Trump Signs Order Demanding Regulation Cuts, Tweets Defense of Immigration Actions, Dems May Filibuster Supreme Court Pick: P.M. Links

|

  • 'Bad Dudes'
    Nintendo

    President Donald Trump today signed an executive order demanding that the government cut two regulations if it wanted to pass a new regulation. This seems like more of a goal (and a laudable one!) than an actual concrete policy, and analysts are a bit baffled as to how the order would actually be implemented in practice.

  • Trump turned to Twitter to defend his immigration order to defend Americans from "bad dudes."
  • Democrats may filibuster Trump's Supreme Court nominee, regardless of who it might be. What if it's Merrick Garland? What then?
  • In Quebec, authorities have arrested one suspect in the mosque shooting that killed six men and injured eight others. Originally two arrests were reported, but officials have since said that only one was a suspect and one was a witness. The two were identified as Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed el Khadir, but it's not clear which was the suspect and which was the witness. (UPDATE: Bissonnette is allegedly the shooter)
  • Trump is getting blasted for adding adviser Steve Bannon as a regular attendee to National Security Council meetings, while bouncing the director of intelligence and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  • Behold, a robotic barista.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

NEXT: Looking for a Left/Libertarian Alliance Against Trump? Maybe Rethink Reflexive '#DeleteUber' Reactions

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. President Donald Trump today signed an executive order demanding that the government cut two regulations if it wanted to pass a new regulation.

    So we’ll be increasing the size of new regs by a factor of three?

    1. Lol, shoulda listened to you about italics.

      1. There is often wisdom in my words.

        1. Words are neat.

          1. what about the words messy, unkempt and clutter?

      2. Block quotes stand out better, but the html tag for italics is so much easier to key.

        1. Also, blockquotes are for when you’re quoting something from a different page. I don’t make the rules; I simply create them.

        2. Tonio thinks my quotes stand out! *has the vapors
          (I really do vape, blows little choo choo o-ring)

          1. Yes, I generally like your comments. And congrats on the ring – that’s tough.

            1. O o O o O ooo ooo ooo – I don’t do the cloud up the room type, but I can still blow some O’s. (waits for euphemism replies)

            2. Yes, I generally like your comments.

              If we all agreed on everything, the world would be a boring, dead place.

              1. If we all agreed on everything, the world would be a boring, dead place.

                I disagree.

        1. Um, at a BMI of 22, I think we can all safely say that I’m not being overfed.

          1. BMI is an old and outdated measurement, I need you to post your body fat PERCENTAGE in this day and age.

            1. Another BMI science denier. Figures.

              1. But Rosie’s computer modeling of Twinkie intake impact on BMI index was completely wrong.

            2. It also helps that he counts himself as 7′ 3″.

      3. Have the tags ready to go (in notebook or something) and then just copy and paste.

        1. You just click a single button with Reasonable.

          1. Can we please get reasonable for Safari? For the love of God, please!

            1. MAC USER! [Sutherland screech]

            2. I heard some noble commentator made Reasonable, not the Reason staff.

              1. You people are so naive. Reasonable is an NSA extension, created by Preet Bharara.

            3. I would pay for such a thing. In the mid-high 2 figures. In US dollars, bitcoin or orphan labor.

            4. Safari? Good god man….IME, if there is a browser that can contend with IE for the title of the “The Shittiest”, Safari is it.

    2. New regulation incorporates two old regulations and adds a third. Bingo!

      1. Two walk in, one walks out.

        1. Its Code of Federal Regulations Thunderdome.

            1. We don’t need another hero. *Tina Turner *smack* ahem written by Ike

    3. Hello.

      The Trump virus has spread as far north as Quebec City.

      /Proglogic.

      1. Dear god I hope it turns fatal for everyone involved.

        This world needs a bubonic plague.

        1. The Malthusian School of Libertarian Paradise?

      2. Where Muslims Go, Trouble Follows.

        1. I’m guessing the French Canadian is the shooter and Muhammad is the witness.

          1. Yes, but if those Muslims hadn’t been in Canada, no haters would have murdered them and there wouldn’t have been any “trouble.” It’s logic!

