Conservative Group Launches 'Watchlist' of Profs Who Say Un-American Things, Trump Says 'You'll Love' His Free Speech Policies: P.M. Links

|

  • Trump
    Todd Krainin

    Turning Points USA has created a watchlist to monitor professors who violate right-wing political correctness and make statements that are offensive to conservatives. This kind of thing is a terrible idea: Professors shouldn't be scared to express their views in the classroom.

  • The Guardian lists Reason as one of a handful of websites that liberals should start reading if they want to get outside their bubble and understand how Trump won (and what to do about it).
  • Donald Trump tells reporters "you'll be happy" with how he treats the First Amendment.
  • He also says he has "an open mind" about climate change.
  • And he's not interested in prosecuting Hillary Clinton. "Hillary for prison" no more, I guess.

Advertisement

NEXT: Happy Broadway-Boycott Thanksgiving From The Fifth Column!

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. And he’s not interested in prosecuting Hillary Clinton. “Hillary for prison” no more, I guess.

    Crooked.

    1. Hello.

      “The Guardian lists Reason as one of a handful of websites that liberals should start reading if they want to get outside their bubble and understand how Trump won (and what to do about it).”

      NO. I’M NOT GONNA TUCK MY SHIRT IN.

      1. I didn’t think The Bubble was coming until January 2017?

      2. ‘Ello, wot’s all this, then?

      3. It”s not Reason where they can learn why they lost but the comment section itself.

        What could they possibly learn from Dalmia or however her name is spelt.

        1. You can learn how to get paid for writing tat, and get paid twice over.

          You could try studying the ways of MattY, but you’d just get a word salad.

        2. So, Reason is just Shikha Dalmia now?

          Have we finally identified the real Tulpa? Are we all Dalmia?

          Shut up Dalmia!

          1. Dalmia ain’t just a river in Egypt.

          2. That stupid Chapman article today made me want to armbar the Jacket. Not Nick. The actual Jacket.

            1. That stupid Chapman article might be what got them on this list.

      4. I thought this place was for libertarians who hate Trump. Am I wrong?

        1. You’re wrong about pretty much everything. So just consider every thought, instinct, idea, etc. to be shit until otherwise directed by your betters (any non-progtard).

        2. Under Obama it resembled a rightwing cesspool. Now that Trump’s president, it will be practically neo-Nazi.

          1. Bwa-ha-ha!
            Oh Tony, you’re priceless.
            I know, you’ve got a million of ’em.

      5. OMG!!! Can you imagine the horror when Guardian readers read the Reason comment section?!!?

        1. What is the sound of an English head exploding?

    2. Wait, are you telling me that Donald Trump will say the most politically expedient thing in the moment and not really mean what he says? I do believe I have the vapors.

      1. The media has such a great track record predicting Trump so far, so why not believe them now?

        1. Because Trump is not an ideologue, he is a schmoozer. He didn’t run as a Republican, he ran as the caricature that he assumed Republicans are. Now, they nominated him so maybe he was onto something, but I digress.

          Anyways, he throws red meat out to get the results he wants, but he never intended to do anything about her corruption. He is a businessman, you never burn a bridge you might need to cross over again in the future.

          1. Not to mention he has donated to Clinton’s campaigns multiple times in the past and has been friends with her for forever.

            1. Not recently, he hasn’t been friends with her. And this gives him a rather big Sword of Damocles, doesn’t it? Maybe “new information” will be discovered after 1/20/2017.

              And this also puts Obama in an awkward spot if he tries to pardon her before he leaves office.

              1. Bingo. Plus there are still existing FBI investigations into the foundation. I imagine they Igor get some traction after Sessions is in.

                1. Plus, even if Trump has no interest, he’s not the FBI and the DoJ and Trey Gowdy….

                  1. That’s Ann Coulter’s line.

    3. WAIT. A. MINUTE.

      The links were posted at 4:33.
      You posted this at 4:31.

      YOU MESSED UP YOUR CHEATING THIS TIME, FIST.

      1. Hacker confirmed. That or he’s secretly a member of the staff. Is that possible??

        1. Or I exist outside of time and space.

          1. All options will be considered.

          2. Fist is Edward Snowden.

                1. (Applauds Fist loudly and vigorously.)

                2. (Applauds Fist loudly and vigorously.)

              1. Narrows eyes like the SwissAir lounge

          3. Or I exist outside of time and space.

            I dunno. If I can’t see you shifting in and out of phase, I’m not buying it.

      2. This confirms that Fist is a Reason insider.

        1. What if… what if Fist… is David Weigel?

          Mikey would have a tantric orgasm, an(other) aneurysm, and spontaneous combustion all at the same time.

          1. Do I seem like the type that would allow you people to send me into a meltdown?

          2. Fist is (generally) too sensible and fair to be Weigel.

            1. You’re one of the good ones.

              1. *blushes*

          3. Fist is the server guy. King Squirrel.

            1. So as King Squirrel, could double posting also be described as being Fist Fucked?

      3. So I was done at 4:31, but the article only auto-tweets if you give it a 1-minute lead time, so had to un-publish and re-publish it.

        I’m Hitler, I know.

        1. You know who else was Hitler?

          1. Bruno Ganz?

          2. We are all Hitler?

          3. Vic Hitler, Jr., the narcoleptic comedian?

            1. +1 Hill Street

          4. The Krieger clones?

            1. “And by the way, if I was a clone of Adolf goddamn Hitler, wouldn’t I look like Adolf goddamn Hitler?!”

          5. Girl Hitler?

            1. You know who else couldn’t send a proper link?

          6. Well, we know he’s not Mussolini, cuz Mussolini always made sure things were ON TIME.

          7. Doctor Krieger?

        2. Stop trying to cover for Fist.

          1. I’d speculate that Rico is Fist, but punctuality is clearly not his strong suit.

            Ed, maybe?

          2. I’d bet a loonie that Fist is actually Robby’s hair, and probably was you know who’s mustache some 80 years ago.

            1. I’d bet a loonie

              The frick?

              1. I think that’s one of those scraps of paper, covered in colorful drawings of animals and monarchs, that Canadians use instead of money.

                1. I think that’s one of those scraps of paper, covered in colorful drawings of animals and monarchs, that Canadians use instead of money.

                  Way off…it’s one of those bits of metal coinage covered in drawings of animals and the GREATEST MONARCH OF OUR TIME, QUEEN ELIZABETH II, THE BEST HEAD OF STATE ON THE PLANET.

                  If you disagree, fight me. Never asks for tax, stays out of your business.

                  1. Exactly. And I might add that the current Monarch cost waaaay less to the public treasury than your Republicans Presidents (I’m also looking at you France).

                    …and our paper money does smell like maple syrup.

                    1. Technically, our paper money is all plastic stuff now…

                  2. I love you, man.

        3. I think that is a bit unfair to Hitler don’t you think?

          1. *zing*

        4. “They lose me right after the bunker scene.”

        5. It’s official: Robbie hates books and juice.

          1. +1 dramatic dive through a window

        6. Eh, you have way better hair and fashion sense.

          Would you accept being Hermann Goering? The younger, pre-addiction version.

    4. This doesn’t mean Preet can’t still go after her, right?

      1. Nobody tells Preet what to do except God.

        And God is currently under investigation. By Preet.

        1. To be fair, God threatening to send a judge to Hell is more credible as a “true threat” than whichever Reason commenter Preet went after.

        2. Preet is God’s DEET.

    5. And he’s not interested in prosecuting Hillary Clinton.

      So he won’t appoint a special prosecutor. Sessions might hold a different view, however…

      1. I still think pardoning her is the best option. There’s no way she goes to jail anyway, so a pardon gets this behind us while permanently linking Hillary to her criminality.

        Further, if they keep up investigations, the Republicans will fuck it up by over-reaching and focusing on the wrong issues (see, for example, her Benghazi testimony). She’d come up looking like the victim of a partisan witch-hunt.

        A pardon would tarnish her legacy. She’d hate it.

        1. “I still think pardoning her is the best option.”

          Oh hell no. She’d go around claiming, with the media furiously agreeing, that she was never guilty, there was never any evidence against her and that this was all a political stunt by Trump. And then when something else turned up she’d immediately claim the pardon covered it and the media would back her to the hilt. All of that with not one hint of shameful about facing.

          No the pardon idea is terrible.

          1. No pardon, but no prosecution, either — of Hillary specifically. Go after the Foundation and everyone else around her, all the people who enabled and covered up her corruption and malfeasance. Leave her standing alone (or, even better, with nobody but Bill) in a tiny unblasted space amid the wreckage.

            1. So, basically the ending of ‘The Shield’ with Hill as Vic.

            2. That’s a plan so cunning you could put ears and tail on it and call it a weasel.

            3. Bill doesn’t look like he will be standing for long.

        2. Pardon everything except the Clinton Foundation and pay-for-play. Keep something back for leverage.

        3. A pardon contigent on admission of guilt?

          1. No, no, a pardon as a declaration of guilt. Along the lines of “I apologize for you being such a loser’, etc.

  2. Robby Soave|Nov. 22, 2016 4:31 pm

    Hmm.

    1. Well at least we’ve successfully badgered him into almost-consistently including (mediocre) alt text.

      1. Yeah, the alt-text is sub-standard.

        1. YOUR STUPID FACES ARE SUB-STANDARD.

          (I can bully you online like this now because Trump.)

        2. This is why we need to outsource the links to China, I’m sure we can get better alt-text and less college links that way. Of course most of it will be CCP propaganda and the alt-text will be stuff like “DALAI LAMA SAYS TIBET IS CHINA.”

  3. In recent years, parts of the left have been ambivalent about the first amendment.

    Now there’s an understatement.

    1. Ambivalent. Wait. Does that mean asexual?

      1. No, it means that they’re willing to cut the Free Speech baby in half – thus showing that it was never really their baby to begin with.

        1. I’ve never understood that story. Solomon comes off as a fucking maniac. I’d be distraught to see any baby cut in half, even if it belonged to someone else.

          1. Thus you wouldn’t be trying to steal a baby that wasn’t yours, either.

            /the Solomonic C. Anacreon

          2. It’s archaic in that it lacks any subtlety, but to me it always demonstrated that people who know that they’re in the wrong are always willing to compromise, while those in the right are not.

          3. I figure one of those people must have wanted to eat the baby. And half a baby is a better meal than no baby at all.

            Anyway, who in the OT doesn’t come off as a fucking maniac?

            1. How do you make a baby float?

              One can of rootbeer and two scoops of baby.

            2. I’m a big fan of Abraham, “Mr. Hey, I’ve got this great new God, he’s all powerful and provides to give us descendants that number the state. One catch, though. About that foreskin…”

              The walk home with Isaac, after almost sacrificing him to Yahweh, must have been super awkward.

      2. It means “both valent”.

        1. Or “either valent”, whichever.

    2. There’s no sugarcoating it.

      1. It should be against the law to talk about sugarcoating, what with the diabetes epidemic. You monster.

        1. It should be against the law to talk about SugarFree coating anything.

    3. Only in recent years?

      I think it was Budd Schulberg, when he named Communists, who commented that they were all for free speech, as long it was speech they agreed with.

    4. I think “ambivalent” is the right word.

      “On the one hand, I should be able to say or publish whatever I want and be legally protected. But on the other hand, those icky people should be silenced.”

    5. Another reason why Reason got on that Guardian list.

  4. Donald Trump tells reporters “you’ll be happy” with how he treats the First Amendment.

    As happy as those pageant contestants with their treatment.

    1. Only one can be a winner but they can all be fucked over by The Donald?

    2. Happier than conservative not-for-profits getting the IRS treatment?

  5. The Guardian lists Reason as one of a handful of websites that liberals should start reading if they want to get outside their bubble and understand how Trump won (and what to do about it).

    No man. We’ll end up with more AmSoc idiots on H&R.

    1. Covered earlier. Inevitably a few trolls, but they will probably be short-lived. The more important thing is that we may actually get some new converts out of this. Let’s take advantage of this opportunity.

      1. Let’s take advantage of this opportunity.

        To hit on them? I’m gonna have to brush up on my cheezy pick-up lines.

        “Hey, baby…”

        1. “Hi lovely, fancy a shag?”

        2. While population statistics overwhelmingly work in your favor most of the time, I suspect that we will pick up few if any women.

          1. …few if any women.

