Germany

Berlin Truck Attack on Christmas Market Kills At Least 9

At least 50 injured

|

Claire Hayhurst/ZUMA Press/Newscom

A truck plowed into a Christmas market in Berlin, killing at least nine people and injuring at least 50, CNN reports. Police say they arrested the alleged driver of the truck, while another person who was in the truck reportedly died.

The truck had Polish license plates—the owner of the firm that operates the truck reportedly said he lost contact with the driver at 3p.m. local time and believes he may have been kidnapped.

The incident is at least the fifth terrorist attack in Germany this year—following an axe attack on a train in Wurzburg, a mass shooting in Munich, a suicide bombing in Ansbach, and a knife attack in Hamburg. The Berlin attack is the deadliest terrorist incident in Germany since a neo-Nazi bombing of an Oktoberfest fairground in Munich killed 11 people, plus the perpetrator, in 1980.

A truck attack earlier this year in Nice killed at least 80 people. There were no immediate claims of responsibility for the Berlin attack—at least two of the previous terrorist attacks in Germany this year have been attributed to Islamists by the authorities. At the beginning of the year, Chancellor Angela Merkel launched a campaign targeting "hate speech" against Muslim migrants. A radicalized Pakistani asylum seeker was the perpetrator in the Wurzburg attack and a Syrian refugee was allegedly behind the Ansbach bombing in July. Merkel, who is facing re-election next year, proposed a ban on full-body veils earlier this month.

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.

304 responses to “Berlin Truck Attack on Christmas Market Kills At Least 9

  1. Hey, we don’t KNOW that this is a terrorist attack. It’s probably someone from the Alt-Right.

    1. Could be the opening of Maximum Overdrive. Has anyone checked for bodies near vending machines?

      1. *Shoots lawnmower in backyard*

        1. Commonsense lawnmower-gun registration, now!

        2. My wood chipper is heading towards town hall…

          I am berating my snow blower for not clearing the way.

      1. Where I was (Donets’k), it was not entirely irrational to consider that as a legit possibility.

        1. To answer your question from the PM thread:

          My wife and I were 20 minutes late from dying in a random bus stop bombing. Thanks crying, fussy baby!

          Also, some sort of police massacre happened about a 5 minute walk up the road from my apartment, but I was safely asleep at the time.

          Those were the closest brushes with death during that period.

          1. I’ve related this episode once here, but my wife, myself, and couple of others in our lobby were nearly hit by gunfire (came through the glass in the lobby, two others were hit by bullets – serious but not fatal WXs – and glass shards).

            What caused us to hit the floor were some grenades (or small rockets, not quite sure which) going off across the street, taking out a warehouse. I threw my wife to the floor and landed on top of her. A little more than 2.5′ ft of air was between us and gunshots (estimates by the bullet holes in the wall), probably a minute or so later (seems like an eternity, right that).

            Watching the footage of the shooting that happened in French cafe was nearly impossible for us. I still have insomnia issues and Dr. ZG still has nightmares, though they have lessened in frequency and clarity.

            1. Yeah, I can see why a moment like that would stick with you.

              1. It’s times like this where I’m tempted to be the biggest douche in the world and respond:

                “Yeah, I know what that feels like buddy; I play call of duty online…”

            2. Ha, so we weren’t being ridiculous when we were are all mega worried about you during all that, especially with the radio silence.

            3. “I threw my wife to the floor and landed on top of her.”

              Good move, those tile floors can be hard. I kid…I kid.

    2. It isn’t a terrorist attack if Obama was retaliating against Russians releasing the truth about his party, and missed by a little.

    3. Or the Germans brought it upon themselves with that macro micro-aggression of daring to celebrate Christmas. Will someone kill the Christmas Holiday already so the Mooslim hate will stop. Holy shiite.

  2. Finally,a reason to freak out about Muslims.

    1. Finally, a chance for cosmos to preen and show how much more rational and overall betterer they are than everyone else because of their tolerance. Nothing proves how in touch and what deep thinkers they are then when they show up to lecture people on the proper response to a terrorist attack. We need to start booking them flights so they can go and tell the families of the victims in person that it’s no different if they had drowned in a bathtub or something. Don’t they know how rare terrorist attacks are? Gosh.

      And then in 2020, they can embarrass the libertarian brand some more by talking Gary Johnson into running a third time. I mean, the alternative might be an actual libertarian!

      1. Libertarians love Muslims.

        1. That’s a load of shit and you know it. Just stop it.

          Individualist libertarians like to consider people as individuals and judge them on their actions as individuals. Big fucking surprise.

          1. And you don’t judge them by their beliefs at all? What a load of shit that is. You judge people collectively all of the time. What do you think about conservative Christians who think homosexuality should be illegal and gays are mentally ill? Do you judge them individually or do you think maybe there is something fucked up about their beliefs?

            Of course you do. You just never make the same collective judgement about Muslims because you like them and you don’t like other religions. How many thousands of people do Muslims have to murder for their religion before you admit maybe their religion is the problem? What do you think Zeb that these people just happen to go crazy and their religion has nothing to do with it?

            1. Not one leftist I know loves Islam. I don’t consider middle-of-the-road toad Democrats as leftists either.

              1. Not one leftist I know loves Islam. I don’t consider middle-of-the-road toad Democrats as leftists either.

                And I bet everyone of those leftists view Muslims as somehow distinct from Islam, as if there weren’t a categorical correlation with the culture.

                Like a leftoid friend of mine who was giving me the “not all Muslims” spiel and used as an example, a white atheist friend of his that was dating a Muslim girl from a devout family. He said that she was dating him even though her father and brothers said they would kill her and the atheist boyfriend if they found out she persisted with the relationship. I mean I guess he proved his point, the girl was willing to date a white atheist by risking of grievous bodily harm, so yeah “not all Muslims”. But since my argument was never “all Muslims” in the first place, he actually made my case for me that Islam and it’s practitioners have a strong tendency towards barbaric morality and incredible hostility towards out-groups and so are not a benefit towards the West or perhaps any non-Muslim society that has the misfortune to host them in significant numbers.

            2. Of course you do. You just never make the same collective judgement about Muslims because you like them and you don’t like other religions.

              I would think this is something to ask Zeb about, not telling him what he really secretly thinks because of your mind-reading powers.

              1. I have seen him say that. If he doesn’t want me to think he thinks that, he shoudlnt’ say it. And yes Muslims are sacred. We got it John.