    4. The one added regulation will be the greatest regulation in the world – worthy of Trump’s deal making genius like only he can do.

    5. It’s like the suggestion that Congress has to sign off on any new regs that cost over 100 billion. Like agencies can’t figure out how to divide a big reg into multiple small ones to avoid hitting the threshold. It’s called “structuring” in the banking biz as I recall, and it’s only illegal when you trying pulling that crap.

      1. But the 2 for 1 and the REINS restriction are pushing opposite incentives, so there’s that.

    6. The Bad Dudes are coming for Trump!

      “Huh, uh, uh!”

      “Time!”

  2. President Donald Trump today signed an executive order demanding that the government

    How dare he.

    1. Based on what you quoted, it’s clear that the order is unconstitutional.

      1. Agreed, he is the 2nd coming of Hitler according to my quote fail.

  3. Trump turned to Twitter to defend his immigration order to defend Americans from “bad dudes.”

    Or bad Duderinos if you’re not into the whole brevity thing.

    1. Or “bad folks” if you miss Obama.

    2. We tortured some folks this weekend by not letting them in America.

      1. Not letting them in is apparently going to make them hate us even more. Or so I read on Reason today.

      2. Trump is actually saving them from the American oppression that progs are always talking about.

    3. Trump then added, “Keep your ugly fuckin’ goldbrickin’ ass out of my country!”

      1. Calmer than you are.

    4. Duderinos kills the meter.

      Bad dudes, bad dudes,
      What ya gonna do?
      What ya gonna do
      When Trump comes for you?

      1. This is what happens Jerry, when you find a stranger in the alps!

    1. Did anyone expect him to?

    2. Like there was any chance that was going to happen.

    3. Hillary — are you going to put up with this?

    4. I was pretty fucking disgusted when Obama banned them in 2011. Mainly because a number of interpreters in Iraq were left in the lurch with nowhere to go when we pulled out and were terrified. Good to see that dug up from the memoryhole today.

      1. Every time I see this mentioned, it’s like “La-la-la, can’t hear you!”

    5. Hey, just because “President of the United States” has term limits, it doesn’t mean that “Lord Savior Messiah Of All Humanity” has term limits too.

      1. I thought it was 33 years.

        Is this thing on?

        1. It also took a crucifixion.

          1. And a sequel has been claimed to be in production ever since.

    6. What an ass.

      A pompous, over-rated, ass.

      1. Well, that’s not fair. I rate him as possibly the worst president ever.

        1. He is easily in the top 100 best presidents.

    7. Former President Barack Obama is criticizing President Trump’s immigration and travel ban issued on Friday, saying through a spokesman that he is “heartened by the level of engagement” over the weekend in opposition to the action.

      Heartened that no one of importance protested him when he cut the Cuban refugees off without warning.

      1. They weren’t sending their best cigars.

        1. Exactly!! Fuck-em!

      2. Cuban refugees are embarrassing to the Left. Why would someone flee their dream state?

    8. Stay classy Barry. Stay classy.

    9. Get used to it. Obama will be providing commentary for the rest of his life, and sycophants in the media will slurp it up.

      Fifty bucks says he ends up a regular on CNN within a year.

      1. During the Bush years, they pretended Martin Sheen was the President. Obama is willing to talk, which means he’s going to be the Real President in the eyes of the media and Hollywood.

        1. PARELLEL GOVERNMENT!

          SHADOW GOVERNMENT!

      2. worked for Bill & Jimmy

    10. It took him all of what, 10 days or so ?

  4. In Quebec, authorities have arrested one suspect in the mosque shooting that killed sex men and injured eight others.

    Well, at least the eunuchs made it out alive.