            *boo’s loudly*

          2. Better that way. Keep HyR manly.

            *strips naked, gets in hot tub*

            1. No, dude! Crusty’s been in there!

              1. Aaaaaaaaaah!

                *succumbs to flesh-eating bacteria*

                1. That’s also one of only two known transmission vectors for sea lice.

              2. *mainlines cocktail of antibiotics*

              3. Crusty is still in there. Genetically speaking.

        3. Don’t use pickup lines. Just tell them you know lots of Kamasutra positions.

          And Indian accent helps, but I digress…

          1. *sharpens pencil, takes notes*

            1. In India, after you’ve brought a woman to climax, do you say “Thank you! Come again”.

              1. In India, after you’ve brought a woman to climax, do you say “Thank you! Come again”.

                This is why I like H&R. You can crack this joke and I can laugh at it without a bunch of SJWs yelling “racist!”

        4. “If you were a fruit you’d be a fineapple.”

      2. The more important thing is that we may actually get some new converts out of this.

        I think it will be very, very, very few. As in 0.

        I think the National Review has more of a chance of luring progressives than Reason. The central tenet of these folks’ political ideology is that they know better than you. You might convince them to switch what opinion is superior to yours, but never to question the superiority of their viewpoint.

    2. Worse – britsoc idiots. They’re like amsoc, except pasty, and with bad teeth.

      1. Britsoc?

        I believe Orwell called it IngSoc.

      2. It’s amazing what a cuppa nice toothbrushes will do for ya.

    3. I was waiting for the commenter warning, but they forgot to post one. Gentlemen, we aren’t getting the infamy we deserve.

      1. You think these elitist bastards even remember there are comment sections on websites? As far as they are concerned, the news exists to glorify writers, who cares how the plebs react.

      2. Hey, I made a dead baby joke upthread. I’m doing MY part.

        1. But no rape or holocaust jokes. Come on, don’t be an underachiever.

    4. AmSoc is legitimately a rarity in how profoundly stupid he is. I swear he’s someone’s sockpuppet here, because goddamn if he doesn’t perfectly represent a Bezmenovian Useful Idiot.

  6. This kind of thing is a terrible idea: professors shouldn’t be scared to express their views in the classroom.

    THEY SHOULD BE SCARED OF HAVING WRONG VIEWS.

  7. Homeopathy ‘treatments’ must be labelled to say they do not work, US government orders

    The FTC said that a homeopathic drug claim that is not substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence “might not be deceptive if the advertisement or label where it appears effectively communicates that: 1) there is no scientific evidence that the product works; and 2) the product’s claims are based only on theories of homeopathy from the 1700s that are not accepted by most modern medical experts.”

    1. Time to crack skulls.

      1. Chiropractic phrenology does not wok.

        1. How else am i supposed to balance my chi?

          1. Step into my office.

        2. But those magic pads that suck poison from your feet totally stir-fry.

    2. Look, just because a product is nothing but sugar and water and something so diluted there may or may not be a molecule of it left (or, in the case of teething tablets, actually contain a lethal amount of deadly nightshade) doesn’t mean it won’t work, right?

      1. KEEP AN OPEN MIND.

        1. AND YOUR BRAIN WILL FALL OUT.

        2. These are the secrets big pharma doesn’t want you to know about.

          1. I see stuff like all of the time on the GBM sites. You would think serious conditions of that sort would drive people away from quackery, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

            1. Cool to see you around more, PL

    3. Homeopathy ‘treatments’ must be labelled to say they do not work

      YOU LIE!

    4. It’s a good thing we don’t prescribe placebos, ever.

      1. Why not? Placebos work for a lot of people. It’s one of the mysteries of science.

    5. I’ve always why one would purchase a product that is clearly labeled, “This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease,” for the purpose of treating, curing or preventing some disease.

      1. So, you trust the FDA’s judgement in all things?

        Those labels only mean that the government hasn’t approved it being marketed to treat cure or prevent any disease.

        Yeah, there is a lot of useless junk sold as “dietary supplements”. But not all.

    6. Because “this is a complete fucking scam” is too straightforward for government.

  8. He also says he has “an open mind” about climate change.

    Maybe hotter better?

    1. How is climate like a woman?

      1. Despite many computer models, self-appointed experts, and being a focus of Leo DiCaprio’s interests, nobody actually understands it.

        1. *blank stare followed by thunderous applause*

      2. Climates understand climates, and they hate each other.

  9. The Guardian lists Reason as one of a handful of websites that liberals should start reading if they want to get outside their bubble and understand how Trump won (and what to do about it).

    Its description of Reason was… interesting.

    1. and playing host to some much-needed self-criticism on the American right.

      Right? Libertarians are the Right?

      Okay.

      1. Depends on which left/right you refer to.

        American left/right should be Big Gov/ Small Gov
        European left right is Communist/Fascist or Nationalist.

        1. Europe is so far gone the divide is Big Government or Slightly Different Big Government.

        2. Yeah but American left/right is Big Gov/Different Big Gov.

          1. Well I think what we have is a healthy and robust left, moving ever leftward with a sclerotic and geriatric right, also moving ever leftward. So the right is essentially middle, slight right, leaving Libertarians to hold down the actual ideological right.

            1. Nah, the Right has long been Big Government. The whole left/right thing is pretty much bullshit but to the extent it exists, libertianism is not on the spectrum. That’s the whole point, we oppose both flavors of authoritarianism.

          2. American left/right is “America goes to war with UN blessing” versus “American Greatness goes to war whenever and wherever it wants.”

            1. No, the first there is just “American Humanitarianism goes to war whenever and wherever it wants.” Ask the Serbs or the Syrians.

        3. There is no notion of liberty on the continental European left/right spectrum. It is all merely flavors of totalitarianism.

      2. Well there are about 5 legit Trumpeteers and zero ladies-in-waiting for Hilary.

        1. Well there are about 5 legit Trumpeteers and zero ladies-in-waiting for Hilary.

          One can evaluate libertarian site using the zero ladies-at-all parameter.

          Very libertarian around here.

          1. Like the nude beach scene in Eurotrip.

            1. That movie had a few good bits.

              1. One of my top 10 comedies. Very underrated.

                1. +1 “There’s your R rating right there.”

          2. “Wait a minute. So EVERYONE here has a penis?”

            1. Why don’t you go for a pussy grab and find out? Shit’s fair game now.

            2. Only in the strictest sense.

          3. Hey, whadda I gotta do, tie a pink bow in my fabulous fluffy tail?

      3. Democrats are on the Right in the UK, and ‘moderate’ up here in Canada.

        1. I don’t think you should get to call it “up there” in Canada.

          1. Wildlings don’t give a shit what direction flops from King’s Landing want us to use.

            1. I recognize the words, but they don’t make any sense put together.

        2. Is that the same as how Reno is west of Los Angeles?

        3. I’ll see your ‘moderates’ and raise you Bill Deblasio and the entire contents of the NYC council and most of the state assembly and senate.

          1. They’re still less left-wing than the NDP. The NDP’s precursor manifesto listed the destruction of capitalism as one of the party’s goals.

            1. I guess you win. Deblasio is definitely a true believer though – big fan of the Sandinistas, marriage in Cuba, etc. Most of our Dems aren’t that extreme but they’re catching up.

    2. Yes, it habitually shills for nasty industries like big oil and big tobacco.

      They’re shilling for freedom, dipsh1ts.

      their support for a brutal economic doctrine

      Brutal economic doctrine? I guess the brutality is civilized when the money is stolen from someone else.

      Too bad we have to align with the Left when the Right is in power, and the Right when the Left is in power.

      1. Such nasty industries.

      2. Leaving people alone is BRUTALITY!!

        They could, like, choose to dismember themselves with a chainsaw!!

        Which is pretty brutal!!

        Thus freedom is brutality!!

      3. Shilling for big tobacco? Is that a reference to articles that argue against banning e-cigs?

        Preparedness to get in bed with the worst reactionaries? Like those criminal justice reform nutbags who think it’s silly to throw someone in jail for illegally consuming substances?

        TL;DR version = those Reason people say some reasonable shit, but they also say stuff we disagree with, so clearly they’re extremists. If they would just agree with us on everything, we could see eye to eye with them.

        1. It should be Small Tobacco vs. Big Government, anyway.

      4. “At worst, we could steal some of their lines.”

        Touch my blow and you die!

      5. “In recent years, parts of the left have been ambivalent about the first amendment. ”

        In recent elections, the Democrat’s presidential nominee has been openly hostile towards the first amendment. But, we should all ignore that because she was just hostile towards speech that was critical of her.

      6. If you don’t think Uncle Sugar should be inserted into every orifice of business and public life, you are obviously a robber baron intent on using child slave labor and destroying the earth. Duh!

        1. Wait, are you trying to imply there is something inherently wrong with this approach?

          1. Who me? Never 😀

    3. I did like that they linked to two sites that are actually anti-war. Not just Left “we’ll pretend we’re anti-war when the Conservatives are in power” anti-war. Maybe some people will realize some things, but that’s unfortunately doubtful.

    4. Everything about it is hilarious. The guy is trying to recommend sites for progressives to read to understand Trump. So he lists a bunch of sites that are anti-Trump.

      So he starts with Reason, and can’t find one good thing to say about it other than they have good zingers about free speech, which is a useful rule so long as Trump is in power. Thanks, dipshit! You’re apparently familiar enough with Reason to connect them with Big Tobacco (is he talking vaping? otherwise, he’s mentioning an issue from decades ago), but not enough to mention criminal justice reform, drug policy, immigration, etc.

      1. That’s because leftist are, contrary to their protestations, fucking horrible racist who actually love the drug war, the current US immigration policies, and think the criminal justice system is just swell.

        Fuck them.

    5. The comments section is also interesting. The vast majority of comments are something along the line of:

      It’s not a bubble of political perspectives, it’s a bubble of reality vs. crazy hallucination. I prefer to read about facts instead of ridiculous spin and conspiracy theories. Why on earth would I read the opinion of someone who disagrees with me? They are all a bunch of evil, ignorant, racist pieces of shit.

      Further confirming the need for those commenting to step outside their bubble.

  10. Turning Points USA has created a watchlist to monitor professors who violate right-wing political correctness and make statements that are offensive to conservatives. This kind of thing is a terrible idea: professors shouldn’t be scared to express their views in the classroom.

    Lefite professors scare the sh1t out of non-leftist students.

    I somehow don’t feel bad. I know I should, but I don’t.

    1. In theory, it’s disturbing, but cmon – what leftist professor is actually afraid of expressing leftist ideas in the classroom? It’s not as if the kind of people who are behind Turning Points USA (whatever the hell that is) have any power whatsoever on college campuses.

      1. It’s not as if the kind of people who are behind Turning Points USA (whatever the hell that is) have any power whatsoever on college campuses.

        ^THIS. It makes no difference if someone keeps a list of statements, so long as they aren’t in a position of power. The proggies can just argue back (speech vs. speech, right?). The SPLC kinda-sorta does this, and it seems they do so without actual quotes from some people/groups.

      2. What I find truly hilarious is when left-wingers talk about how brave left-wingers are for expressing left-wing views they completely agree with. This is the first time I’ve ever seen anything they’d have to be concerned about.

        1. Given the overwhelmingly dominant and bullying SJW attitude that prevails on campus, I have a hard time being concerned about inducing a little caution and even fear. A little chilling of totalitarian speech might be a good thing. Sauce for the goose, bitches.

      3. what leftist professor is actually afraid of expressing leftist ideas in the classroom?

        Edward Schlosser is.

        1. i don’t think it’s a bad idea to go,after them. If anything, we have many valid reasons to begin the restoration of some kind if f HUAC that can undermine and suppress progressivism. Which will lessen their numbers. Which is a good thing for everyone.

          Since prog ideas are all basically sedition and treason to begin with, there should be few 1A concerns. As sedition and treason re already illegal. Even light treason.

      4. Why is this even mildly disturbing? Articles are written all the time, including in Reason, about academics who say things that rub people the wrong way. No one bats an eye. But now it’s a problem because a group no one has ever heard of is going to compile into a list those things that run them the wrong way?

    2. Same here. Half of those bastards would send the rest of us off to camps if they had their way, and you can bet your ass they have lists too.

      It’s a bad idea but I cant help but love the idea of them pissing their pants.

    3. Wouldn’t a list of non-offensive / non-leftist professors be shorter?

      1. Are you talking about making a list of mythical creatures?

        1. I had a finance professor in business school who made fun of Bill Clinton.

          1. She was just pretending to get the boys to like her.

          2. Because of the raping? That’s a humor goldmine.

    4. Why is it a “terrible idea”? Publishing a list of professors who say mean things about conservatives is just as much free speech as professors saying mean things about conservatives.