                1. Source or you’re full of shit John.

                  And yes Muslims are sacred. We got it John.

                  “My mind-reading powers is telling me that someone who has actively argued for restrictions on Muslim immigration thinks they’re sacred.”

                  Be less of an overemotional blowhard John, and ditch the psychic act, you’re shit at it.

              2. Ask? Why ask when you can make stuff up. This is John after all.

          2. Individualist libertarians like to consider people as individuals and judge them on their actions as individuals.

            Of course, those actions can include belonging to radical religious sects with missions of violence and histories of mass murder.

            1. Of course, those actions can include belonging to radical religious sects with missions of violence and histories of mass murder.

              Anabaptists?!?

              1. Anabaptists?!?

                WHERE? *looks around while desperately grabbing for gun*

                Oh. There’s nothing here. Jesus Christ, don’t do that tarran.

              2. The Amish do that?

                My, and to think I bought a quilt from them.

            2. ^this
              There are reasons why most predominately Muslim nations are shit holes, and Islam is one of those reasons.

              1. Muslim nations were the wealthiest, most powerful nations in the world from about 900AD through about 1700AD.

                Correlation is not always causation.

                1. What’s your source on up to 1700AD? Timur Kuran argues for a much smaller time frame, and ‘most powerful’ needs to be properly defined. ‘Has the most slave soldiers’ may be an indicator of power, but it’s not necessarily a model for long-standing success.

                  1. Fuzzy lines. I’m thinking most specifically of the death of Aurungzeb, because Mughal history is what I know in most detail as far as the Moozlums go.

                    You could certainly argue that by the 17th century there were European entities that were more economically powerful, but they were on the rise and didn’t yet have the outward trappings, while the big gunpowder empires of Asia were increasingly financially strapped, but had all the outward appearance of tremendous wealth and might.

                    When Francois Bernier toured Mughal India in the 1660s, for example, he’s all about how “France is probably nearly as rich and powerful as these guys,” until he gets to the Taj Mahal, at which point he says “yeah – we got nothin’ like that.”

                    Specificity of definitions and periods aside, my main point was simply that poverty and obscurity is not a necessary outcome of being Muslim.

                    1. No, but it seems to go well with authoritarian government, oppression and enslavement of others, and war.

                    2. This is fairly true. Indonesia today is fairly normal for a third world country.

                    3. Well, shit. Who says a country cannot tax ?Christians) its way to success. Problem is the country will eventually run out of Christians with money.

                2. I wouldn’t be so sure. Some of the wealthiest countries in the world (and predictably enough, with the most economic freedom) are predominantly Muslim.

                  1. Uh which ones? The oil emirates that cluster around the Arabian peninsula? Yeah, they didn’t get rich because of strong traditions in respecting private property and limited government.

          3. Do they do the same for communists?

          4. Exactly. Unless a pedo has actually raped a kid, why not hire him as a babysitter? To discriminate would be to judge by his membership in a collective, not by his behavior as an individual. And what libertarian would dare do that?

            1. If someone actually has a history of pedophilia, then it would be entirely appropriate to not hire them as a babysitter.

              Banning people who like Greek philosophy from ever being babysitters would be different.

              1. Banning people who like Greek philosophy from ever being babysitters would be different.

                I support this, however. Do you want your kid talking like some Milesian or something?

                1. Do you want your kid talking like some Milesian or something?

                  That would be a case of applying a blanket ban for the right reason. Some things you can’t be too careful about.

            2. Actually that would be entirely about his behaviour, because the behaviour, i.e. pedophilic attraction is the central problem.

              If we’re applying it to Muslims, the Sufi convenience store clerk who doesn’t give a shit and sells alcohol? Probably not very likely to be a Jihadist. The local cleric who preaches for sharia law and is pro-infidel women enslavement? Probably want to keep an eye on him.

              1. the Sufi convenience store clerk who doesn’t give a shit and sells alcohol? Probably not very likely to be a Jihadist. The local cleric who preaches for sharia law and is pro-infidel women enslavement? Probably want to keep an eye on him.

                A decent analogy.

                If the babysitter shows up with a tractate about the higher joys of Platonic tutelage, I might send him away, but if all he’s got is Aristotle’s Physics I’m okay with him.

                1. If he shows up with a copy of Symposium, call the police immediately.

      2. We need to start booking them flights so they can go and tell the families of the victims in person that it’s no different if they had drowned in a bathtub or something. Don’t they know how rare terrorist attacks are? Gosh.

        You have a nice handle on gun-grabber rhetoric, l’ll give you that.

        1. Gosh, how did I miss the comparison. Clearly, criticism of Islam – a religion that correlates highly with a lot of anti-libertarian leanings besides blowing people up – is the exact same thing as gun grabbing. You know, an obsession with stripping people of an inanimate object.

          Thanks for showing just how absolutely retarded the cosmos can get when they are lecturing the rest of us, Crusty sock puppet.

          1. Crusty sock puppet

            No need to be vulgar. What you do with sock puppets is your own business.

            1. If I was to create sock puppets I could do far better than Carl, I can tell you that much.

              1. If I was to create sock puppets

                Here’s your clue- he didn’t use the subjunctive.

                String ‘im up!

                1. I did that on purpose, so no one would connect Crusty and me.

                  Not as socks, but as lovers.

                  1. A sock is his lover.

                  2. Crusty and I.

                    YOU’RE A SOCK TOO!!!

                    1. That’s enough of you Cosmos.

          2. Clearly, criticism of Islam is the exact same thing as gun grabbing

            He’s talking about the bloody-shirt waving and the “you tell the victims that you just don’t care enough to do the right thing!” attitude.

            1. Why do y’all insist on talking to people like John and brochetta? They hate gays and brown people, and nothing you say is going to change that.

              Wow, it IS fun to simply make caricatures out of anyone who disagrees with me! Now I just need a super-serious adult term like “cosmos” to let them know how much more of a libertarian my stereotyping and repression of groups makes me.

    2. Muslims are sacred Warty. They never do anything wrong and when they do it is just one of those things or because the people they killed had it coming. But no act of violence ever has anything to do with Islam or ever reflects in any way about the religion as a whole.

      There is no and can never be any problems with Muslims or Islam as a religion. It is a wonderful peaceful religion and anyone who says otherwise or tries to draw any conclusions contrary to that is just a collectivist. Got it?