      1. Technically, Jesse could probably still find eunuchs of use.

        1. I meant saddened about deaths of Quebecois sex men.

          Eunuchs are always useful. In Thraxas book series, there’s a lovely exchange

          “You’re as useful as a eunuch in a brothel!”
          “I never understood that one. Eunuch could help clean, or take care of the girls, or cook…”

          1. Did they the pillar or just the stones?

  5. I’d become a Trumpkin if he nominates somebody good for SCOTUS, like Janice Rodgers Brown or Don Willett.

    I don’t expect the nomination to be anybody good.

    1. Circa 2019: “Chief Justice Joe Arpaio”

      1. ::pre-emptively shoots self in head::

      2. As a Phoenix native you don’t even joke about that shit, soldier.

    2. I would LOVE Brown just to watch Dems’ reaction. Willett actually has a chance, though.

      1. Oh, Brown would be a great choice. She’s smart, and actually gives a damn about the Constitution. Which of course, the Dems hate. But then the question comes as to whether they’d actually dare to block the nomination of a black woman to the Supreme Court. I suspect they’d just consider her “not black” (see: Thomas, Clarence) and “not a woman” (because she has wrong ideas) and therefore bloackable.

        1. ^This.

        2. Dems blocking JRB would be the best.

        3. Oh, they’re far worse than just “not black” and/or “not a woman.” They’re apostates and traitors to the cause, and as such, must be destroyed if at all possible.

        4. And get ready for long rants about her evil Randian views.

        5. Unfortunately she’s in her late 60s and therefore her window for nomination has probably passed.

          1. True. But I am still praying for it to happen.

        6. Well, SCOTUS could use another Uncle… errr, I mean Aunt Jemima, I guess. I’m sure that’s what the left would call her among worse things.

          1. Careful, Hyper, the chattering classes do lurk here and are known to steal ideas. Remember that WaPo chick who ripped off SugarFree? Weigel is widely assumed to lurk here still. I’m sure there are others.

    3. The main bad thing about Willett being nominated is that we’d lose him from the Texas Supreme Court. He is singlehandedly dragging the court towards economic liberty. I doubt he’ll have as much influence at SCOTUS (in fact he has pointed out that Roberts is hostile to Lochner). His concurrence in Patel v. Texas Dept. of Licensing is a thing of beauty.

    4. A law and order Republican. You heard it here first.

      1. A law and order Republican

        Tulpa?

  6. “Not bad meaning bad but bad meaning good” – Run DMC

    1. “but sometimes, yeah sometimes, bad is bad” – Huey Lewis

  7. What if it’s Merrick Garland? What then?

    Boycott and filibuster.

    1. If he wanted to piss off literally everyone in Congress (Rs for making them look like chumps, Ds for openly, viciously stealing an opportunity to grandstand), that would be ideal.

      1. Well, the Senate, anyway.

  8. Behold, a robotic barista.

    Because the real minimum wage is and always has been $0

    1. And somehow this is going to blamed on Trump as well.

    2. * Studies majors hardest hit.

      1. Hey man, what about robot studies?

    3. BFD. Coffee vending machines have been around forever.

      1. I wonder if these new machines will be just as good as the old ones at dispensing all the liquid, then placing the cup down after all the liquid has gone down the drain.

  9. Saudi prince solves excess baggage problems – by booking his 80 hawks in First Class

    Although airlines make a point of stating their hold and hand luggage allowances, we’ve all got it wrong at some point.

    For most of us, this involves either putting on several layers of clothing while the rest of the check-in queue tut and roll their eyes at you – OR having to kiss good-bye to half of the contents of your hand luggage at the gate.

    Basically, anything to avoid having to pay extra to check in another bag.

    However, if you have the sort of disposable income that the Saudi Royal family does, things are little different.

    For example, if flying economy means you can only have a maximum of six of your beloved birds of prey in the cabin, but you want to bring all 80 of them with you?

    Well, you simply upgrade and take them all along for the flight.

    Yes, here are 80 falcons who are privy to the sort of luxury most of us can only ever dream of.[…]

    Unlike so many of us, the Saudi Prince had done his research and familiarised himself with the airline’s excess baggage policies .

    “You are permitted to carry one falcon on board the Economy Class passenger cabin of an aircraft, and a maximum of six falcons are permitted within the Economy Class cabin of an aircraft (country regulations may apply).”