  11. Buttmitzvah Gives Us Something to Smile About | Jewniverse
    Whether or not you memorized your haftarah portion, you are cordially invited to raise a glass and dance a raucous horah at London’s first ever queer Jewish club night. The venue, lauded for reviving the cabaret and making a home for daring performance art, is raising the gauntlet (filled with Manischewitz) to host a “Buttmitzvah” ? combining the rituals of a bat/bar mitzvah celebration with a campy all-inclusive gay dance party….

    1. Too bad for the gays who want uncircumcised dicks.

      1. Dicks out for brit milah.

      2. Did we ever get our resident gay expert’s take on uncircumsized dicks? Just curious if that is something that is universally shunned in the gay community, if it’s about 50-50, or if it is considered a desirable novelty.

        1. Er, novelty?

          {looks down, shifts uncomfortably}

          Um, okay . . .

    2. daring performance art

      Without even seeing the performance I’m pretty sure there are at least 2 things wrong with that description.

  12. Turning Points USA has created a watchlist to monitor professors who violate right-wing political correctness and make statements that are offensive to conservatives. This kind of thing is a terrible idea: professors shouldn’t be scared to express their views in the classroom.

    In the abstract sure. But in reality not at all. It is a very good idea because the only way to get these people to value other people’s free speech is to put theirs under threat. As long as it only goes one way, they are not going to care or stop enforcing conformity.

    1. Robby doesn’t believe in transparency and a fully informed public. He must think that criticism of a college professor violates both academic freedom and the 1st Amendment

      1. If you can’t take people saying mean things about you on the internet, you have no balls.

        1. What was it the one guy said to the Klansman who called him with a death threat, “why don’t you come down to my house and while we’re talking about it, I’ll show you my brand new .45 caliber pistol.” That’s how to handle actual threats. Everything else, answer them or don’t. Whatever makes you feel better.

      2. And yet college professors are criticized all the time at Reason. I just don’t get why this particular case is viewed as a problem. Because someone decided to call it a watch list?

    2. Can’t say I’m overly concerned about the prospect that professors will shut the hell up about politics in the classroom. There are very few areas of study which are improved by commenting on contemporary politics.

    3. Unless TP USA wants to send off such professors to re-education camps or to jail, the more information the better. Maybe some schools will rethink their tenure decisions if they have some consequences (such as fewer students wanting to go there).

    4. violate right-wing political correctness

      Proof that these people have a mental disorder.

  13. Robby Soave|Nov. 22, 2016 4:33 pm

  14. I feel like The Guardian didn’t insult us enough here.

    Yes, it’s partly funded by the left’s least favorite family, the Kochs. Yes, it habitually shills for nasty industries like big oil and big tobacco. Yes, libertarian connections with the far right, their support for a brutal economic doctrine, and preparedness to get into bed with the worst reactionaries mean that we will never see eye to eye.

    We’re way worse than that, aren’t we?

    1. Looks like the Liberaltarian moment is back!!

      1. Those jackalopes need to be hunted to extinction.

    2. I think they are talking about the staff. Probably best that the commentariat slipped under their radar.

      1. I think we *are* the “worst reactionaries.”

        1. [wipes tear, hugs Peachy]

        2. So, does that mean Reason’s staff is in bed with us? Why wasn’t I told? And um, where’s the line for Robby’s bed?

      2. We usually get a shout-out for being terrible, though. What gives?

        1. They haven’t been to the site yet. They just recommended it to their readers.

          Just wait and watch.

    3. Reason is “partly funded” by a whole lot of different people and organizations. They could have mentioned porn, magicians, or even The Price is Right, but I guess that was too extreme.

      1. If the Kochs had given Hillary Clinton money would the left have turned against her?

        1. Not a snowball’s chance in hell.

    4. Totally.

      I just bathed my orphans in acid for not polishing my monocle bright enough.

      “to get into bed with the worst reactionaries”

      You know what they say. The best sex is reactionary sex.

      1. NEO-reactionary. Primae noctis.

    5. Maybe The Guardian’s straw man will be friends with us.

      1. “Straw man” is a cis-gendered patriarchal micro-aggression. “Person of Straw” is the preferred nomenclature.

        1. How dare you other those who don’t identify as persons?? Hater!

        2. *perdaughter of straw

    6. Dearest me, they didn’t even mention our monocles or our orphans!!

      I mean, I don’t mistreat my malnutritioned orphans on a daily basis just to have it be just ignored!! Why, I’m so miffed at this slight I think I’ll don two monocles and empty a drum of oil into the nearest river this evening!!

      1. I keep telling you, EBS. Enriched gruel will keep your orphans alive longer. It’s way cheaper than training the new ones.

    7. I guess Trump and the Literally Eichmanns of the alt-right aren’t “the worst reactionaries” out there. Who is it we’ve allied with that are worse than them? The Heritage Foundation?

      1. “Getting in bed with the worst reactionaries” likely means something on the order of “We say they have the right to speak without being thrown in a gulag for saying the wrong thing”

      2. I’ve shared a bed with worse.*

        *I’m referring to Winston’s mom.

    1. Did these squirrels work in the reason server farm?

      1. Why was he not wearing one of those girly helmets ?

        He should decree a law from on high .

        Think of the chillins.

      2. Did these squirrels work in the reason server farm?

    2. False flag operation.

    3. A certain someone should remember that last paragraph next time he’s late with those linx.

    4. We are legion

    5. Squirrallahu akhbar

    1. I’ll assume the triple post was a subtle joke.

      1. Johnny Longtorso doesn’t do subtle, and the only joke he knows is the one about what you tell a woman with two black eyes.

        1. “She better get crackin’ on changing that light bulb!”

        2. More like, what do you tell a body pillow with two big fist-sized depressions in it?

  15. “Hillary for prison” no more, I guess.

    See, if I were able to vote, and the sort of person who would actually bother to vote, this would have been my only reason to vote for Trump: the Hillary perp-walk in an orange pantsuit.

  16. Donald Trump’s media summit was a ‘f???ing firing squad’
    …”Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said, ‘I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,’ ” the source said….

    1. Was this the off the record event? Funny how there’s a record of it.

      1. That’s his game. Make it off the record, and then leak his own version of it.

    2. They’d have made a fortune if they’d have made this meeting pay-per-view….

    3. If that’s what he said, he’s not wrong…

  17. And he’s not interested in prosecuting Hillary Clinton. “Hillary for prison” no more, I guess.

    What do you think Trump and Barry talked about, golf?

    1. “Hi there Donald, here are the NSA and CIA reports on all your foreign business dealings over the past 30 years. You think we can come to an understanding?”

  18. “This kind of thing is a terrible idea:”

    No, it’s a great idea.

    1. I’m sure the people creating the watch list have good intentions…

  19. The Guardian lists Reason as one of a handful of websites that liberals should start reading

    They couldn’t help themselves when it came to deceitful sneering at us either. This is why nobody trusts you anymore, MSM. If you can’t tell the truth, stop publishing.

  20. Now that Trump is president, Democrats will temporarily and selectively embrace pluralism again. Oh, good.

    Rarely do Americans publicly acknowledge the tradeoff between democracy and liberty, between popular will and minority rights, which so concerned the framers. If Trump threatens the rights of Muslims or journalists, if he pressures the Federal Reserve or defies the Supreme Court, he will likely do so in democracy’s name. He may have public opinion on his side. If Americans can’t defend their system’s limitations on democracy, they’ll have trouble resisting him.

    1. “Could the danger posed by electing Trump exceed the enormous danger posed by stopping him? It could, for four reasons.

      The first is climate change.”

      Jesus fucking Christ, these people never get off their hobby horses for one goddamned second. Climate change is the preeminent reason for worry about Trump….ahead of nuclear fucking war?

      1. I noticed that, too. I thought the election of Barack Obama was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal. Hm. I guess he was busy.

      2. Hitlery lost, man.

        Nuclear war averted

        1. And that bitch better get back to the kitchen and bake Trump a pie!

      3. ahead of nuclear fucking war?

        Maybe they realize that that’s fucking stupid and paranoid.

  21. “And he’s not interested in prosecuting Hillary Clinton.”

    She’s in her own personal prison.

    Don’t you guys get that his entire campaign was a metaphor?????

  22. He’s moderating so we don’t panic. Come inauguration he’ll change his opinion so fast your head will spin. Anyone who thinks he’s not nursing a hard-on for Hillary is delusional.

    1. This. If you continue to chant, “lock her up,” Hillary gets a Ford-style pardon for all crimes that she may have committed. If you say, “ah, I was just kidding,” there’s the off chance that the Democrats don’t risk the blowback.

      Oh, who am I kidding? Hillary will get her blanket pardon.

      NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK H. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Hillary Clinton for all offenses against the United States which she, Hillary Clinton, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from October 26, 1947 to January 19, 2017.

    2. Eeeeeeeeewwwww!

  23. Election night Krugman: “….markets are plunging. [If] the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.”

    Today: Dow surpasses 19,000 as a record-setting drive continues

    1. Krugman’s diet is now mostly made of his feet.

      1. NEEDZ MOAR SAUERKRAUT!

    2. How this guy ever gets published again after that is a mystery. It’s virtually impossible to be more wrong than he was with that bleat.

  24. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/democ…..17153.html

    Democrats plot comeback. Everything they say is about “more resources” and throwing money at the problem. There is not a single thoughtful comment about the failure of their message and how unappealing their policies have become.

    They remind me of a CEO of a failing company who thinks the solution is to advertise more and won’t admit the company’s product sucks. Things are not going to get any better for them any time soon.

    1. +1 “People don’t like new Coke. Therefore, we must sell them more!”

      1. “This Apple Newton is going to be great!”

    2. They really do believe their own bullshit. They cant change their message because the message is god’s own truth and if you cant see that you are a hater.

      I think they are doomed.

      1. They are totally blind to remaking themselves. They really have convinced themselves that the only reason people oppose them is racism (etc.), so they are incapable of rationally reviewing their policies.

        1. It would be fucking rich if Republicans and Libertarians put up a wide swath of minorities in the 2018 midterms to run against their lily white party ass.

          1. +1 Condoleeza

      2. It is just that their spokesperson isn’t inclusive enough.

        Keith Ellison is a black muslim dude! That is way better than old white woman.

        Once middle america gets a load of Brother Keith X (his old Nation of Islam name), they will go ga-ga for the Democrats.

        1. Please let that happen.

          1. Ya, I wanna know how we can support Ellison.

    3. Maybe they should hire some high-priced consultants to tell them what to do! That always fixes everything.

      1. They should also continue to insult the very people they need to get votes from. Hillary was on to something with the whole basket of deplorables speech.

        1. There were so many things that sank her it is hard to single one out, but if I had to that would be it. You can attack your political opponent but you cant attack the electorate. What the fuck was she thinking? Worse, she and many other of her ilk are still at it.

          If Trump is even moderately not bad and the left keeps this shit up he is gonna mop the floor with their asses in 2020.

          1. You can attack your political opponent but you cant attack the electorate.

            It’s part of the disconnect of people who’ve never worked an honest job.

    4. YOU! JOHN! DO SOMETHING! AD HARDER! GO OUT THERE WITH BALLOONS AND GET THE PEOPLE INTO THE FUCKEN STORES! NOW!

      1. I’m not always buying what John is selling but I’m always glad to hear him pitch it.

    5. +1 making up the difference in volume.

      It’s like their sloppy economic thinking is metastasizing.

    6. The progs need to prog more. They need to be more effective in explaining to whites, particularly those with no college education, that they are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, cis-gendered, white-privileged shitlords. Whites who do not have a college education have difficulty in understanding their white privilege because many of them grew up in trailer parks with either bible-thumpers or meth heads for parents. That means progressives have to prog louder, more often, and more provocatively. Riots work well for media coverage, but protests that stop traffic at rush hour get the message across on a more personal level.

    7. Didn’t they already outspend Trump by approximately 2:1? That they think they have a resource problem is the first problem they need to fix.

      1. It was more like 3:1.

    8. But they won the majority of the popular vote, a full 48 percent.

      1. Plurality!

        -fistshake-

  25. Turning Points USA has created a watchlist to monitor professors who violate right-wing political correctness and make statements that are offensive to conservatives.

    We will prove how bad this behavior is by behaving the exact same way! For great justice!

    1. Take off every zig.

      1. Do they know what they doing?

        1. Somebody set up us the bomb.

    2. See, even the conservatives know that the solution to progressivism’s problems is to prog harder.

    3. Like it or not Game Theory says tit-for-tat is a successful strategy.

      1. It seems to me that if one side is unknowingly making self-sabotaging moves, it’s ill-conceived to help them out by joining in with them. Wasn’t the censorship of free speech through political correctness a significant issue?

        I know that’s not what’s really happening here, since this is just sharing information, but in the abstract, doubling down on a bad strategy seems like an even worse strategy.