      1. Look, it’s just 9 people. More people killed get in Chicago every weekend.

        Lord knows our precious Islamopologists here would make the same argument if Trump supporters whacked 9 reporters who dissed him, or a pro-lifer killed 9 people in an abortion clinic. They wouldn’t see the attempt to use random acts of violence to suppress the exercise of key rights in an attempt to illegitimately wield political power as something to be concerned about on its own, above and beyond the body count.

        1. Lord knows our precious Islamopologists here would make the same argument if Trump supporters whacked 9 reporters who dissed him, or a pro-lifer killed 9 people in an abortion clinic. They wouldn’t see the attempt to use random acts of violence to suppress the exercise of key rights in an attempt to illegitimately wield political power as something to be concerned about on its own, above and beyond the body count.

          Game over.

        2. Yes, to suggest that there is any solution but the complete extermination of Muslims throughout the world is just cuck apologia for Islamic terror.

          1. Who is calling for their extermination? And would it fucking kill you Zeb to do something after these incidents besides bitch and moan about how people might think there is a problem with Islam? Maybe express some sympathy for the victims and bring yourself to condemn the ideology in whose name they were murdered? Maybe if you did that your constant defense of Islam might ring a bit less hollow.

            1. What is it you are actually proposing, John? That we all sit around and shriek? Because that’s all you’re doing here in lieu of any other suggestion.

              Mop up the spittle puddles, take a deep breath, and think out what you’re actually arguing. Then present the argument and see if anyone bites.

              1. I’ll present my argument:
                1. Islam is an ideology that deserves and needs to be ruthlessly mocked across the board until there is widespread reform. Because the ‘extremists’ are not some small, insignificant minority.
                2. Maybe – just MAYBE – it’s not such a good idea for Western governments to actively work to import huge swathes of Muslims from the very countries we just bombed and/or invaded.

                Both of those seem likely to provoke horror from the cosmo crowd who not seem to think open borders are the most significant policy goal ever, but that we need them right now and that any deviation from that makes you unacceptable.

                1. As usual with this topic, there are two conversations going on here.

                  1. Islam is an ideology that deserves and needs to be ruthlessly mocked across the board until there is widespread reform. Because the ‘extremists’ are not some small, insignificant minority.
                  2. Maybe – just MAYBE – it’s not such a good idea for Western governments to actively work to import huge swathes of Muslims from the very countries we just bombed and/or invaded.

                  Islam, like all stick-up-the-butt religions, should be mocked mercilessly – agreed.

                  No. 2 is a fair point, as well. The debate around here tends to be between the “don’t prevent them from coming if they want to” crowd and the “don’t make a point of grabbing them and dragging them over here from places that have huge populations that actively hate us” crowd.

                  These two groups largely talk past one another and indulge in one false dichotomy after another.

                  What most people in this immediate discussion are reacting to is John’s hyperbolic panic-driven assertions that any chafing against his wholesale condemnation of the entire religion and all of its adherents is exactly the same as declaring them all sacred and incapable of doing anything wrong.

                  He won’t say what it is he wants to do, but he wants to condemn everyone else for not being willing to “do enough.”

                  1. Islam.. …should be mocked mercilessly

                    I’m afraid that ship sailed some time ago, Your Geometricship. Charlie Hebdo capitulated like good and proper Dhimmi, Euro-landia has ostensibly capitulated (parts of Euro-landia fully recognise Sharia as legally binding as local and national law), and so has the USA, quite frankly.

                    Even Reason capitulated hard with its “Draw Mohammed” contest, and hasn’t repeated it since.

                  2. What most people in this immediate discussion are reacting to is John’s hyperbolic panic-driven assertions that any chafing against his wholesale condemnation of the entire religion and all of its adherents is exactly the same as declaring them all sacred and incapable of doing anything wrong.

                    Always keep in mind that John’s paycheck is dependent on irrational panic. DHS must justify its existence.

              2. Remember when white supremacists were murdering people left and right, and then we put all the white people in camps? Me either, but somehow we fucking got them to stop. I think it started with all of society openly condemning not just specific groups like the KKK, but every single person that shared their attitudes, even just a little.

                1. Remember when white supremacists were murdering people left and right, and then we put all the white people in camps? Me either

                  What was Camp Douglas, chopped liver?

          2. Wow, nice false dichotomy.

            There’s two options here, either you want to pay Osama Bin Laden to rape your daughter while giving him a weekly stipend, or you think taking in Muslim refugees is a bad idea. Which is it?

            1. Wow, nice false dichotomy.

              Projection is a powerful drug.

              1. It’s not projection, I’m mocking you.

                1. Correction, I was mocking zeb.

                  1. Zeb who was mocking John and ant1sthenes for claiming that you either condemn the entire religion and all of its adherents as incurable violent savages or you believe that:

                    They never do anything wrong and when they do it is just one of those things or because the people they killed had it coming. But no act of violence ever has anything to do with Islam or ever reflects in any way about the religion as a whole.

                    There is no and can never be any problems with Muslims or Islam as a religion. It is a wonderful peaceful religion and anyone who says otherwise or tries to draw any conclusions contrary to that is just a collectivist

                    Hence my observation that projection is a powerful drug.

          3. I really can’t tell the sarcasm from the reactionaries anymore and that is awesome.

            1. waffles,

              I’ve often found the arguments to mirror one another in their levels of absurdity (regardless of which “side” any of us might be arguing from).

            2. I haven’t seen banboners this hard since Sandy Hook.

          4. DEUS VULT

          5. Yes, to suggest that there is any solution but the complete extermination of Muslims throughout the world is just cuck apologia for Islamic terror.

            Complete extermination of Muslims? Bullshit.

            In my Fix The Islams Plan, the hot slutty ones live.

            So there.

        3. Lord knows our precious Islamopologists here would make the same argument if Trump supporters whacked 9 reporters who dissed him, or a pro-lifer killed 9 people in an abortion clinic.

          And who are you referring to here? Yes, there are many people in the world that would act as you suggest. But pretty much no one you are engaging with here would.

          1. Whoever made the same glib comparison earlier? I forget who exactly, but it wasn’t a hypothetical.

        4. You know, it is possible to not think the government restricting freedom of religion is a good idea and still acknowledge that Islam presents a problem.

          That seems to be the blind spot with a lot of people here (ON BOTH SIDES!). Either people want to get squishy on libertarian principle (and ignore the fact that the proggies WILL leverage the precedent) or they want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that Islam is no different from Methodist or Amish.