    1. Now, *that* is minding your own falcon business.

      1. I’m surprised the airlines had *any* falcon regulations on this subject.

        1. Bird law in this country is not governed by reason.

          1. He has a good lawyer!

            Well, good at this sort of thing…

            1. “Now mind you that here-to-for document had dry ink on it for at least many forknights.”

      2. Does the guy not realize hawks have wings and can fly? Just tether them to the damn antenna like a Mexican would. Or maybe they were baby hawks in training and he was hoping they’d learn how to fly an airplane?

    2. Good thing I rescheduled my flight, otherwise my 80 rabbits and I were in for some trouble.

      1. Sorry, dude, I was on the same flight and I always fly with my pet pythons.

        1. I have had it with this motherfucking fusionist on this motherfucking plane!

        2. Is that what they call the altar boys these days?

          1. I don’t know, but the line outside your mother’s door goes all around the block, it must be her cupcakes.

            1. My mom passed away a long time ago.

              1. Sorry to hear that. Do I get a refund then?

                1. She was cremated.

                  1. You are no fun. Sorry to hear about your loss.

                    1. Stop ashing him such sensitive questions, bm

                    2. I found that is the best way to shut down mom jokes. But I would rather still have my mom. She was a sweet woman.

                    3. OK, I’m very sorry I made a joke about your mom.

                    4. My mom is dead as well…hmmm. In fact, I am technically an orphan you heartless bastard.

                    5. Yes, yes she was. *chews thoughtfully
                      My mom died when I was 10 so I know how you feel.

                    6. Seriously, my joke doesn’t seem as funny any longer.

                      I’m sorry for both your losses.

                    7. Eddie, no worries brother. I like you and I know you are not an asshole.

                    8. “I like you and I know you are not an asshole.”

                      That’s the sweetest thing anyone has ever said to me!

                    9. I’m still going to make mom jokes though.

      2. Falcons hunt birds, numbskull.

        1. ? Pretty sure a falcon will hunt anything that moves and somewhat smaller than it.

          1. Forget it, he’s rolling smugging.

          2. Depends on the species. I am assuming these are peregrines or sakers, which are used to hunt birds.

    3. The picture shows dozens of falcons in coach.

      1. Those are female falcons.

        1. nicely done

    4. “You are permitted to carry one falcon on board the Economy Class passenger cabin of an aircraft.”

      Well that’s a rule I doubt I would’ve ever ~guessed~ existed.

      1. Right? Which means something happened in the past where they said hoo boy, we need to make a rule about this.

        1. Maybe Saudi Princes wanting to bring along falcons is just /that/ common of an occurrence??

          Or maybe the Prince called and asked so they wrote down a policy really quick.

          “Hello, I’m calling to find out your policies on falcons.”

          “I’m sorry sir, your policies on WHAT??”

          “Falcons. Like how many birds can I bring with me into the seating area.”

          “Falcons we don’t, uh, have any rules on the subject, but I’m pretty sure that we don’t allow-”

          “Did I mention I’m a wealthy Arabian prince??”

          “OH, you meant our rules on FALCONS. Uh, sure. One per person.”

          “But I wish to bring eighty.”

          “OH, what I meant is one per person IN ECONOMY CLASS. If you upgrade you can bring, uh, as many as you want.”

          1. Or the airline hired a tireless pedant.

            “We need a rule on how many animals people can bring into coach, and make it more permissive in 1st class.”

            “Which animals?”

            “I dunno, all of them.”

            *3 weeks later*

            “OK that takes care of falcons. Next up, ferrets.”

      2. And I joked about my comfort animal being a hawk.

    5. The most surprising thing about this is that Saudi princes don’t take private jets everywhere.

      1. He let his wife learn to read so they reduced his allowance.

      2. There are a thousand plus princes. Not all of them are important princes.

        1. Princes who adore you?

          1. One has diamonds in his pockets
            That’s some bread, now
            This one, said he wants to buy you rockets
            Ain’t in his head, now

        2. How many are Jehova’s Witnesses?

        3. But they can apparently afford to buy out an entire commercial flight.

      3. Falcons don’t like the Saudi-made jets. Too much turbulence. Falcons demand the very best.

      4. Probably wanted to have all those birds shit all over someone else’s plane.

        1. +80 black and white bullseyes on vinyl.

