conclusion is literally worse than Hitler.

    2. Diplomatic language. You generally want to use some cautious language to avoid escalating tensions unnecessarily. But they’re sticklers for form and forgetting the function. If your wife does something that pisses you off, you don’t treat her the same as the obnoxious drunk at the bar that did something that pissed you off – you still gotta live with her and she is the mother of your children. If you jump up there and start slinging unfounded accusations at the Muslims, though, what are they going to do? Get pissed off and start sending random terrorist attacks our way? What possible reason do we have for treating the delicate Muslim sensibilities with any sort of respect? Hell, I accidentally knocked my toothbrush into the toilet this morning and I blamed the damn Muslims.

      1. It sounds like they’re just angry he called it a bomb, nothing to do with Muslims, at least explicitly. They’re just bitching about anything and everything because he made them look like idiots with the birther thing, which just makes them look even worse.

  67. GILMORE?|9.18.16 @ 6:59PM|#
    “people in the media world tend to suffer from an amplified version of =
    “Gell-Mann Effect”-Meets-“Telephone-Game”
    Its basically about how journalists shape their views mainly through reflection on what *other journalists say*, and assume those other journalists to be credible.”

    I once owned a specific collector artifact which had gone missing for some time. A friend was a stringer for a magazine which featured stories about such things, and she asked to take photos and write a story about it, to which I agreed, giving the history and provenance as best I knew it (having done some research).
    A week or so later, get a ‘fact checker’ call from the magazine and provide references to book titles, page numbers, etc.; it is written otherwhere, it is therefore established!
    Two months or so later (this was the ’80s, I think), the magazine arrives in my mailbox. The spelled my name right.

    1. I’d like to hear that story, if you ever come to a SF meetup.

  68. Purely local, and some background first:
    Until the mid ’80s, the SF Supervisors were elected city-wide. In the interest of ‘more direct democracy’ (mob rule) that was changed with the result that several hundred votes could turn the election. The further result was the empowerment of local ‘activists’ (rabble-rousers) who could deliver said hundred votes.
    It should be no surprise that they often worked for a city-funded ‘non-profit’, delivering free shit to those who vote, or, in this case, had access to the printed word (pre-innertoobze).
    Anyhow, those of us who despise corruption are having an extra drink tonight! That back-room, sleazy grifter Rose Pak kicked the can! HOORAY!

    “Rose Pak, SF political powerhouse, dies”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/art…..230594.php

    Would that she had died many years ago; the world would be a better place.
    (eddie, tell your mystic buddies that her death enlarges me and the world!)

  69. If they were smart, they would realize he isn’t a conventional foe and they can’t use the conventional tactic of attacking his policies and expecting him to spend all his time defending them like they do with every other GOP candidate.

  70. zebda company for moving furniture
    http://zebdamoving.com/

  71. upto I looked at the bank draft four $5963 , I be certain that…my… best friend woz like they say actualy bringing home money parttime on there computar. . there friends cousin has been doing this 4 less than 13 months and resently took care of the debts on their apartment and bought a new Mazda . check out here .

    CLICK THIS LINK???? >> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  72. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.