          1. To be fair, the Amish probably couldn’t kill more than a half dozen with a horse and buggy.
            But, seriously, you’re right. Islam is fucked up AND the government needs to respect Muslim’s 1st Amendment rights.

            1. The Amish got through their ‘murder the non-believers and make our utopian paradise on earth’ phase five hundred years ago.

          2. I just want people to come around to understanding that hating Islam is absolutely fine, and no different than hating socialism or fascism (or libertarianism, if you’re so inclined). Hating political ideologies is fine. Hating the things people do in the name of those ideologies is fine.

            What to do about it, well, people have to be able to be honest first. But I don’t think peaceful co-existence is in the cards, so the main questions are, how ugly do we let things get, and for whom?

            1. It seems really obvious that since the story involves another terrorist attack from a European country that has decided to take in mass Muslim immigration the simple answer is stop taking in mass Muslim integration.

              I think the attempts to paint such a position as some sort of genocidal precursor are intellectually dishonest and nothing more than moral preening from those who can’t defend thier own position.

              1. That sounds kind of measured and reasonable. Didn’t some guy just get elected on those premises? Gosh, being principled sure can be hard.

              2. That’s true of the US, but Muslims are 1% of the population here, and more likely to be the sort than can integrate. And we can more easily shut down migration from Islamic countries.

                Europe is much more fucked. Right now it’s over 10%, and the native population is shrinking while the Muslim population is growing both by birthrate (subsidized by welfare) and immigration, and not especially assimilating. “Colonization” is not really an inaccurate word, though it’s enabled by suicidally stupid natives. Europe acts now, or they don’t act at all and their grand-daughters get to enjoy the pleasures of rape camps.

                And it’s not like a legal change alone is adequate. You can’t just pass a law telling people to stop coming to your country, you have to actually enforce it, which is going to get ugly.

          3. The problem is really a refusal of people to face reality.

            You can’t have a state response that excludes moslems from immigrating or expels them and have a free society. Either the measure will be ineffective, or it will require massive repression to pull off.

            Nor can you have the state prevent people from discriminating privately against moslems while allowing them to immigrate or even encouraging them as the Germans have been doing. It is a sort of cultural suicide. Especially since the attempt to prevent private discrimination necessarily involves repression of those who proselytize on behalf of western values.

            The way a free society would react would result in a great deal of private discrimination that would have people with hijabs being denied entry into businesses having trouble getting jobs etc. And in the absence of a welfare state the choice would be assimilate enough to survive, or starve.

            1. Sorry, tarran, but your free society sounds like Lebanon. Multiple ethnic/religious/cultural militias engaged in tit-for-tat fighting forever (no one ever says “fair cop, we started it”), except in Europe it would result in quick wiping out of the outnumbered minority when Sons of Martel end up outnumbering Mohammed’s Faithful (assuming that percentage of violent racist fucks is equal across religious and ethnic groups).

            2. Why can’t you have a state response that prevents them from immigrating? Certainly possible with communists. Is it because some Muslims are brown and noble so thier spirit cannot be confined? I suspect that the purveyors of this bullshit simply lack the spine to admit that they fear being called racist for saying something true. I really don’t know why all of a sudden something that was always true, and always worked cannot work with people who believe in Allah. Magic I think.

              As was true with communists they could just lie, but you could just block immigration from certain countries. Since more Muslim immigration equals more terrorist attacks as we’ve seen in Europe less muslim immigration is sufficient.

              1. Because if you block by country of origin, you can have an outcome where Syrian Christian (life definitely in danger) gets blocked, but a UK-born Pakistani Muslim goes through.

                If you make them sign a decree saying “I’m not a Muslim”, do you monitor them forever to see if they go into a mosque ever? Are they allowed to convert to Islam after they’ve been in country for a year, or five? What about their children – can they become Muslim?

                You could of course always troll them and make them sign a Mohammed cartoon, tape them singing Hatikvah and have them apologize for Sack of Constantinople, occupation of the Balkans and the anti-colonial movement, I guess…

                1. I don’t really care that some people who want to come can’t. It’s sad but solving the worlds problems isn’t our problem.

            3. But that only works if there are relatively few immigrants. When you have massive ghettos that reinforce the us versus them dynamic you are bound to get a few murdercrazies coming out of them.

            4. ou can’t have a state response that excludes moslems from immigrating or expels them and have a free society. Either the measure will be ineffective, or it will require massive repression to pull off.

              It’s effectively declaring a state of war against the Muslim community, with all that entails.

            5. Impossible to have a free society that expels them, sure. But preventing Islamic immigration? Entirely possible in a society that produces the framework for citizens to live freely within the confines of their area of political control. Transnationally you admittedly still have some problems.

          4. Good points.

            I would posit that the problem isn’t that Islam is a problem as much as mixing religion and government. Piety and power don’t mix.

          5. We should just solve this by vowing as a citizenry to live with and deal with the freedom of religion of these terrorist assholes, by forcing everyone to concealed carry….. THAT would be the Libertarian way of dealing with this kind of shit.

        5. More people killed get in Chicago every weekend.

          You are such a fucking racist.

      2. I love the smell of burning straw in the morning.

    3. Bullshit Warty. You aren’t fooling me. It was those dastardly Amish.

    4. LET’S BE FAIR! I wasn’t there, so for all I know it might have been some Seventh-Day Adventists with another wrong Second Coming, or disgruntled Jehova’s Witlesses protesting the fire marshal’s passenger capacity limits for Heaven. That “I Luv You Snackbar” cheer is something homeless people everywhere shout when they can afford a vegetarian granola bar. Maybe an Uber Alles truck driver was looking at his app instead of where he was driving.

    1. That or maybe he is an annoying dumb ass and the electors finally told him what he wanted to hear just to make him go away.

    2. Turns out, Mrs. Clinton is losing by a larger amount than predicted, even when Hamilton voters are removed and replaced with voters loyal to her.

      Washington State was a bit of a surprise, because there was no national coverage at all about 1/4 of their EC voting against Clinton. None, zip, not even here at Reason. So strange, all this coverage of Hamilton voters against Trump (none have emerged as of this writing) and not one peep about votes for Colin Powell and Faith Spotted Eagle.

      1. Odd, isn’t it that, that the President-Reject is losing more electors than the President-Elect. We’ll see how much coverage it gets. But I’m not expecting much from the DemOp Media, because narrative.