      5. What makes you think he didn’t?

      6. The most surprising thing about this is that Saudi princes don’t take private jets everywhere.

        Would you let a bunch of talon-tipped shit machines chill on your Gulfstream V’s leather and teak-trimmed interior for an international flight?

        Nope.

    6. Man, fuck Saudi princes. I’m sick of them. They can’t go broke soon enough.

    7. This guy would either wear several layers of clothing on a cramped, hot airplane, or just throw his stuff in the trash so he doesn’t have to pay a baggage fee?

      Hell no, I won’t pay your $40 baggage fee! I’ll just throw half my clothing in the trash!

  10. Behold, a robotic barista.

    But is it a refugee?

    1. *** clicks on article ***

      Well, FWIW, her head appears to be covered.

    2. Behold, a robotic barista.

  11. If there be a God please let Trump’s SCOTUS nominee by Janice Rogers Brown. I would LOVE to see Democrats filibuster the first female African American SCOTUS nominee.

    1. They had no trouble at all going all “scorched earth” on Clarence Thomas. They’ll not bat an eyelash at destroying any minority that dares step off the reservation. The CBC would be right at the front of the line, waiting to hang her by her entrails. They don’t countenance “race traitors”.

      1. “step off the reservation”

        That’s redskins. You mean plantations.

    2. Well, if she were a real woman and really black, she’d be a commie, duh!

  12. Daily Mail is claiming that it’s Alexandre Bissonnette who is apparently an outspoken Trump supporter.

      1. Not surprisingly, PB’s views of Canadian politics are as stupid as he views of American.

      2. The both have faggy names.

    1. Trump is nominating the mosque shooter to the Supreme Court? I guess he has a type.

  13. In Quebec, authorities have arrested one suspect in the mosque shooting that killed sex men

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

    1. Killed “Sex men”. LOL!

    2. Is the theory that it was an Orlando-style fella struggling with his love of fellow dudes?

  14. The two were identified as Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed el Khadir, but it’s not clear which was the suspect and which was the witness.

    Since it was at a mosque, I’m going to go ahead and stereotype that the out of place name is the one who wasn’t there to witness.

      1. Ahh, so it is Trmup’s fault. Proggies everywhere unite in glee.

      2. Oh boy, time to avoid Canadian media for a week.

        1. No shit.

          1. Also, get ready for the Libs to try and shove more anti-Islamophobia/hate crime legislation down our throats!

            Fuck my party.

            1. And you’ll cry if you want to.

              1. That’s all libs have been doing since November, so yeah.

      3. From the photos, it looks like he’s been rocking that peachfuzz mustache for years.

      4. Shit! Dude, that’s Cytotoxic!

      5. How did this happen in Canada? Don’t they have gun laws?

        1. I know right. It’s like laws don’t stop determined criminals, or something. I.. I don’t know I think I need to lie down after typing that.

  15. On Trump’s immigration EO:

    Reason is caught up with the rest of the media believing its own bullshit. Most Americans simply do not give a fuck about this. They are not shitting their pants over Trump’s executive order. It’s an embarrassment to see Reason, which claims to represent libertarianism, continue to act as if open borders are the be all end all of libertarianism. People who aren’t even fucking in this country are pretty low down on my priority list.

    Trump overreached with his order with green card holders, yet, sadly, probably has the authority to do it because Congress legislated it away.

    Just posting my comment from elsewhere here. Because I missed many of the pant shitting threads over the last few days.

    1. I’ll say what I said elsewhere once again:

      1. The substance. I’m reasonably ok with it, except for the green card thing. But that leads into

      2. This was fucking incompetence of the highest scale. As terrible as Obama and Dubya were, they never would’ve done something like this IN THIS FASHION. There would’ve been at least some behind the scenes coordination so the airports didn’t turn into a fucking disaster zone (not considering the protests there).