  26. Huh. Nick’s going to be over at Cato talking about “How Government Stifled Reason’s Free Speech.” Here’s a very long thread about what happened.

    1. The wood chippers have been running non-stop since that day.

    2. This had better be about the woodchipper incident.

    3. When Reason dimed out its loyal commenters. NEVER FORGET

      1. Did anyone actually get contacted by the feds? I didn’t.

        1. Didn’t Agammamon get contacted?

      1. So, is commenting legal again?

        1. No, but some of us are going to do it anyway.

          1. They told me that libertarianism is kissing cousins with anarchy, and I didn’t believe them…

            1. NTTIAWWT. Kissing cousins, I mean.

                1. only 12-13 years separates the Elvis movie/song and the Saints’ cover

    4. Ah, The Troubles. Hard to believe that was only last year.

  27. “The Guardian lists Reason as one of a handful of websites that liberals should start reading if they want to get outside their bubble and understand how Trump won (and what to do about it).”

    Specifically, Shikha Dalmia articles.

    1. They could always pull up Weigel classics from the archives.

  28. Professors shouldn’t be scared to express their views in the classroom.

    Students, however…

  29. The Guardian lists Reason as one of a handful of websites that liberals should start reading if they want to get outside their bubble and understand how Trump won (and what to do about it).

    Swell.

  30. From the Guardian

    “Yes, it’s partly funded by the left’s least favorite family, the Kochs. Yes, it habitually shills for nasty industries like big oil and big tobacco. Yes, libertarian connections with the far right, their support for a brutal economic doctrine, and preparedness to get into bed with the worst reactionaries mean that we will never see eye to eye.”

    Now that’s what I call a ringing endorsement.

    1. Nasty Industries! Like oil producers that make that fucking substance that your fucking Prius still needs to get you to yoga class and Whole Foods!

    2. “These people are our worst enemies, but frankly, they’re smarter than us, so steal their arguments.”

      1. That sums it up nicely.

    3. The entire staff lost their fucking minds spewing hatred of Trump. I don’t think Guardian readers are going to get out of their bubble anytime soon.

      1. NTTIAWWT

    4. I mentioned this in another thread, but I’m trying to figure out what “connections with the far right” the author is referring to. It’s clearly not our economics, as that is mentioned separately. I’m thinking it’s the belief in religious liberty, but I’m not sure.

      1. Good luck with that. All of their accusations seem to be murky, nebulous bullshit, you cant pin them down on anything. I especially love the ‘in league with the KKK’ stuff. When is the last time the KKK could get more than 5 members together for a rally? As far as I know they don’t even exist in my area anymore and I live in the heart of the deep south where the Klan used to be strong. I mean, who puts on a dress and goes out to burn crosses anymore?

      2. Libertarianism is of the far right.

        1. Fucking Nazi libertarians. They’re the worst kind.

          1. As I said in the other thread, surprising number of people seem to think that Libertarians + Roads = Nazis.

      3. Gillespie did share a debate stage not that long ago with Theodore Dalrymple, who writes for Takimag. Takimag, the online magazine where Richard Spencer (the neo-Nazi performance artist) was an editor. So yes, I can totally see why Reason is being in bed with the far right.

        1. Is that sarcasm? Is Gore Vidal on the far right because he once argued with William Buckley on Firing Line?

          1. I believe that is sarcasm.

        2. Keep in mind “conservative” is synonymous with “ultra right wing extremist” to these people, so they could be referring to anything there.

          1. Yeah, every time I travel to Europe I’m very careful how to describe my political leanings should the topic arise. I almost always start by asking if the person I’m talking to understands the different spectra of North American versus European political thought.

            If I get a blank stare, I switch to talking about the weather.

            1. You just have to remember that the notion of self-rule is utterly foreign to the Europeon mind. They may speak English, but if you bring up individual rights, you might as well be speaking Klingon.

      4. It’s clearly not our economics

        You know who else was from Austria?

    5. …their support for a brutal economic doctrine

      The sad-sack footer on their site begging for money advertises actual altruistic economic doctrine of all their cheapskate prog readers much as anything else.

  31. So you want to get out of your bubble: try reading these conservative websites …

    Reason

    *sigh*

    1. To be honest compared to some of the heavy proggie sites, Reason is conservative.

      1. Fuck no. Conservative means “change bad, mmmkay?”

        1. If you go with Michael Oakeshott, conservatism means “Change: does it do us any good in the long run? Let’s think about this.”

          1. Yeah, except that Oakeshott probably took 1000 more words to say it.

        2. I won’t say most, but many conservatives consider themselves to be classical liberals and want the liberalism of a 100 years ago, not “progressivism”.

    2. Boy, are they ever in for a treat.

    3. Give us your huddled masses yearning to be free…

      1. You’re right, Tonio. This is an opportunity.

        Now lads and lasses, be on your best behavior! Guardian readers are going to be lurking here any minute!

        1. It isn’t us Injun. The problem will be with the official STEVE SMITH WELCOME WAGON!!!

          1. Omg somebody go check the STEVE SMITH cage and make sure it’s locked up tight!

        2. I expect a half-dozen more than usual trolls to swoop in and drop single turds in the comments before disappearing. It will pass quickly.

          1. And if it doesn’t… Sevo will shitpost stalk it into the ground!

        3. I was about to suggest that we could expose them to SugarFree if we wanted them to go away posthaste.

          Then I realized that you do not expose yourself to SugarFree. SugarFree exposes himself to you. Nobody can help you to live a SugarFree life. You cannot choose it. It creeps up from the abyss and cradles you lovingly as it tortures your neurons with imagery that there is no bleach for. You learn to love it and embrace it back as a survival mechanism.

          1. Agile Cyborg is a great commenter to experience for the first time. He’s not as horrific as SF and he is usually posting on a Saturday night while I’m drunk so it all works out.

            1. I’m just fucking around for the lulz. I love SugarFree’s disturbed mind and have visited his blog a few times to catch up on anything I’ve missed.

  32. Anyone who thinks he’s not nursing a hard-on for Hillary is delusional.

    You shouldn’t say things like that. It’s just mean.

    1. Yeah. Poor Shrillz hasn’t seen a hard-on this side of Eleanor’s ghost for years now.

  33. Professors shouldn’t be scared to express their views in the classroom.

    And why exactly would professors be ‘scared’ of a website? I’m sure they have some terrifying goal in mind…

    The group’s mission is to “identify, educate, train and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets and limited government.” Its national college and university field program works to “identify young conservative activists, build and maintain effective student groups, advertise and rebrand conservative values, engage in face-to-face and peer-to-peer conversations about the pressing issues facing our country,”

    Oh. So they hold no legal or political power to enforce any kind of standard, and don’t actually claim to want to demand a standard, only debate? When they’re actually demanding profs be fired for something, then they get to be ‘scared’.

    It’s almost like they’re just providing information (and yes, social justice groups and what not should be allowed to do this too. Hell, it already happens on RateMyProfessor sometimes).

    1. First of all, this is the kind of thing that will give those lefty profs a raging hard on. They live for shit like this. Sort of like when Christians are actually persecuted outside of their imaginations. Their more likely to be pissed if they don’t make the list. Second, why shouldn’t conservative let consumers know what product their actually getting. Telling people what professors actually teach is no different then telling me how the 2017 cars perform. The pros have a hell of a lot more to fear from their sjw students than any outside organization.

      1. All I’m getting out of this is “a conservative group wants to provide information on professors’ bias.” I absolutely fail to see how this would make professors’ ‘scared’. Robby is equivocating between the current power of the left to censor with the right’s…ability to publish public information on people. It’s moronic. The worst that can happen here is a conservative student avoids a class because he disagrees with the prof. Depending on the extent of the problem (I can understand, say, a Jew avoiding a class by an advocate of the ‘push Israel into the sea’ Palestinian support mentality) the worst that can happen is that a student is moderately close-minded, and individually choose to be that way. The horror.

        1. Honestly, I think it’s important that students can’t get away with being willfully closeminded. The job of an education should be to teach students how to approach different viewpoints with a discerning, but open, mind.

          The problem is that most universities are progressive echo-chambers of reinforcing closemindedness, but just because I don’t want the left to have their ideas go unchallenged, I also don’t want conservatives to also allow their ideas to go unchallenged. Free market of ideas, and all that.

          1. You are stuck in the 20th century. The purpose of education is to get students a good job, period. At least that’s what I keep hearing from our trustees.

  34. In truth Trump and all his supporters talked about “Hillary for Prison” purely to stop President Hillary. Now that President Hillary is not gonna happen, we can be magnanimous. Or basically tell Hillary, “don’t go away mad, just go away”.

    1. Presidential pardon.

    2. They don’t want to turn xer in to a martyr.

      1. Republicans will fuck it up by simultaneously over-reaching and focusing on the wrong issues, and Hillary will come away looking better than she did going in.

        Pardon her. Permanently associate her with guilt and owing her freedom to the benevolence of Donald fucking Trump. Her political career is over and there’s no way she’d end up in jail even if the investigations turn up video evidence of her committing felonies (because we already have this).

        1. And it would save a shit ton of taxpayer money.

          Yeah, I’m with you Derp. Just pardon her and let her try to explain it away when she is running in 2020.

          1. I thought it was widely agreed Hillary would almost certainly die of whatever degenerative disease her campaign was covering up in the next several months. Is that no longer the consensus?

            1. I think she is likely very ill. People just have stopped talking about it. And the fact that she is likely ill is another reason not to indict her.

              I can understand why Trump isn’t going after Hillary. There is no excuse, however, for not going after her underlings. Hillary’s public career may be over but creatures like John Podesta could very well reappear in the next Democratic administration.

            2. Oh, I think there is a big chance she could die. Of course, that would actually make her seem warmer to the electorate.

            3. Her degeneration hinged on her assuming the stresses of the presidency. Now, she may live forever!

    3. In truth Trump and all his supporters talked about “Hillary for Prison” purely to stop President Hillary. Now that President Hillary is not gonna happen, we can be magnanimous. Or basically tell Hillary, “don’t go away mad, just go away”.

      Ha ha ha what? Do you seriously believe that? Did I imagine the hundreds of oh-so-serious screeds I read from people declaring that rule of law was dead in this country if Hillary wasn’t indicted? That the very legitimacy of government hinged on whether or not she went to prison?

      1. Trump should indict her. Understand why he isn’t going to do so. Indicting Hillary and throwing her in jail would be for you and me a triumph of the rule of law and the principle that no one is above the law. That is great except that the 62 million people who voted for Hillary wouldn’t view it that way. They would see it as the criminalization of politics and as the precedent for imprisoning your political adversaries. They would of course be wrong about that. That, sadly would not matter. The precedent would be set in their minds and no amount of facts and reasoning would convince them otherwise.

        Basically the rule of law if screwed either way. Either Trump indicts Hillary and the rule of law dies because the law becomes a weapon to throw your political adversaries in jail with or Trump doesn’t indict her and avoids that but sets the precedent that powerful people are above the law.

        Which choice do you want? I think we are probably better off not indicting her but there is a good case to be made he should. Neither choice is good, however.

        1. That’s why a truth and reconciliation commission would be in order. For a year, allow everyone associated with the Clinton Crime Family to come forward and confess their crimes without fear of criminal prosecution. After the year-long offer of amnesty for confession, investigate and prosecute the criminals identified by the commission.

          This worked pretty well in South Africa after apartheid.

          1. This. People need to be provided an opportunity – come clean and you will not be prosecuted for anything you cop to. Anything you fail to mention, or anything you lie about is another story.

            Not just for Clinton specific issues though, this also needs to be done for the IRS, Fast and Furious, and Operation Chokepoint, to name just a few.

        2. Trump should indict her. Understand why he isn’t going to do so.

          Because he’s not a grand jury?

  35. I can’t do PM links and listen to the 5th column at the same time.

    1. That’s more your failing than that of this blog post or podcast. Although I do see posting right before PM Links as Reason’s version of a Friday afternoon document dump. WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE?

      1. Well in a contest between 5th Column, & Robby Links…. there’s a shitload more interesting stuff in the podcast.

        but then the comments are better here. its a struggle.

        1. 5th Column should do a call in segment, where the commenters get to call in and ask questions.

          1. They aren’t retarded, CMW.

          2. I think they record them in the wee-hours when Matt’s between Fox-Business appearances on Kennedy & Red Eye…. or something. I think the call-ins would be drunker than they already are.

            Which would just make them *more* awesome, of course. They should at least run a test-version of your idea, for the lulz.