        1. According to the Texas Tribune, Trump lost 2 votes there. See my comment with link below.

        2. And it will probably get as much coverage after the vote as it did before the vote.

          There is an outside chance that three of those electors just happened to vote for Powell without collusion and without telling anybody else. Fear of lynching by the Party of Openness, Peace, and Love can do that to ya.

          1. Fear of lynching by the Party of Openness, Peace, and Love”

            did you just describe the democrats or the muslims either way I think you are describing a religion a violent one at that.

        3. I’m actually seeing it pop up on NPR etc.

          1. Did you or anybody else see any stories at all about the Washington EC planning on voting for anybody besides Clinton?

            1. I can’t link to it at the moment, but NPR had an article detailing that only 8 of 12 electors went with Clinton.

              1. No, I was asking if anybody heard about any of that brewing in WA before today.

                1. As always, so late that probably no one will see this, but: http://www.seattletimes.com/se…..r-clinton/

                  I am guessing he may have been the one who voted for Faith Spotted Eagle.

                  1. Thanks MLW. That is the only pre-election thing I’ve now seen about these four electors. Nothing about the Powell voters, yet.

              2. This might be the NPR article you are thinking of.

                Maybe I didn’t Google hard enough, but I cannot find a single story before today mentioning WA electors planning to vote for Powell or anybody else.

                We had endless stories of varying Lessig intensity about Trump voters. Endless stories about celebrities trying to woo Trump voters. Occasional stories of Trump voters being harassed.

                We also have a wee bit of the guy who tried to vote Sanders in Maine, there was something about him out there before today.

                But not a peep about Washington going 1/4 against their mandate for Clinton.

        4. President-Reject

          Bravo, Counselor! Bravo!

      2. It’s been an eventful day…

      3. It is interesting to watch the Democratic electors drive the stake in deeper.

      4. I guess if you exclude sources like the New York Times, then I guess there was “no national coverage”: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12……html?_r=0

      5. The creepy part is that Scott Adams at Dilbert predicted abt a month ago there would be NO Saracen Berserker murders in These States until after the election. If they were to start knocking down skyscrapers ‘n such it would make the Kenyan look bad and the prohibitionist lady candidate less popular.
        Wouldn’t you know it! As soon as the electoral college failed to cave to the brilliance of His Holiness the Keening Sheen, a bunch of Germans got splashed by a possible maybe too-soon-to-tell Mohammedan terrist just as another riddled the Russian ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.
        Next thing ya know Reason’ll be publishing some more Jack Wheeler articles and it’ll be Rambo with explosive arrows saving lovely blond Ivankas from the hairy clutches of the Saracen blackamoor.

    3. said Tuesday that at least 20 Republican members of the Electoral College may not cast their votes for President-elect Donald Trump.

      1. He is the Iben Browning of the 21st century.

    4. Just heard on radio; more electors were unfaithful to Clinton than to Trump.

      This makes me smile

      1. I keep thinking it is six against Clinton, but shouldn’t it be seven?

        Maine – 1 (replaced by The Party of Openness, Peace, and Love with a True Believer)
        Minnesota – 1 (replaced by The Party of Openness, Peace, and Love with a True Believer)
        Colorado(?) – 1 (replaced by The Party of Openness, Peace, and Love with a True Believer)
        Washington – 4 voted other than Clinton, unmolested.

        The big question is, did any of them win the Michael Moore lottery?

        1. In Texas the faithless votes were split between Ron Paul, American, and Kasich the neo-commie.

        2. Colorado replaced their problem elector with an alternate.

          1. So did Maine and Minnesota.

            Thus, seven Clinton electors voted for someone else, but three were unseated and replaced with True Believers.

            1. Democracy! Yeah!

          2. And the Colorado one was noted already.

            Jesse Walker reports that one in Hawaii voted Sanders, so now we are up to eight. Only five got away with it.

    5. “Lawrence Lessig is a big fat liar.”

      I’m sure all these bullshit electoral flop stories will be decried as ‘Fake News’, right?

  3. Germany’s chickens keep coming home to roost…

    1. Muslim immigration was going to make Europe more free. Cytoxic told me.

      1. Cytotoxic is an idiot and hasn’t shown himself for ages. Why are you still arguing with him?

        1. Why are you still arguing with him?

          I’m still pissed off Sloopy’s artisanal mayo rant.

          1. #neverforget

        2. You mean there might be a problem with Muslim immigration? Do tell.

          1. It’s not migration any longer?

    2. Tangentially, where does the chicken fall into German cuisine? I’ve always seen them as a pig and potato kind of people.

        1. Good point, it is a polka.

      1. I’m having a Lepo-lepo moment on the chicken question. But one thing is certain. After this Turkey shoot NO religious conservative is going to ever blindside Gary Johnson with THAT geography quiz:
        Video captured at the scene shows the gunman shouting “Allahu akbar,” … “Remember Syria! Remember Aleppo!” Translators are divided as to whether the guy also said he “thought he smelled marijuana” before shooting the unarmed ambassador.
        But I am disappointed none of the looter electors defected to slip Gary a vote. It shows the Democratic party, like the Turkish r?gime, also wants Murrican cops to keep shooting unarmed kids in the back like they were so many stoner Russian ambassadors!

  4. I blame Donald Trump.

    1. I blame George Bush. Apparently, this is the wrong answer.

      1. Did he do Lockerbie too?

      2. You people are finally leaving Reagan alone?

        1. Oh no!

          I blame Reagan, too.

        2. No, he was a total asshole too and funded and provided weapons to the Iranian and Afghan terrorists we have to deal with today. The only reason he was well-regarded post presidency is that he was probably pooping in a bag and it would have been uncouth to publicly criticize a demented cripple.

          1. Yes, I’m sure the terrorists are still operating with leftover funds from 1985. How’s arming the Syrian “rebels” working out, by the way?

            1. Oh hey, remember our invasion of Afghanistan when the press was suggesting the Taliban would be using Stinger missiles from the 80s to take down all our aircraft?

            2. You mean the Kurds– to the extent they are funded? I would say great. It’s time the United States start giving money to socialists, libertarians, and democrats instead of the reactionary and extremist bigots Reagan liked to send $$$$ to. We’ve been on the wrong side of history for ~63 out of the last 71 postwar years. It’s time to give money to people that actually deserve it instead of henchmen for Exxon and fruit companies.

              1. You really have no idea what’s going on in the world right now. It’s kind of sad, and would be funny too, if not for all the people dying.