    2. Most Americans simply do not give a fuck about this. They are not shitting their pants over Trump’s executive order. It’s an embarrassment to see Reason, which claims to represent libertarianism, continue to act as if open borders are the be all end all of libertarianism.

      In the podcast thread, i noted some historic polling about “US Attitudes About Refugees”

      in short, you’re basically right. The media’s insistence that “The Whole World Is Outraged” is not only bullshit for ‘the globe’, its not even true for the US

      e.g.

      The U.S. public has seldom approved of accepting large numbers of refugees. In October 2016, 54% of registered voters said the U.S. does not have a responsibility to accept refugees from Syria, while 41% said it does. There was a wide partisan gap on this measure, with 87% of Trump supporters saying the U.S. doesn’t have a responsibility to accept Syrians, compared with only 27% of Clinton supporters who said the same. U.S. public opinion polls from previous decades show Americans have largely opposed admitting large numbers of refugees from countries where people are fleeing war and oppression.

    3. You know what else most Americans don’t give a fuck about?

        1. Hitler, because Trump is Hitler and he just did a Hitler act, but most Americans don’t care, therefore

      1. The cars behind them?

      2. Soccer?

        1. I can always count on you.

      3. Using turn signals?

      4. What the rest of the world thinks?

      5. Beer that actually has a decent level of alcohol?

      6. Canadians.
        (Not even a question mark)

      7. How magnets work?

  16. “President Donald Trump today signed an executive order demanding that the government cut two regulations if it wanted to pass a new regulation. This seems like more of a goal (and a laudable one!) than an actual concrete policy, and analysts are a bit baffled as to how the order would actually be implemented in practice.”

    Yeah, I’m kinda stuck between “awesome” and “but how though” myself.

    1. Fire employees who don’t cooperate? That’s how it works in the real world.

      1. He won’t fire anybody. He’ll just stop sending them a paycheck and when they ask for their money he’ll tell them he wasn’t happy with the quality of their work.

      2. Well, I mean, can’t the employees just… cut two regs and write a third that replaces and expands those two?? It seems really easy to get around and you’d be hard pressed to argue that they weren’t following the letter of the rule.

      3. Well, I mean, can’t the employees just… cut two regs and write a third that replaces and expands those two?? It seems really easy to get around and you’d be hard pressed to argue that they weren’t following the letter of the rule.

        1. It works for comments!

        2. Expect dozens of OSHA ladder-safety regs to be updated with single 3,000 pager that also covers coal plant emissions somehow.

      4. The America Interest has an in depth article about the President’s ability to fire civil service employees today.

    2. First thought: Entirely symbolic and pointless.

      Second thought: But as pointless symbols go… nice.

    3. That means: Start looking through old regulations you’d be willing to eliminate, right now, before you add any new ones.

      1. Won’t they just write regulations three times as onerous??

        1. Doesn’t the Preezy sign off on the regulations bit?

    4. So one EO is a good goal but not a policy but a different one is terrible policy ?

  17. Starbucks pledges to hire 10,000 refugees

    Starbucks says it plans to hire 10,000 refugees over five years in the 75 countries where it does business.

    Chairman and CEO Howard Schultz outlined the company’s plan in a memo sent to employees Sunday in response to President Trump’s executive order banning travel from seven Muslim majority countries.

    “We are living in an unprecedented time,” Schultz wrote in the memo, which listed several actions the company says it is taking to “reinforce our belief in our partners around the world.”

    The refugee hiring proposal, Schultz wrote, will begin with a focus on people who have served with U.S. troops as interpreters and support personnel.

    Schultz also reiterated Starbucks’ (SBUX) support for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which helps undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children get driver’s licenses, enroll in college and secure jobs. The program was created by President Obama through an executive order in 2012.

    And Schultz said the company is “ready to help and support our Mexican customers, partners and their families” should any proposed trade sanctions, immigration restrictions and taxes affect their businesses.