          3. And subject themselves to the 5 minute declarations masquerading as questions?

            1. fair enough. maybe a tweet-in, instead of a call-in

            2. This guy gets it.

  36. Russia buys all kinds of gold. 1.4 million ounces.

    http://seekingalpha.com/articl…..take?ifp=0

  37. http://www.clickorlando.com/ne…..police-say

    Man stabs father over circumcision. And people think the dick threads on reason get heated.

    1. The more interesting question is why the hell did the father think he could get his 20 year old son a circumcision against his will??

    2. Hey look, John made a pun!

  38. http://www.autoblog.com/2016/1…..a-model-s/

    Hackers “mind control” Tesla. Yeah, self driving cars are a great idea.

    1. “Hackers ‘mind control’ Tesla. Yeah, self driving cars are a great idea.”

      And they’d have to actually find a way to get the program into the software of the car, which would be quite the feat considering the car’s internal computer shouldn’t be connected to WiFi or any network since it A) has no reason to be and B) would be a major security risk.

      I mean, if you’re GOING to break into the self-driving car, break into the computer, and forcibly tamper with the software, I don’t see why you wouldn’t just instead cut the breaklines and call it a day. There’s really no good reason do this when there are much better low-tech alternatives.

      But it has the word “HACKER” in it and it’s an article about the computers of CARS so of course all you fearful, non-Computer savvy types will shit yourself in panic over “OMG HACKERS TAKING CONTROL OF CARS!!”

      1. To be sure, once the technology is adopted on a large scale, we’ll probably be looking at networked vehicles. . .with government-mandated programming.

        WHERE IS YOUR PUNY GOD NOW?

        1. Internet of Government Mandated Things.

      2. Self driving cars are going to be networked. That is the entire point of them. Moreover, if they are not networked, they will have a very hard time navigating and interacting with each other.

        Second, you don’t hack a self driving car to murder its owner anymore than you hack a computer to destroy its hard drive. You hack the car to either steal it or hold it for ransom. And ransoming a self driving car would have the added benefit of being able to ransom it with its owner in it. Just lock the doors and send the car down the road. If the owner wants out of the car or the car to go where he wants it to, he can fork over some cash to my account in Latvia.

      3. I think John’s biggest hero is Admiral Adama from Battlestar Galactica. Him or the Amish. It’s a tossup.

        1. I think the Amish are clowns. Just because I reject technology or anything that takes away my autonomy and privacy doesn’t mean I reject all technology. You can embrace technology without worshiping it.

          1. Nobody here is “worshiping” it. Some are welcoming the improvements to our lives and our safety.

            Your definition of “autonomy” sounds like a 1950’s era car commercial.

            Your privacy is already a lie. You’re communicating to us with an insecure computer or phone. If you were more technically literate, Van Eck phreaking would probably give you nightmares.

            1. It is not an improvement to your life unless you are too stupid to drive a car properly. And there is more to life than safety. Basically you are a fucking illiterate infant. No wonder you love technology its your only hope. If you don’t worship it, why do you never see any downsto it?

        2. John doesn’t have a good sense to salute Husker Adama.

        3. Everyone who is good, decent, or noble would say Bill Adama is their biggest hero.

          And if you are some sort of frakking lunatic who would say otherwise than you can just GET THE FRAK OUT.

        4. If William Adama isn’t your biggest hero, there’s something wrong with you. He saved the human race from the frakking toasters. Be grateful.

          1. I’ve had my suspicions that you were a toaster lover. This sounds exactly like something a toaster would say. Suspicions intensify.

            1. Of course you’re accusing me, that’s exactly what a toaster would do to increase paranoia and get us at each other’s throats. I say we airlock ZSG right now, it’s the only way to be sure.

              1. Of course you’d have a counter-accusation ready. The mark of a logical machine. And you’re naturally violent towards humans. Frakking toaster!

          2. I never understood Battlestar Galactica. If the Cylons are so indistinguishable from humans that the smartest guy in the fleet took years to try to figure out a test to detect them, why not just call them humans?

            1. New BSG very much has a “made in the image of our creator” thing going on.

              For most of the series they’re murderous, immortal synths that can be literally programmed. Also I remember one of the Boomer clones being able to interface with Galactica’s systems by sticking some wires in her arm, so there’s something definitely ‘not human’ going on there. It’s been awhile but I think Baltar was deliberately fucking up the tests for some reason, I can’t remember, that guy switched sides like five times.

      4. But it has the word “HACKER” in it and it’s an article about the computers of CARS so of course all you fearful, non-Computer savvy types will shit yourself in panic over “OMG HACKERS TAKING CONTROL OF CARS!!”

        I used to be concerned about this sort of thing. Then everybody got a laptop *and* a smartphone that connects to any one of a dozen networks and started maintaining multiple email, twitter, and facebook accounts as part of their daily routine. Then I began to notice more ‘hackers’ who would say stupid shit like OMG [INSERT OTHER TEAM] TAKING CONTROL OF SHIT!!!! who would then turn around and invent cryptocurrencies and say stupid shit like, “Imagine being able to be able to monitor the entire economy in real time!!!!” and participate in ‘day of code’ events to end the scourge of human trafficking.

      5. the car’s internal computer shouldn’t be connected to WiFi or any network since it A) has no reason to be and B) would be a major security risk.

        You can’t monitor tire pressure without wifi.

  39. “Turning Points USA has created a watchlist to monitor professors who violate right-wing political correctness and make statements that are offensive to conservatives. This kind of thing is a terrible idea: Professors shouldn’t be scared to express their views in the classroom.”

    1) Robby’s link doesn’t say what he says it says.

    “A new website is asking students and others to “expose and document” professors who “discriminate against conservative students, promote anti-American values and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”

    I think Robby just made that shit up in bold.

    If you can’t make your point with intellectual honesty, Robby, then you just end up being an embarrassment to libertarians everywhere.

    Maybe you don’t care about being an embarrassment to libertarians. Do you consider yourself a libertarian?

    Here’s what the link says they’re doing.

    “The group’s mission is to “identify, educate, train and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets and limited government.”

    2) This is nothing new.

    Accuracy in Academia has been around since 1985. They do the same thing.

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

    http://www.academia.org/about-aia/

    . . . and when I say, “they do the same thing”, I don’t mean the bullshit that Robby made up.

    1. I’m going to be absolutely fair to Robby. He likely took that from FIRE, which had its own article about its concern regarding this list.

      1. I read the article you linked.

        FIRE wrote that they do some of the same things.

        FIRE didn’t write anything like:

        “Turning Points USA has created a watchlist to monitor professors who violate right-wing political correctness and make statements that are offensive to conservatives.”

        Looks like that’s just Robby to me.

        1. who violate right-wing political correctness

          That line just screamed of Robby’s flavor of editorializing. Turned out, it was.

          I’ll grant that Shikha is plain fucking crazy and Steve Chapman is an utter hack. But Robby is probably the worst person published by Reason hands down. He’s a closeted leftist, out to prove that the true path forward is some kind of centrist mealy mouthed watered down version of libertarianism that’s custom built for compatibility with the absolute stupidity of progressives and socialists.

          1. Not that I’m with him or anything.

            But the way forward for Libertarianism definitely is some watered down version from the purist visions of it. People don’t like paying taxes for example. But once you start saying shit like, “I’ll abolish the IRS tomorrow” people think you’re nuts. You aren’t gonna get many people into offices with those kinds of stances.

            1. Robby is a gateway libertarian?

            2. I appreciate what you’re saying.

              I don’t think this was pragmatic, big-tent, libertarianism.

              I think this Robby was just full of shit.

            3. I assure you that the way forward for us is not to hobble ourselves to be compatible as coalition partners with progressives and socialists. Those people are lost, most of them forever. The way forward is to expel the progressives and socialists to the fringe, not to accept their premises or their promises. We aren’t going to win over the next generation of potential libertarians by needelssly conceding legitimacy to the left and their positions. We need to speak truth, that’s it.

              The left’s beliefs are the eternal enemy of what libertarianism is about, there should be no compromise with the left and I don’t mean about policy.

              1. I’m just saying the reality is Libertarian will always be a fringe kooky thing unless/until it embraces more moderate suggestions to change the way things work. There are always things that can be improved, but life in America is pretty good. People fear upsetting that apple cart.

                I wouldn’t want to placate big government leftists. But you do have to get people to leave both the Democratic and Republican party if you want to gain traction. Which probably means that any Libertarian party that actually has some clout probably would end up being the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” party that everyone hated Gary Johnson for.

                Maybe down the road if things went well people would be more open to some of the more extreme proposals.

                1. I’m just saying the reality is Libertarian will always be a fringe kooky thing unless/until it embraces more moderate suggestions to change the way things work.

                  Again I’m not talking about policy. If some libertarian politician were to sign on to increased military spending in exchange for ending affirmative action or whatever, I wouldn’t necessarily fault them. What I’m talking about are principles and messaging. Sending out the message that we’re willing to compromise on how things ought to be is saying that we’re nothing but useful idiots for the left. We win converts with strength of message and the utter correctness of our positions. Speak truth, always speak truth and nothing else. Robby has scarcely seen a messaging compromise that he was unwilling to make if he thought for half a moment that it might make some progressives like him enough to say nice things about him. Robby is a singularly awful messenger.

          2. I don’t have a problem with the stance that chilling effects on speech are bad no matter which direction they’re coming from–I wouldn’t even have a problem with that stance even if I disagreed with it.

            However, to use an analogy, OJ got off because the jury thought Mark Fuhrman tried to frame a guilty man.

            Once we start slanting the evidence, the argument stops being about correct and incorrect and starts being about ethics.

            We’re all subject to perspective and our own biases, and I won’t make any claims on perfection. But I reserve the right to call bullshit out when I see it, too. And I’m calling bullshit on Robby.

            1. Of course, if some right winger opposes free speech or whatever, they should be opposed. But going off the evidence here, that’s clearly not the case. Robby is a liar or a dunce. Probably both.

    2. Have you been to the site? I have, and I think Robby’s description is mostly accurate.

      1. I quoted the site Robby linked.

        “Turning Points USA has created a watchlist to monitor professors who violate right-wing political correctness and make statements that are offensive to conservatives.

        That’s what Robby wrote.

        It’s horseshit.

        1. Reading the website, I don’t think its horseshit at all. People are overreacting to it but its a fucking dumb circle jerk website that no one will care about in a week. It’s as retarded as change.org petitions.

          1. You understand there’s a difference between suggesting that something might lead to abuse and saying that the purpose of the site is to “monitor professors who violate right-wing political correctness and make statements that are offensive to conservatives”, don’t you?

            If I said that, “Apatheist supports the Second Amendment because he wants to ensure that rapists have free access to firearms”, would you think that was honest?

            Or would you call that out as bullshit?

    3. Ken,

      Robbie’s link, as I’m sure you saw, goes to an Inside Higher Ed article, which links to a Turning Point USA’s new website Professor Watchlist.

      Under “about us” on professorwatchlist.org is the following:

      The mission of Professor Watchlist is to expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students, promote anti-American values, and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.

  40. Turning Points USA has created a watchlist to monitor professors who violate right-wing political correctness and make statements that are offensive to conservatives. This kind of thing is a terrible idea: Professors shouldn’t be scared to express their views in the classroom.

    The group’s mission is to “identify, educate, train and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets and limited government.” Its national college and university field program works to “identify young conservative activists, build and maintain effective student groups, advertise and rebrand conservative values, engage in face-to-face and peer-to-peer conversations about the pressing issues facing our country,” according to its website.

    OH MY GAWD. JUST TERRIBLE. Thanks for pointing out this scourge of conservatives fighting back against their rightful goodthink overlords. Robby, you are the greatest libertarian in the world. Truly, you are the crown jewel of Reason staff. Thank you so much, I’ve learned so much from you.

    1. “Turning Points USA has created a watchlist to monitor professors who violate right-wing political correctness and make statements that are offensive to conservatives.”

      Yeah, that part is just pure horseshit.

      1. From the link, the watch-list’s creator-

        “It’s no secret that some of America’s college professors are totally out of line” and that he often hears stories about “professors who attack and target conservatives, promote liberal propaganda and use their position of power to advance liberal agendas in their classroom. Turning Point USA is saying enough is enough. It’s time we expose these professors.”

        sounds pretty close to Robby’s assessment.

        1. So? Is Yelp a watch list for restaurants? Isn’t ratemyprofessor basically already a ‘watchlist’ for professors?

          This isn’t a government agency; I’m guessing thenorganizations supports free speech too, so what’s wrong with them tracking profs’ biases? The left already has the DoE doing their bidding.

          Gotta say, I sympathize more with the organization than with Robby’s criticism of it.