                1. Please educate me. GWB sent in hundreds of thousands of troops, killed hundreds of thousands, destroyed and delegitimized the Iraqi government. Then, Islamic terrorists filled the power vacuum just like critics of the Iraq War said they would. What have I missed? Seems like run-of-the-mill history to me.

                  1. You are a fucking joke. What cave have you been living in since 2008? Better take it slow, buddy, because the list of countries the U.S. has been dicking around in since then is quite long.

                    1. There’s a D next to Obama’s name so AmSoc will give him a pass for anything.

                    2. “here’s a D next to Obama’s name so AmSoc will give him a pass for anything.”

                      I voted for the Green Party precisely because of the Democratic candidate’s history of warmongering. What must I do to ingratiate myself to the libertarian’s at Reason.com? I draw the line at suck Trump’s dick. Sorry, I guess I’ll never make it like the rest of you.

                    3. Aw, keep deflecting away from the fact that you think Obama is a great President. I’m sure eventually you can lie your way to respectability.

              2. We’ve been on the wrong side of history for ~63 out of the last 71 postwar years.

                How’s the “right side of history” working out for the USSR?

          2. Oh, so guns in Afg are as sentient as they are in Chicago? Huffpo’s calling, they want their talking points back

          3. That’s the very reason nobody bothers to criticize the nationalsocialist here. I finally found his blog though: hitlerwasacapitalist on wordpress. It’s a showpiece of pooping in a blog…

    2. I say Russian hackers, since they seem to be responsible for everything these days, including poor behavior on the part of Muslims in Europe….

      1. Of course!

        Russian hackers.

        And rednecks.

      2. You jest, but some people were alleging just that… somehow the Russians would instigate more Muzi gang-rapes to sway the elections.

        1. I wasn’t jesting, I mean, I WAS, but I was making fun of what you’re mentioning here.

      3. What about drugz? Mebbe the poor misunderstood things were smoking acid or mainlining weed… didn’t know right from wrong just then?

    3. What about clowns, I thought we were blaming clowns?

      1. That is sooo last month

      2. The clowns are in their safe space.

        If HRC would have won, this never would have happened, ya know.

  5. Not as horrifying as the incident at that Ankara art gallery: pairing a brutish, overpowering red with a creamy parsnip hummus.

  6. A Polish truck drives into a Christmas market…

    1. and says, “I thought you said Diesel not Tinsel!”

        1. wow. That’s worse than a participation trophy.

  7. Why do all Polish names end with “-ski?”

    Because they can’t spell toboggan.

    1. What do you do when a Polack throws a grenade at you?

      Pull the pin out and throw it back.

  8. Krugman being Krugman again, says Trump is a sign of the fall of the Republic.

    But that isn’t the funny part. No… here’s how he chooses to wrap things up in his opinion piece:

    For such people, toeing the party line and defending the party’s rule are all that matters. And if they sometimes seem consumed with rage at anyone who challenges their actions, well, that’s how hacks always respond when called on their hackery.

    No, he isn’t being intentionally ironic. His hubris really allows him to miss that one. Impressive!

    1. I dunno, he has been the purveyor of mainstream liberal ideology at least since Obama got elected (probably since Bush, really, but I wasn’t as aware of him) and I doubt he believes a third of the shit he writes. He puts down what he knows will hold the SOBs and collects a paycheck for minimal effort.

      1. of mainstream liberal ideology at least since Obama got elected (probably since Bush, really, but I wasn’t as aware of him)

        He certainly rose to major prominence after 2008 when NPR, for about a year became the NPR/Krugman News Hour. NPR had the burning desire to regularly consult with the people that created the crisis in searching for a solution to it.

    2. C’mon. He’s gotta be trolling, right? I mean, if he was trolling, what would he different?

      1. One presumes that the august institution known as the New York Times would not count a professional troll among their ranks. Their crack team of serious propagandists are the only ones fit to write numerous paragraphs on the hidden meanings of hastily composed Tweets.

      2. Just because he’s a brilliant economist doesn’t mean he’s particularly intelligent in other areas. When it comes to politics I really do believe his intelligence and depth of knowledge really is somewhere below that of the average convenience store clerks.

        1. he’s a brilliant economist

          Present tense is not called for. The Krugman that won the Nobel Prize and the Krugman that writes columns for the NYT are two different people for all practical purposes.

          1. Sorry, meant was.

          2. True. If Krugman today met Krugman from 15 years ago he’d spit in his face.

    3. here’s how he chooses to wrap things up in his opinion piece:

      Does Krugman have another kind?

      1. He used to write some decent econ books. On second thought, maybe he was just proofing those for his wife.

  9. *Knock-Knock*

    Who’s there?

    A Polish burglar.

    1. A Polish burglar who?

      /derpski

  10. Lone wolf. Nothing to see here.

  11. Something tells me Putin won’t have to bother hacking Germany’s election, assuming he doesn’t want Merkel to win. Justified or not, she’s done. A couple more attacks like this one and God knows how far to the right her successor will be.

    1. Of all the countries an easy to hate religious minority could go to…

    2. That won’t stop progressives from claiming that did so, anyway.

    3. If this one is a refugee, merkel may be up shit creek without a paddle.

      1. Well, it was, so we’ll see.

        1. Looks like the AfD is going to get a big boost in the Bundestag this year.

  12. Its official. All Hail God-Emperor Trump. And the fucking Icing on the Trump cake the is number of faithless electors who took votes from Hillary voters. Trump Bless America.

    P.S.

    Trump!

    1. Now they’ll start bitching about the inauguration and trying to thwart it somehow. The fat lady sang on this one so long ago that she’s at home soaking in the tub and they can’t get that through their thick skulls.

      1. “they can’t get that through their thick skulls”

        They’re so used to getting their way by throwing tantrums and being bullies, they have no coping mechanism for this. ~ laughs maniacally

  13. The Berlin attack is the deadliest terrorist incident in Germany since a neo-Nazi bombing of an Oktoberfest fairground in Munich killed 11 people, plus the perpetrator, in 1980.

    Ah-ha! I knew there had to be a connection between this attack and neo-Nazi/Alt-Right fundies! I just knew it!

    /Straw-grasper

    1. SHIT!!!! If only he had killed 12, he would have been compared to someone from the 1940’s…what a loser!

      1. Does that mean we don’t get to play the “Know who else..?” game?

    2. Fun fact: the Baathist Party of (Saddam’s) Iraq and Syria is directly related to the Nazi Party.

      1. What like, are they cousins?

  14. The incident is at least the fifth terrorist attack in Germany this year…

    So we’ve determined this isn’t just some guy having a stroke at the wheel then.