    1. So they are going to use discriminatory hiring practices?

      1. Ought to be entertaining watching them fend of class-action EEO lawsuits from people who were turned down for a job in favor of this policy.

        Funny thing is, we don’t even want that law. But they do. And it will hurt them, probably badly, if they pursue this course.

      2. Yeah I wondered about that. Unless they’re creating 10,000 new positions just for them, this comes at the expense of all non-refugee applicants. Interestingly enough, this is somehow not meeting the proggy definition of racial discrimination.

    2. Wait until the new baristas start raping the customers.

      1. It’s a feature, not a bug.

      2. Quiet, you’re going to give STEVE SMITH ideas.

        1. ME STEVE SMITH IDENTIFY SEXUALLY AS ROBOT.

      3. Or attacking customers that drink with their left hand.

        1. Starbucks sells ham croissants and bacon-cheese egg bites. Or used to, up until about 5 minutes from after they start hiring the Mohammedans.

          1. “We have discontinued selling pork products due to worker safety concerns.”

      4. Only 9 more months until you can get a pumpkin-spiced rape.

      5. What can I get you started this morning? takes on a whole new meaning.

    3. And the New York Times is selling record copy. I do hope these companies send Trump a Christmas card.

    4. Starbucks says it plans to hire 10,000 refugees over five years in the 75 countries where it does business.

      Refugees from *the US*, amirite?

    5. Psssh, Dunkin Donuts already does that.

      1. They carefully select the one who think that “a little milk and sugar” means half the cup.

        1. I always order coffee black, no sugar.

          1. Me too – after many cups of sugar milk.

          2. Young Boy with Coffee: Excuse me, I happened to be passing, and I thought you might like some coffee.
            Little Girl: Oh, that’s very nice of you, thank you.
            Little Girl: Oh, won’t you sit down?
            Young Boy with Coffee: Cream?
            Little Girl: No, thank you, I take it black, like my men.

    6. Virtue signal flare lit for urban hipsters who like to waste 5 bucks for a cup of over roasted coffee flavored with sweet junk.

      1. And yet the Starbucks windows are usually the first to go when the riots start.

    7. Hahaha, let’s see the yokeltarians try to spin this one. Oh tell me, you great “libertarian” theorists, how preventing Starbucks from bringing in 10,000 refugees and giving them jobs is consistent with libertarian principles.

      All anti-immigration arguments from someone claiming to be a libertarian are pure, unadulterated bullshit.

      1. I don’t identify with your collectivist identity shaming…but here goes: they tuk er jerbs. Or at least took the jobs of 10000 man-bun hipsters.

        1. Yes, I shouldn’t lump all the yokeltarians together. But nice of you to stand up for hipster rights. I know why. More hipsters means more bacon for you?

          1. Correct. *chews thoughtfully

      2. What exactly are yokels supposed to be “spinning”? Schultz said that they’d get work in any of the 75 countries Starbucks does business in. Presumably, if there’s a hold up here, they’ll hire some in Canada, or England, or the Netherlands, what have you until they hit their target number.

        Your hatred is delightful, though.

        1. Whoosh. I was saying if they wanted to hire them in the US. Tell me about how in that case we need to regulate hiring practices.

          1. IOW, you were responding to voices in your head. Carry on.

            1. [Looks at empty chair facing him….becomes conscious]

          2. They can hire whomever they want.

            But Starbucks doesn’t issue visas.

      3. 97% of the 2015 wave that hit Europe remain unemployed drags on the economy, at best. So a few companies bend over backwards to hire these otherwise unemployable people, is this supposed to be surprising? I’m surprised it wasn’t done ten times already. Seems like they’re only doing it now to milk the TDS sufferers emotional decision making, so thank Trump for inspiring them to be virtuous.

        1. They are unemployed because of labor regulations, not because they are lazy.

          1. Laziness is unique to whitey, of course. But being functionally illiterate in the language of the country to which you immigrated could also be a contributing factor.

            You could go back to the Cytotoxic handle any time you like, btw.