        2. Not even close. “offensive to conservatives” is a much broader set than what they’re talking about.

          As always, you should ask yourself: if what they said is that bad, why did their opponent (Robby) have to totally reword what they said?

      2. Robby clutching his pearls at the specter of left wing professors being persecuted in academia because of some lone website is absolutely laughable on it’s face.

  41. Bah, missed the links because of a meeting. But, fellow Reasonites I can regale you with a choice bit of derp.

    An admin unit has swallowed another admin unit and is now chewing on the remains. The top-down process by which this was done was described (negatively) as a “neo-liberal takeover”. And complaint was issued that “treating the faculty as customers won’t fly here – we are used to much more input”.

    Your thought leaders, ladies and gentlemen!

    1. Can we drop the ‘neo liberal’ term? It stinks of garlic. Progressive garlic.

      1. Hey, it’s tacit admission that progs know who the real liberals are.

  42. Trump is easy to understand once you realize he’s opposite-man. E.g.:

    “I don’t want to hurt the Clintons” = “I want to rip their eyes out”
    “Drain the swamp” = “Fill it with anacondas”
    “Build the wall” = “Don’t build the wall so we have a pretext to imprison and kill millions”
    “You will be very happy” = “You will be miserable”

    See? It’s not so hard to understand him.

  43. The Guardian lists Reason as one of a handful of websites that liberals should start reading if they want to get outside their bubble and understand how Trump won (and what to do about it).

    Yes, it’s partly funded by the left’s least favorite family, the Kochs. Yes, it habitually shills for nasty industries like big oil and big tobacco. Yes, libertarian connections with the far right, their support for a brutal economic doctrine, and preparedness to get into bed with the worst reactionaries mean that we will never see eye to eye.

    […]

    In general, Reason may also offer lessons on the strategic, long-term defense of constitutional principles.

    Shorter: “Reason can teach us a thing or two about defending constitution principles, except you know, like the icky parts about property rights and guns. And we should defend free speech because of the tactical advantage it would give us to not be censored when out-of-power, even though we’re totally cool with leftists censoring people when we are in power.”

    Great endorsement Robby, the progressive vanguard likes what you’ve been up to!

    1. Someone needs to get that tariff breakdown to Steve Bannons inbox asap.

    2. He’s not counting all the other jobs protected by the tariff, beyond just the employees. Like the job of the politician who got the tariff passed.

      1. What’re the lobbyists, chopped liver?

    3. Thanks, never heard of this guy. Good stuff.

      1. His “Roads” episode is hilariously cynical.

        And somehow Angelo doesn’t identify as a libertarian.

    4. Excellent. It upsets me that he hasn’t broken 100K views.

  44. Big Obamacare decision coming in February?

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..next-year/

    1. WHERE MY LEGACY GONE?

      I’m shouting a lot today.

  45. Professors shouldn’t be scared to express their views in the classroom.

    From what I’ve heard, they’re generally not.

    1. Fake News! AAAAAHHHHHHH!!

  46. This kind of thing is a terrible idea: Professors shouldn’t be scared to express their views in the classroom.

    virtue confirmed.

  47. Assuming Trump is even being quoted accurately, it’s a wise move at this point. Later on, he can always say that the FBI has discovered new evidence of Clinton corruption, or that old evidence was suppressed and is only now coming to light. Then he can prosecute and/or pardon her while looking less partisan and vindictive.

    1. But surely it must be very unlikely to find any more evidence of corrupt behavior by the Clintons besides what we’ve already learned about.

      1. Well, they didn’t stop being Clintons, so there will always be new evidence insofar as they will always be engaged in corruption.

      2. I have heard the FBI look at the Clinton foundation is still going on. Plus, we know that Clinton partisans in the FBI and Justice were not exactly being objective. Once the new administration comes in, who knows what information will be “discovered” that’s already there?

    2. I expect that he won’t go after her. Instead he’ll go after her staff… It will utterly neuter her. She cannot function without her staff lawnmowering opposition to her idiocy.

      And he has to do it. The Clinton machine is a major source of opposition to him and could depose him in the next election unless he cripples it.

      1. At the very least, he should get a determination denying every person on Clinton’s staff a security clearance for the rest of their lives.

        I think a lifetime ban is fair. No way Huma or Mills should have access to classified info after what they were party to.

  48. Guardian may call this, The Libertarian Moment in Ukraine. Because why not, far right and slavery, right?

    Police in eastern Ukraine have arrested a teacher accused of trying to sell a 13-year-old girl for $10,000 (?8,035).

    The girl was living at a boarding school in the Kharkiv region for orphans and children from broken homes.

    Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov reported the case on Facebook, with photos of the 52-year-old teacher and girl. He said police had been monitoring them for four months.

    Mr Avakov said the buyer hinted that the girl’s organs would be removed.

    The buyer inquired about the girl’s health and paid the teacher 1,000 hryvnia (?31; $39) for photos of the girl and her medical records, Mr Avakov said.

    Provenance: BBC. Not The Sun, or Daily Mail.

    1. I think my katana could solve this problem with a single slice.

      1. Hey, at least they caught her!

        And..er…the orphan girl wasn’t shot 23 times because she made a furtive movement?

        Yeah, that’s the best I can do.

  49. Romney edging out Giuliani for SOS?

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..e-per-wsj/

    1. Sack Of Shit?

    2. Say, what about, I dunno, someone with slightest clue about foreign policy?

      1. Actually I think someone completely uninterested in foreign policy may have a good shot at being the best SoS in recent memory.

  50. Questions for you weirdos who follow soccer ball…
    I guess there’s a big thing about the US women’s team suing for higher pay.

    Quest 1. Is it trues the US womens team players make 1/4 what the us mens team players make?

    2. Is it true the women bring in more revenue than the men?

    3. When I said, as a joke, that the 2 teams should play each other for the higher pay, I was told the women’s team would beat the US men. I instinctively said that nuts, but I know nothing about soccer ball. So, could the US women’s team beat the men?

    1. 1. I don’t know
      2. no idea
      3. depends on how attractive they are.

    2. #3 no chance.

      1. Warroad, MN high school hockey team beat the women’s Olympic squad in a no checking game.

        Also, a good story about a washed up #203 men’s player on the tennis tour, schooling the Williams sisters (when they were just starting).

          1. There is no body checking in women’s hockey. So I think they went with that as a rule when they played.

    3. 2. Is it true the women bring in more revenue than the men?

      If you’ve got a shit product, spending less on raw materials, even if inferior, increases revenues.

      1. Also, if the product isn’t pink, but has a vagina, it still counts as a ‘pink tax’, right?

        Female porn stars generally bring in more revenue than men too.

        1. Also, they get to be “stars” as soon as they enter the profession. No other occupation has that feature!

      2. Are you confusing revenues with profits?

    4. #1 Maybe? Men make more overall. Women’s team is salaried. Men work for bonuses.

      #2 Depends on the year. Women’s World Cup and Men’s World Cup are offset by a year, and that’s your big money maker.

      #3 no way ever. I’d bet (2:1 or better odds, granted) against them finishing the game if men don’t go easy on them.

      Australian female team (currently ranked #7) got trashed by a school team of 12 year old boys. Yes, they didn’t have all their top players. It was one fucking high school, not, like, under-12 selection of Australia.

        1. Slight correction: it was an under-15 side associated with one of the professional clubs in Australia. That means they’re recruiting from all boys in that age group in their catchment area. Your overall point is still valid.

          1. That Feeling When you can’t trust Daily Mail to give you either full context or hot totty pics… :'(

    5. Probably going to make some women mad, but:

      Here’s the list of Olympic records.

      There isn’t a single record held by a female that isn’t surpassed by a male. Pitting top athletes of the genders against one another would be an absolute disaster. If women had to compete in the same athletic events as men, there would not be such a thing as a female Olympian in athletics. The bottom contenders for males perform better than the top contenders for the females, and for the top contenders it’s a blowout.

      It might be unfair, but blame sexual dimorphism, not misogyny. It’s not like sports really mean anything anyway. It’s why we build machines – it hardly matters what the physical ability of a crane operator is.

      1. 36 Arrow Elimination. Men’s Olympic record is 340 points, Women’s Olympic record is 341 points.

        1. It’s not considered to be an athletic event, and I was careful in saying so above. There are all kinds of Olympic events that women could hold the highest records because they don’t rely entirely upon physical performance (remember, a bow is a machine). Pistol shooting is another example, and there are many Olympic events these days.

          1. The “Athletics” mentioned in the page title is the British term for “Track and Field”.

        2. Well, that Obliterated the entire point.

          Check mate.

    6. 1. Is it trues the US womens team players make 1/4 what the us mens team players make?
      National teams do not make salaries directly; in US pros women making 1/4 of what men make sounds about right; for sure it is better ratio women vs. men (1:4) than, say, WNBA vs. NBA salaries.

      2. Is it true the women bring in more revenue than the men?
      For the national teams, I would actually assume this to be the case. But that revenue is in USSOC Federation general pool for soccer development, governance, and promotion. For pro clubs (who actually pay professionals to play), no.

      3…So, could the US women’s team beat the men?
      *Dismissively giggles at question.

    7. The US Women’s soccer team couldn’t win a boys’ state high school championship

      1. Thx to all. My instincts were right but u can’t disagree with a woman around here without risking your life so I let it go.

    8. #3 is irrelevant when it comes to questions of pay. I’m against collective bargaining in general but if it has to exist, it shouldn’t be based on a collective you (the ladies) are not part of (the men).

    9. And now I’m breaking my vow to ignore the rest of the MLS playoffs after both NYC teams so thoroughly embarrassed themselves and watching the all-Canada semis. Where the turf is shitty and there’s a delay so they can re-paint the lines. It’s like Canada doesn’t soccer or something.

    10. “So, could the US women’s team beat the men?”

      Not likely.

  51. Fucking fuck

    1. And that goes through but my soccer responses didnt.

  52. How hard is it to throw out a Suderman article for the overnight? But, no, the lynx have to be the overnight. Slackers.

  53. OK, This is fucking awesome

    Obviously close to my heart.

    There’s also a point here which i don’t have the the attention-span right now to make…. but its basically about how poor people almost *always* have a far deeper appreciation for fashion and taste than do rich people, partly because its the form of luxury which carries with it such immediate regard and social-status.

    There’s also another one about how sad it is people waste their energy with this sort of shit when they don’t even have flush toilets, but … fuck that, i still think its awesome that these dudes ‘battle’ to the the king of the jungle-pimps.

    Its sort of like how breakdancing evolved when local bronx gangs decided to stop shooting & fighting each other, and instead competed to see who could do the freshest dance-moves.

    1. As a card-carrying slob, fashion baffles me. Especially male fashion.

      1. pimping aint easy

        when in doubt, find a tailor

        1. Does Target have a bespoke service?

    2. It is fucking awesome. People acting like people, being free. Progs and conservotards disapprove.

    3. That was ridiculous – good find, Gilmore.

  54. Wait, Robby, why no soft-peddling equivocation like “conservatives understandably are concerned about biased rhetoric in campus, but…”?

    Only proggies are understandable or have good intentions?

  55. Not sure if this was posted yesterday: “Many in Milwaukee Neighborhood Didn’t Vote – And Don’t Regret It”

    Four barbers and a firefighter were pondering their future under a Trump presidency at the Upper Cutz barbershop last week.

    “We got to figure this out,” said Cedric Fleming, one of the barbers. “We got a gangster in the chair now,” he said, referring to President-elect Donald J. Trump.

    They admitted that they could not complain too much: Only two of them had voted. But there were no regrets.
    […]
    All four barbers had voted for Mr. Obama. But only two could muster the enthusiasm to vote this time. And even then, it was a sort of protest. One wrote in Mrs. Clinton’s Democratic opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The other wrote in himself.

    1. The word that they avoided saying until the 8th paragraph was “Black”

      Of the city’s 15 council districts, the decline in turnout from 2012 to 2016 in the five poorest was consistently much greater than the drop seen in more prosperous areas ? accounting for half of the overall decline in turnout citywide.

      The biggest drop was here in District 15, a stretch of fading wooden homes, sandwich shops and fast-food restaurants that is 84 percent black. In this district, voter turnout declined by 19.5 percent from 2012 figures

      Somehow i feel they’ll still find a way to explain that it was actually ‘racist whites’ that cost Hillary the election.

      1. They’re already blaming it on “voter suppression” of blacks.

        1. Well you can’t expect a black person to have enough wherewithal to obtain an ID.

          /Republican Voter Suppression Theory 101

          1. Their bigger point was that so many of them are ex-felons who can’t vote. Now I agree that that’s bullshit, but dayum.