  15. Apparently the altar of open borders needs some more blood sacrifices. Only a few more bodies and then paradise.

    1. It’s for the greater good!

  16. Hey Reason. We have a new fucking president. When you guys gonna report it?

    1. They are busy praying to the “sweet meteor of death”.

    2. He’s not a president yet, is he? I thought until he gives the oath of office, he’s still heir-presumptive.

        1. I see what you’re trying for, but there’s nothing “presumptive” about The Hair!

          1. Presumptuous, though? Sure.

    3. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed

      This part hasn’t happened yet.

  17. I remember a while ago Slate or Salon vowed not to cover terrorist attacks at all because they didn’t want to promote islamophobia.

  18. I watched It’s a Wonderful Life with my mom for the first time. Teared up at the end and I don’t know why.

    1. Cuz Trump got elected again?

    2. the half virtue part?

      1. the half virtue part?

        Nice.

    3. I suppose it all depends on which ending you watched....

    4. Teared up at the end and I don’t know why.

      Because you know the truth = that when a bell rings, somewhere an angel is brutally gangraped by bestial muslims

    5. Because you identified with Potter?

  19. its all Trumps fault for taking that phone call.

  20. Donald Trump got elected *again!* Let’s re-open the spigot and bathe in a fresh spurt of proggy tears.

    “As the exiting first lady Michelle Obama told Oprah last week: “We’re feeling what not having hope feels like.” In point of fact, we may be on the brink of feeling what an erosion of liberty, competent leadership, and absolute sovereignty feels like….

    “To have a president who refuses to acknowledge the [alleged Russian hacking] in order to avoid the asterisk by which he might be forever marked a Manchurian candidate or, more plainly, Moscow’s mule, is not normal….

    “To have a president for whom we don’t know the extent of his financial entanglements with other countries ? in part because he has refused to release his tax returns ? is not normal.

    “To have a president with massive, inherent conflicts of interest between continued ownership of his company and the running of our country is not normal….

    “To have a president who nurses petty vengeances against the press and uses the overwhelming power of the presidency to attack any reporting of fact not colored by flattery and adoration is not normal.”

    1. How’s “normal” been workin’ out?

      1. Honesty though my expectation is status quo for the most part. Bush Sr’s 8th term.

    2. “To have a president who nurses petty vengeances against the press and uses the overwhelming power of the presidency to attack any reporting of fact not colored by flattery and adoration is not normal.”

      Sometimes, you just see something and stand in awe of the blindness that produces it.

    3. Did Clinton ever release her tax returns? Not that I would believe any of it…

    4. I wonder if the leftist thought leaders are regretting spending thier load hyping up the base. At this point thier fanaticism has got to be a turn off to rational people and they need to move on to trying to win elections.

  21. If only the Germans had guns to keep these guys from invading.

    1. They keep using that word…

      1. Indeed. “Fans,” is a bit of a stretch. Probably moreso, “Idle, random listeners.”

  22. Huh:

    There was an attempt to start the engine at 3.44pm.
    Nothing happened for the next hour.
    Another attempt was made at 4.52pm and the engine ran until 5.37pm, but the vehicle did not move.
    Further attempts were made to start the engine.
    Company employee ?ukasz W?sik said it seemed like somebody was trying to learn to drive the truck.
    The engine was started for the last time at 7.34pm, when the vehicle started to move in Berlin.
    W?sik said the driver was 37 years old.

    http://www.euronews.com/2016/1…..one-person

    1. I hope hell exists…

  23. Michael Kinsley says:

    Donald Trump is a fascist

    “…I mean “fascist” in the more clinical sense….

    “But now that we’ve seen a bit of him in action, it seems that Trump actually does have a recognizable agenda that explains how he simultaneously can pander to big business generally while “strong-arming” (the words of a Post editorial Friday) an air conditioning manufacturer to save a few hundred jobs for a while. Or how he can make nice with the authoritarian Vladimir Putin while making bellicose foreign policy noises in general. Or how he can blithely upset with a phone call the absurdly delicate balance of our relations with China and Taiwan. All this seemingly erratic behavior can be explained ? if not justified ? by thinking of Trump as a fascist. Not in the sense of an all-purpose bad guy, but in the sense of somebody who sincerely believes that the toxic combination of strong government and strong corporations should run the nation and the world. He spent his previous career negotiating with the government on behalf of corporations; now he has switched teams. But it’s the same game.”

    1. by thinking of Trump as a fascist. Not in the sense of an all-purpose bad guy, but in the sense of somebody who sincerely believes that the toxic combination of strong government and strong corporations should run the nation and the world

      Kinsley is a smart guy. But surely he’s noticed this trend towards public/private partnerships among our Democratic friends, no? Or is it that Trump does it with bravado? Come on Kinsley, you’re better than this. We libertarians have been talking about Fascism ever since The New Left started believing that the results of production could be nationalized by the state in an attempt to equalize outcomes.

      That’s straight, from the book fascism.

      1. Hasn’t the disagreement between “socialism” and “fascism” always been not about the means, but the ends? It’s alright to nationalize the means of production, but don’t dare be a nationalist!

        1. No, the disagreement was really about the means, not the ends. Socialism nationalized the means of production in an attempt to achieve social equity and justice, Fascism nationalized the results of production to achieve social equity and justice.

          Your modern democrat sounds more like a fascist than a socialist. They believe that the government has a right to organize the private sector industries and direct them towards “national goals”– but always careful to tell you they want to leave the factories in the owners’ hands.

          1. Fascists are generally nationalists in an ethnic sense though; most on the left believe in the means of fascism as an end in itself, not toward the enhancement of an ethnic nation.

            One could say it’s ideological rather than ethnic fascism? But that more or less just means ‘secular theocracy’ which isn’t the same as fascism strictly speaking.

    2. Now it’s a clinical condition? Huh.

      “? Reply?Share ‘
      Avatar
      HailUtahistan ? 7 days ago
      Dawn of the oligarchs.
      3 ? Reply?Share”

      All of a sudden? Just like that, huh? /snaps finger.

      So. One guy they hate gets elected. Appoints his people as he earned and they don’t like those appointees soooo….OLIGARCHY!

      FASCIST OLIGARCHY!

      Once again. It can’t be stated enough. The progressive left are profound ignoramuses.

      1. The referenced article is exhibit one for this. The “evidence” touted does not remotely suggest fascism. Just saying “All this seemingly erratic behavior can be explained ? if not justified ? by thinking of Trump as a fascist. Not in the sense of an all-purpose bad guy, but in the sense of somebody who sincerely believes that the toxic combination of strong government and strong corporations should run the nation and the world.” doesn’t mean you’ve made an argument. This isn’t A + B = C.

        He’s arguing A + elephant = banana. There’s no thread through that at all. And Strong government plus strong corporations does not equal fascism either. So … I’m not sure what his point is. Other than “Trump Bad!” (but not in a generic bad guy way, more of a “No, he’s really, really Hitler” kind of way.)

        These people have lost their minds.

        1. I think that’s exactly it. They don’t really know what fascism is, it’s not important.

          Fascism is bad

          Trump is bad

          Therefore Trump is Fascism

          Logic

  24. What was the motive? I don’t want to jump to any conclusions. I think I’ll wait on Obama to comment.

    1. Toxic masculinity. It’s always toxic masculinity when victims are white people. Otherwise, it’s racism and toxic masculinity.

    2. He was mad at the children who allowed Frosty to melt.

      Should’ve just watched to the end. If only he’d had a Ritalin prescription.

      1. This is why we need single payer health care!!!

    3. Youtube video obviously.

  25. “Does America have GERMANY to thank for Trump’s presidency? Letter shows his grandfather pleaded to stay in Bavaria – but was deported back to the US for skipping military service

    “Handwritten letter found in a German archive was made public on Monday

    “Friedrich Trump in 1905 begged Bavarian Prince Luitpold to let him stay

    “Had moved to the US as a teenager without performing his military service

    “Later tried to settle back in Germany after making his fortune in the US

    “Bid to avoid expulsion failed and he was ordered expelled from Germany”

    1. Ahahahaha, closed borders strike again!

      You thought you won WWI, Americans? Kaiser Wilhelm and the boys have planned their revenge a decade before you even thought of entering it!!!!

  26. “In 1972, President Richard Nixon’s White House dispatched burglars to bug Democratic Party offices. That Watergate burglary and related “dirty tricks,” such as releasing mice at a Democratic press conference and paying a woman to strip naked and shout her love for a Democratic candidate, nauseated Americans ? and impelled some of us kids at the time to pursue journalism.

    Now in 2016 we have a political scandal that in some respects is even more staggering. Russian agents apparently broke into the Democrats’ digital offices and tried to change the election outcome….

    “In Watergate, the break-in didn’t affect the outcome of the election. In 2016, we don’t know for sure. There were other factors, but it’s possible that Russia’s theft and release of the emails provided the margin for Donald Trump’s victory.”

    1. It’s not fair that people found out the truth about Hillary.

    2. Two main differences.

      1. Nixon was behind the break in.

      2. The current situation is a figment of imagination.

      Those seem like significant differences.

    3. “Change the outcome…”
      Because the outcome was decided already in Hillay’s favor?

    4. tried to change the election outcome….

      The consistent and repeated use of misleading language suggests that the people writing these things know that it doesn’t have legs if reported accurately.

    5. nauseated Americans

      didn’t affect the outcome

      both? neat trick.

  27. It’s time we send backKurdish refugees from Kobani and their sure-to-be-troublemaking Christian refugees from Sinjar.

  28. “Director Rob Reiner said n Sunday that the election of Donald Trump by dint of Russian aid represents an “invasion” of the U.S. by a “hostile foreign power.””

    1. I don’t quite understand the lefts fervent desire to go to war with Russia. It’s insane. Well, leftism is insane…

    2. Well, do your part, Reiner. You’re a director. Remake Red Dawn!

  29. OK, one more, and then it’s off to bed with you:

    “‘Donald Trump never laughs,’ Al Franken said.

    “This was the senator’s first observation to me on a recent afternoon. It was exactly three weeks from the day the punch line became the president-elect.”

    1. Maybe Al Franken just isn’t funny.

    2. So he’s just like a Franken and Davis audience.

    3. So he’s just like a Franken and Davis audience.

  30. CBS radio news just reported no known motive in Germany attack.

    1. I guess it’s just a mystery then, huh?

    2. What about truck culture?

      1. If they had stricter environmental laws he never would’ve been able to get that truck.

  31. What the hell? Odumbles blames Clinton loss on racism and colonialism?

    He’s a complete brainwashed idiot. Who voted for this dunce?

    1. Sprouting ‘colonialism’ is right out of the left-play book. It’s a classic.

      I think my permanent tag line will be ‘Progressives are profoundly ignorant’.

      1. Colonialism probably has something to do with it. Like, people see the results of Europe being colonized and want no part of it.

    1. Watching prog-tears fun. Prog diapers are just…diapers.

  32. You know who else wound up with some Polish trucks driving around Berlin during Christmas?

  33. Let’s not jump to conclusions…

    https://memegenerator.net/instance/37184522

  34. Daily mail reporting that it was an Afghan refugee and he hijack, killed the polish driver before plowing into the market.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-dead.html

    1. Damn, they were really hoping for the angry white Polack.

      1. I’ve heard some American rednecks are of Polish ancestry, though, so there’s some kind of connection.

        I knew the rednecks were up to something when they voted against Hillary!

        Now we know.

        1. My family settled in Conway arkansas in the late 1880s. We are polish catholic. There are a hundred or so with my surname around arkansas. We are not arkansas l rednecks, but we defiantly lean redneck.

          1. We are not all rednecks, damn autocorrect.

            I did defiantly vote against the hilldog though

          2. Conway ain’t redneck. Them’s city folk.

            1. You’re correct that now they are. However, I think that 19th century Conway was a little less urban than the current iteration.

  35. W?rzburg hasn’t seen this much attention since X-rays were discovered there.

  36. Mark Steyn’s take here.

    “This BBC headline effortlessly conveys the madness of our times:

    ‘Lorry kills 12 at Christmas market’

    “Ah, so the truck did it.”

    “I think this is insane when I listen to people say ‘oh, we’re now going to have to have metal detectors in night clubs, security in nightclubs. Ok, so what happens next? They blow up a bakery, they blow up a little pastry shop, so then you’re gonna have to have metal detectors to get into the pastry shop?”

    “Instead of having all these individual perimeters around every Dunkin Donuts franchise or every gas station, or ever J.C. Penny, why not have just one big perimeter around the country?” Steyn concluded. “We could call it a border! And we could have, like, border security!”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.