            1. It is and it isn’t. We can’t pin everything on racist white people, especially in regards to violent crimes where the crime statistics and victim surveys on the matter are are strongly correlated to put it mildly.

              1. The bullshit part is that ex-felons can’t vote. I just find it unusual that they would draw attention to the disparity.

                1. The prohibition is supposed to be about prohibiting people with proven deficiency in moral judgement from voting. In the days of yore, that meant you committed a crime that had a victim. Nowadays, that’s more and more not the case at all.

    2. “I don’t feel bad,” Mr. Fleming said, trimming a mustache. “Milwaukee is tired. Both of them were terrible. They never do anything for us anyway.”

      Libertarian moment? Eh, not really…

  56. I want to watch Hillary do the perp walk. I understand it would be a very divisive thing to do, and would definitely not help to heal the divisions in this country, but will anything?
    At least she lost. I guess I can live with her being free as long as she and bubba aren’t stealing the silverware from the Whitehouse.

  57. I see the Presidential Medal of Freedom has become a participation trophy for famous people.

    Maybe the reason we can’t have nice things is that all the nice things get devalued to the point of being worthless.

    1. It’s the American version of modern knighthood.

      1. Yeah but at least knighthood involves a sword!

      2. Question: If you bump into Elton John on the street will he expect you to address him as Sir Elton John?

        Cuz I gotta say I’m not feeling that and really don’t like calling anyone by such a tag.

        Now go sing me some ‘Burn down the mission’, sir.

    2. I can think of worse things for a lame duck president to do.

    3. It’s a participation ribbon.

      Clearly Obama was handing them out to friends.

      Quite a joke.

  58. You never get a second chance to make a first impression.

    Police in Yokohama have arrested an unemployed 24-year-old man on suspicion of theft after he stole money from a wallet from the company president who was interviewing him for a job.

    1. 50,000 yen? What’s that, like ten bucks?

      1. It’s like 1 pair of dirty panties from the vending machine.

  59. More of Obama’s weird obsession with fame

    Goodbye, you silly man, and good fucking riddance.

      1. Playa Manhattan awoke in a bare room lit by a naked light bulb. An old TV in front of him flickered to life and showed a ghastly puppet. It spoke to him.

        “Hello Playa. You don’t know me, but I know you. I want to play a game. Here’s what happens if you lose: You will have to play a game of Monopoly with Bo Cara. And he’s *very* picky about the rules. To avoid this fate, you must eat through the wall of Chipotle burritos behind you. Look around your cell and know I’m not lying. You’d better hurry up. Live or die. The choice is yours.”

        Derpsaw watched the other cells from his control room and mulled which Reason commenter or writer would be next.

        1. I’ll play monopoly, and I’ll win.

          I can out-Bo Bo if I want.

    1. Ha..

      All people who supported him.

    2. Well, it’s not like Trump is going to be any better in the silly department.

    3. Ellen DeGeneres?

      Wtf?

      1. Obama is totally obsessed with fugly butch dykes. Figure it out I guess, I don’t get it.

        1. Figure it out I guess, I don’t get it.

          Intersectionality… Woman, lesbian, fugly, leftist, feminist, media personality.

  60. Dilemma:
    Wife not home for 2 hours. The boys (8, 5, 2) want to watch a movie. I need some time to prep the turkey. No school tomorrow.

    Is Happy Gilmore going to get me in trouble?

      1. Well, yes. First beer in 3 weeks. I’m working with an injector with a very sharp needle. Why wouldn’t I drink?

        1. Ok, if you stab yourself with a turkey injector, we’re really going to have to call for an intervention here.

        2. First beer in 3 weeks? No wonder we haven’t seen much of you lately.

    1. You eat shit for breakfast?

      1. I forgot about that part. I hope they can keep a secret.

    2. Bad Santa – get them prepped for Bad Santa 2.

      1. My brother tried to screen it for them. He’s not allowed to babysit anymore.

        One would have to assume that he knew exactly what he was doing.

        1. I like the cut of your brother’s jib.

          1. Anytime we have to sit for kids of the family, I just plug them into my VR mind control units with non-stop libertarian propaganda. If they get bored of that, I let them watch Southpark. By the time the parents pick them up, they’re asking for a bong, a beer, an AR-15, and some VR pr0n.

    3. You”re asking the wrong guy!

      I was watching Fritz the Cat when I was 12.

    4. The 2 year old won’t process it, and it’s fine for the 8 year old.

      The 5 year old might repeat something that’ll get you in trouble though.

      1. It’s been over a decade since I’ve seen it.

        Can’t imagine how bad it could be.

        1. Pro: They will learn the truth about golf. Also, they will probably identify with Shooter McGavin*, because he is the shit.

          Con: Julie Bowen carrying pitchers of beer while wearing white lingerie will warp their future life expectations.

          *In my younger days I was at a college party during which he was also in attendance. He was turning down women left and right.

          “Damn you people. Go back to your shanties.”

          1. I didn’t recognize her until I heard her voice. She’s… had some work done.

            1. Yes she has, however she has not overdone it like so many actresses, so there is that.

              1. Agree that you’re wrong.

                There was one episode of Modern Family where they went to Hawaii. Not OK.

                1. I will take your word for it. You’d think there would be a covet plastic surgeon in that town.

  61. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2…..rmany.html

    The woman, 39, from Eritrea, came to Germany as a refugee herself in 1991, before volunteering at asylum centers to “give something back.”

    But the Arabic speaker said what she discovered when working with migrants over the last five years shocked her.

    During her time at a number of centers across the country, she said she discovered Muslim refugees preaching “pure hatred” of Christians.

    Muslim children were told by their parents not to play with Christian kids.

    And she herself was told it was a sin for her to help feed and defend Christians.

    She told German Catholic website Kath.net: “They want Germany to be Islamized. They despise our country and our values.”

    Come on America, don’t you want some more open borders? What could possibly go wrong?

    1. She claimed many of the migrants showed their “true colors” only when they were away from people of other religions.

      The translator explained: “Pure hatred against non-believers is preached, and children are brought here from an early age here in Germany.

      1. In the city where I live, most taxi drivers seem to be east African, ME, or South Asian Muslims. I’ve spoken with two different Christian Sudanese cab drivers who reported the a similar story about the east African and ME Muslim drivers. Both said that they had to keep their Christianity to themselves, and that other drivers naturally thought they were Muslims, so they felt like they could speak freely. At the time I wrote their accounts as being exaggerations that reflected a bit of animosity felt by the Christian Sudanese. Now, however, I wonder whether they telling it as it is.

        1. They are telling it like it is. Most Muslims do not consider non Muslims to even rise to the level of human beings. They hate our guts. And even if they won’t do the killing themselves, they sure as hell won’t stop the ones who will from killing us.

          1. A radical Muslim wants to kill you. A moderate Muslim wants a racial Muslim to kill you.

    2. But the Arabic speaker said what she discovered when working with migrants over the last five years shocked her.

      At this point you have to be kinda dumb for this to “shock” you.

    3. Yeah but excluding them violates the natural right of every human being on Earth to traverse and occupy our private property and/or government property. So we are duty bound as libertarians to be open border fanatics.

      Or at least that’s how the “freedom of movement” as a natural right argument really boils down.

    4. Reading the article, clearly the problem is that she is a Christian. The solution is to fire her and replace her with a proper Muslim. Then we won’t have to hear about stuff like this.

    5. There was a Holocaust survivor who, when asked what he had learned, said something like: “if someone says they hate you and want to kill you, believe them”.

      http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=156_1440945862

  62. There was some good pants-shitting on CNN yesterday about General “Mad Dog” Mattis. I guess they expected generals to be soft and cuddly.

    Spot the Not: General Mattis

    1. Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.

    2. No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.

    3. Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.

    4. I like things that go boom. Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a half-assed brawl.

    5. The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot.

    6. I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.

      1. There has been so much racial healing over the last eight years I’m sick of all the racial healing.

      2. What an idiot.

        He used it appropriately.

      3. I’ve never met an adult who says things like the s word or the f word, and if they did, they would surely get laughed at.

        Some obscenities are more obscener than others I guess.

    1. Hmm….somehow I think #4 is slightly off.

      All six are super-quotable, though. I’ll have to find a way to use them during my Flames of War games.

    2. I’m going with 4. I recognize most of those quotes. 4 sounds too… Something is off.

      How would anybody be upset that this is how a Marine talks? I’m not in the armed forces, but I certainly hope this is how Marines are.

    3. 4 is the Not. That is a garbled quote from Frederick the Great.

      Prize for the winners

    4. #4 is the Not. It’s from Fallout New Vegas.

  63. The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the student march that night;
    The quads were filled with rent-a-cops and not a picket sign in sight;
    With Cooney busted for possession, and Barrows, the riot laws;
    A sickly silence fell upon the supporters of The Cause.

    A straggling few got up to go, in deep despair. The rest
    Clung to that hope which “springs eternal in the human breast;”
    They thought, If only hirsute Robby could be rallying that mob,
    We’d put up even money now, with Robby at the quads.

    But Flynn preceded Robby, as did also Jimmy Blake,
    And the former was a no-good and the latter was a fake;
    Forlorn, that stricken multitude discouraged by the odds,
    For there seemed but little chance of Robby’s getting to the quads.

    But Flynn let fly a bottle, to the wonderment of all,
    And Blake, the much despised, set a bomb off in the hall,
    And when the dust had lifted and men saw what had occurred,
    Jimmy beaned the Dean of Students, while the bombed out library burned.

    Then from five thousand throats and more there rose a lusty yell,
    It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell,
    A Harley roared up from the street, and was tearing up the sod,
    And Robby, Reason’s Robby, was advancing through the quads.

    There was ease in Robby’s manner as he wheeled into his place;
    There was pride in Robby’s bearing and a smile on Robby’s face,
    And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly gave a nod,
    No stranger in the crowd could doubt `twas Robby at the quads!

    1. Ten thousand eyes were on him as he gunned the throttle loud;
      Five thousand tongues applauded as he signaled to the crowd.
      And while the nervous officers grabbed the night sticks from their hips,
      Defiance gleamed in Robby’s eye, a sneer curled Robby’s lip.
      And now a can of tear gas came hurtling through the air,
      And Robby stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there,

      Close by the haughty Robby , the can unheeded sped —
      “That ain’t my style,” said Robby . “Break it up!” the coppers said.
      From the streets, black with people, there went up a muffled roar,
      Like the beating of the storm waves on a stern and distant shore.

      “Kill them; kill the pigs!” shouted someone from the mob;–
      And Robby guns his engine, and wipes-out on the lawn.
      With a fist of protest shaking, Robby’s visage shone;
      He jumped back on his Harley; he bade the march go on;
      The Harley takes off through the quads, ’till it hits a vicious bump;
      And Robby sails through the air, landing smack upon his rump.

      1. “Fascists!” he screeched, “Capitalist, Imperialist, Racist, Sexist pigs!”
        “If I must I’ll ride a tricycle, but we’ll have this march – you dig?”
        They saw his face grow stern and cold; they saw his muscles strain,
        And they knew that Reason’s Robby wouldn’t lose that bike again!

        The sneer is gone from Robby’s lip; his teeth are clenched in hate;
        He sniffs with cruel derision as he lets go of the brake.
        And now he throws it into first, the clutch he now he lets go,
        And now the air is shattered as the bike takes off – alone.

        Oh! somewhere there’s a campus town where they drum and chant all night.
        They protest for the rain forest, and demand the caribou’s rights.
        And somewhere bongs are being passed, and somewhere radicals shout;
        But there is no joy at Old State U — Reason’s Robby has Wiped Out!

        1. I don’t know why but I imagined this in Chris de Burgh’s voice.

          1. +1 Spanish Train

  64. Germany: Muslim migrants burn down hall, screaming “There isn’t enough Nutella, Gummibears, and chocolate”

    A refreshing variation from the screams of “Allahu akbar” that usually accompany such actions?

    Heh.

    1. Send these animals back to where they came from. How fucking stupid can you be to invite these people into your country?

    2. It’s a start.

      You can build peace with Nutella.

      1. Particularly if you build an airgun to launch the jars at “concussion speed”.

    3. Damn. Is this news real or fake?

      1. Even worse than that: it’s Islamophobic.

        Elsewhere in the Middle East, a lesson on US culture and history from Hamas:

        I advise everybody to watch [American] wrestling matches, and to see how the crowd reacts to the wrestlers, how it relates to this unnatural violence. That is their culture, their model for heroism: obscene language, obscene acts, obscene declarations, and obscene attacks on other countries. That is the [American] culture and upbringing. That is their true religion.

        Trump loves the Jews, and not only because he likes the Jewish religion. I do not rule out the possibility that he is a Jew. He loves the Jewish religion, and the most important thing in the Jewish religion is Jewish money.

        Fun fact: Hamas stands for haraket al muqawamah al islamiyah- Islamic Resistance Movement. Hamas also means “enthusiasm” in Arabic.

        1. Trump loves the Jews, and not only because he likes the Jewish religion. I do not rule out the possibility that he is a Jew. He loves the Jewish religion, and the most important thing in the Jewish religion is Jewish money.

          Well, someone tell that to Steve Bannon I guess? Also mention that David Horowitz is Jewish while you’re at it.

          But I am confused – I thought most important thing in Jewish Religion was other people’s money?

        2. Their propaganda is so comic-opera it makes me chuckle.

          1. And yet, it’s apparently quite effective on dim-bulb and/or fanatic Muslims.

        3. I do not rule out the possibility that he is a Jew.

          This made me chuckle. Just the thought that someone in the US would be a “closet Jew” is bizarre.

          1. In Hamas’ defense, they are murderous fanatical nutcases, so you can see why they’d sound insane.

        4. So that’s where all the guys who thought wrestling wasn’t fake went to.

    4. This reads like some of that fake news I’ve been hearing about.

    5. These Muslims in Europe stories are getting a bit dick punchy.

  65. 1. why the virtuous links to nytimes? Youthful kissass vogue? it’s manipulative, fake news – many other sources

    2. the bs over hillary starring in Caged Heat is a diversion – trump is trolling again.

  66. 1. why the virtuous links to nytimes? Youthful kissass vogue? it’s manipulative, fake news – many other sources

    2. the bs over hillary starring in Caged Heat is a diversion – trump is trolling again.

  67. “Yes, it habitually shills for nasty industries like big oil and big tobacco.”

    Assuming Reason has a Guardian account, please go and ask for citations to back this claim.

    1. They have feelings, which are much better than facts.

  68. What an asshole Blitzer is:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8AfF3akpa0

    When will the CNN die?

    1. Wolf Blitzer has, by a wide margin, the most punchable face I’ve ever seen.

      1. The German translation of Wolf Blitzer is, “neatly trimmed beard.”

        Yes, I have made that joke countless times, and I will continue to do so because its hilarious.

    2. CNN: mostly watched in airports and waiting rooms

      1. My dentist switched to HDTV because the Hillary sycophantry got to be too much for him.

      2. How’s that joke go again?

        “Passenger 1: I just heard about something on CNN.
        Passenger 2: Sorry to hear your flight was delayed.”

  69. Tomorrow marks my 1 year anniversary in the Army. Still have a fresh coat of paint from the killbot factory.

    Crushed another Pig Latin test today; still top student by far. 9 months til graduation.

    Army Strong, Army Smart.

    1. Congrats! Sadly, I suspect there’s not a “Numba 1 Translator” badge with extra perks, is there?

      1. I get extra pay for each language I qualify in, up to a maximum of 5. I’ve met military linguists who maxed out on that.

        There’s also extra for proficiency beyond the minimum, which I expect to get.

        I’d prefer not to work for the govt, but it is nice to have a job I like and I’m good at.

        1. Army needs translators. May as well get some good ones.

        2. Congratulations. Also, sincere thanks for waking early, running in the mud and pooping next to other men so I do not have to. Also, congratulations for choosing a career field that you will benefit from in the future.

          1. waking early, running in the mud and pooping next to other men so I do not have to.

            And yet you still choose to. I salute your dedication!

        3. Were these military linguists, perhaps, cunning linguists?

    2. Congrats, Derpy. When can you make it the SF for another meetup?

      1. Don’t know. I have my own car again, so potentially anytime. I will be in LA for Xmas and New Years.

        Hint, hint Playa, jesse, etc.

  70. Did I get scooped again?
    “Judge blocks Obama rule extending overtime pay to 4.2 million U.S. workers ”
    […]
    “A federal judge on Tuesday blocked an Obama administration rule to extend mandatory overtime pay to more than 4 million workers from taking effect, imperiling one of the outgoing president’s signature achievements for boosting wages.
    […]
    Mazzant, who was appointed by President Obama, held that the rule runs counter to the federal law that governs who is eligible for overtime.”
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/money…..&ocid=iehp

    Hey, Obo. That pen? Jam it up your butt, pal.

    1. I was about to post a link to the decision.
      http://posting.arktimes.com/media/pdf/mazzant.pdf

      The Court found that the regulation was inconsistent with the plain language of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

    2. “Mandating” overtime pay = permanently scaling workers’ schedules back to 32-35 hours per week?

  71. file under: blind squirrel finds nut

    Bernie Sanders said Monday that the path to success for Democrats has to be through more than just identity politics, adding that it’s simply not enough for the party to base its appeals on diversity.

    “It’s not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman! Vote for me!'” No, that’s not good enough.”

    http://www.politico.com/story/…..ics-231710

    1. Eh, I’ve seen, what, four videos with same message after the election. It’s just a new talking point. “It’s not our fault, we wanted to socialism harder! Then stupid white men would have rallied around the Red Banner!”

    2. blind squirrel finds nut

      I do not rule out the possibility that he is a Jew.

    3. Hey, Bernie! The path to success is finding a damn job, deadbeat!

    1. Alive? Probably
      In a Moroccan safe house getting interrogated? Probably

  72. “Bloody Yanks voting for Trump, what’s got their knickers in such a twist? Let me check the Guardian, they’ll explain it…’ello, it says ‘ere if we familiarize ourselves with some magazine called Reason, we can understand the American perspective. Let me take a look…

    “Those are certainly some contrarian articles, they certainly have a different perspective…

    “What’s this, a comments section? By Jove, this should be amusing…”

  73. Why was I not aware of this movie and how come none of you have told me about it? What good are you? Sure, he is the star, but Larry Charles is directing, so it can’t be shit.

    All links are probably NSFW.

    1. Some links are NOTHING.

      I’m guessing it’s the Nic Cage finding bin Laden movie.

      1. You guessed correctly, and that means you’re the one I’m most disappointed with. I had high hopes for you, too.

    2. What are you complaining about? We told you about this movie. What else do you need?

      1. At this point I need you to go back to your “cummies” days. There will be some new people reading these comments, and you have to do your best to drive them away.

        1. All these new people can sugakok.

          Locals only.

          1. Thank you, and thank you for being one of the few intelligent, respectable commenters the Reason has.

            1. See, Hit ‘n Run? You want these links, that is how you do it.

                1. Doesn’t matter.

                  Still fapped.

                  1. Same, so we are almost Eskimo brothers. However, it is still diametrically opposite your link.

      1. Note to self…never dare anyone at H&R to out-weird me.

  74. If anyone here cares, I have been in web ‘discussions’ regarding the use of nuclear weapons on Japan to end WWII. After taking various views on the issue over the years (given the slow release of classified information) it seems to me that Frank’s “Downfall” makes it pretty clear two nukes were necessary and sufficient.
    Those who opine otherwise have made it clear that “Prompt and Utter Destruction” (Walker) and “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb” (Alperovitz) are the gold standard of the opposing views.
    They both suck.
    Both were available used through Amazon at $0.01 and $3.50 (I think on the latter); I bought used paperback, presuming there wasn’t a reason to re-read them.
    Walker is a gov’t-employed historian for the NRC, but makes clear he didn’t do this on company time. Regardless, he tries like hell to avoid offending anyone and spends the entire book fore-lock tugging without ever making a point other than ‘Gee, I wonder if we should have done that?’ At one point, he offers the unsupported hope that the Japs would have surrendered after one bomb ‘if only we gave them the time’, ignoring the Japanese response to the Alies offer. It was a hobbyist’s effort and obviously so. (cont’d)

    1. (cont’d)
      Alperovitz was (yes, I think this is important) president of the National Center for Economic Alternatives, and has spent years sucking the public teat. I have to admit I did not get through all 700 pages of innuendo, hints, nudges, suggestions, hypotheticals, hopes, wishes, wonderings,…(you get the point). Man! Boring has a new definition!
      Nowhere is there a concrete statement of an alternative open to the allies which would have served to end the war with fewer casualties. Just suggestions, hints, wishes, hopes, innuendoes, hypotheticals, nudges, wonderings…
      Example: He spends the first 80 pages suggesting a ‘modification’ of the ‘Unconditional Surrender’ requirement might have prompted an earlier surrender. Never does he suggest what ‘modifications’ might have done that (ignoring the ‘keep Hirohito’ condition already rejected), nor when the surrender may have happened.
      Did I mention he has a hard time dealing with specifics?
      Again, they both suck. Fuck ’em. Read “Downfall”, Frank.

      1. Libertarians don’t get to argue that it’s OK for federal government to drop nuclear bombs on civilians.

        Not if they say the income tax is irredeemably evil. Not if they want to be taken seriously by anyone just dumb enough to be predisposed to take them seriously.

        1. Tony|11.23.16 @ 12:20AM|#
          “Libertarians don’t get to argue that it’s OK for federal government to drop nuclear bombs on civilians.”‘

          Shitstain, if you had one bit of cred from reading other than comic books, you might be due an honest response.
          You don’t. Fuck off, ignoramus.

          1. Everything you believe is predicated on the potential existence of a ridiculous fantasy world. Suddenly you discover pragmatism when it’s time to incinerate cities?

            1. Tony|11.23.16 @ 12:29AM|#
              “Everything you believe is predicated on the potential existence of a ridiculous
              fantasy world. Suddenly you discover pragmatism when it’s time to incinerate cities?”

              Shitbag, if you ever learn to read something other than comic books, please get back to us.
              Or don’t.
              Ignoramuses who can read “Run Sam run ” aren’t of real help.

        2. Oh, Tony. In the race of ideas, you’re the 3-legged tortoise walking in a circle.

          The income tax isn’t evil; it’s just dumb and wastes a lot of time.

          Much like you.

          1. “In the race of ideas, you’re the 3-legged tortoise walking in a circle”

            You’re entirely too kind.

          2. But incinerating hundreds of thousands of people… sometimes necessary!

            1. Tony|11.23.16 @ 12:45AM|#
              “But incinerating hundreds of thousands of people… sometimes necessary!”

              Gee, Tony what comic book told you that?

            2. See, we have shitstain here telling us that if we just wished the war to end, everything would be just ducky!
              OK, shitstain, I ask once again: What alternative was more humane?
              C’mon, shitstain, I’m sure you know how the war could have ended with fewer casualties; you’re just keeping it from the rest of us.

            3. Tony, you’re dwelling on issues that are tangential to libertarianism. Nuclear weapons, decade-long occupations of countries that never attacked us, carpet bombing of cities in Vietnam, defense spending, reproductive rights, gay marriage. These issues aren’t really important in constraining the scope and power of government. what is important is how many bullets we can put in our guns that we tuck under our pillows at night and the tax rates we impose on the billionaires that employ us all. Get with the 21st century, man.

              1. Fuck off, asswipe

  75. It seems to me that wrt Clinton, and depending what Obama does, Trump can:

    a) do nothing
    b) prosecute
    c) pardon/amnesty

    The likely results for these are:

    a) Trump looks, at worst, dishonest, manipulative, to both left & right, at best, unpredictable.
    b) Trump looks vindictive, petty, Clinton seen as innocent/guilty based on each person’s political views.
    c) Trump looks more statesmanlike, same as option (b) for Clinton.

    As such, Obama has to decide:

    1) do nothing
    2) pardon/amnesty

    The likely results for these are:

    1) Risky: he would be leaving it to Trump to write the history on this.
    2) Trump neutralized, Obama and Clinton look innocent/corrupt based on each person’s political views.

    If you are Obama, what do you do? A complicating factor is that you just got done saying you can’t pardon Snowden because he hasn’t been charged, so how do you pardon Clinton? Therefore, if a “pardon” for her comes, it will be done in a creative way. So, I think that either:

    – Obama hopes Trump will do nothing, and so does nothing. Trump figures memories are short, and does nothing.
    – Obama is worried about letting Trump handle this, so preemptively “pardons” Clinton. Clinton winkingly accepts it.

    If you are Trump, and Obama does nothing, what do you do? I would choose the pardon/amnesty option; it makes me look better, and it forces Clinton to “reject” the pardon, to avoid implicitly accepting guilt.

  76. I would Melissa Click violated a bit more than “right wing political correctness.” Anyway, it is a privately-run list, not a government watchlist. Given how many professors work at government-run schools, I see this (and sites like ratemyprofessor dot com) as chronicles of government bureaucrat incompetence and disrespect for the public. Also, the group FIRE (Found. Indv. Rights in Ed.) does great work.

  77. Professors shouldn’t be scared to express their views in the classroom.

    neither should students.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.