          2. Or because they represent a sudden massive influx of culturally alien, largely illiterate (in their own language), unskilled people into an advanced high-skill oriented economy where low-skill labor is already overabundant and being rapidly automated. Maybe, just maybe, not every government directed movement of people represents market forces and free movement of peoples. MAYBE

    8. So… I’m not sure if Starbucks realizes just how long it takes for the government to allow refugees to get a job and become wholly assimilated into a country. I know my great uncle was in a camp for 5 years before he was in America proper.

    9. This is actual virtue signaling. Don’t begrudge them signaling to make a buck though.

    10. It’s like 10,000 refugees when all you need is a knife?

    11. Now 10,000 future American gender and minority studies graduates will not be able to find gainful employment.

  18. …in the mosque shooting that killed sex men and injured eight…

    Is that what goes on in these mosques?

    1. People need something to do to kill time when not doing weapon maintenance.

  19. Runaway cat wanders into store, goes wild for catnip toys

    Jan. 30 (UPI) — A runaway cat wandered into a pet supply store in the Netherlands and was filmed rolling around euphorically in a pile of catnip-filled toys.

    Pet store chain Pets Place said the cat wandered into the shop in Zwolle and was filmed writhing in ecstasy atop a pile of catnip-filled toys and packages.

    A second video, captured by a customer and posted to YouTube by a friend, shows the cat’s nip-fueled escapades eventually spilled over onto the floor of the store, where the feline was filmed rolling around and spreading the catnip around the aisle.

    Pets Place said the feline’s owner eventually tracked the cat to the store and reclaimed the satisfied pet.

    1. We got our cat this stuff called Meowijuana. It’s extra potent catnip. Our cat goes apeshit after smelling it and rolling around on it for a minute. She starts running around smacking stuff. Then she mellows out and usually falls asleep after a few minutes of that. It’s basically cat crack.

  20. Could blocking illegal fentanyl from China solve the B.C. opioid crisis?

    Why is legalization never considered? The answer is always more government, either in the form of cops, border/customs, or (taxpayer funded) treatment; never less.

      1. People are relieving themselves of mental and physical pain without approval of the shaman priest doctor.

      2. It was BC so it’s over now.

        1. Marge: [on radio] Husband on murderous rampage. Send help. Over.
          Chief Wiggum: Whew, thank God that’s over. I was worried for a little bit.

    1. As HRC famously observed: There’s too much money in it.

    2. Making drugs illegal? Why hasn’t anyone thought of that before? It’s sure to end addiction!

      1. “It weighed only 1.45 kilograms, but the international parcel destined for Victoria could have killed 725,000 people.” Or gotten 1.5 million really high.

    3. There was a smack epidemic before Christ?

  21. The Difference Between An Expat and An Immigrant

    What is an expatriate, exactly? And when is an expat an immigrant ? or not?

    The word expat is loaded. It carries many connotations, preconceptions and assumptions about class, education and privilege ? just as the terms foreign worker, immigrant and migrant call to mind a different set of assumptions. It’s front and centre currently as US President Donald Trump signed an executive order abruptly banning immigrants, short and long-term visa-holders and, for a time, green card-holders, from certain countries from entering the US.

    But what makes one person an expat, and another a foreign worker or migrant? Often the former is used to describe educated, rich professionals working abroad, while those in less privileged positions ? for example, a maid in the Gulf states or a construction worker in Asia ? are deemed foreign workers or migrant workers. The classification matters, because such language can in some cases be used as a political tool or to dehumanise ? as the debate around the word “migrant” suggests.

    1. God damn it, before I checked URL I was sure that was Everyday Feminism.

      1. It must have been a non-American source. Nobody applies the term “expat” to foreigners living/working in the US.

        1. Really. I’m surrounded by immigrants with MSs and PhDs and no one calls them expats. They are immigrants.

        2. Expat is commonly used in oil and gas. Both Americans in Africa and Dutch in Texas.

    2. What the hell? The condition of Somalis and Pakistanis in the Gulf states is pretty much that of modern slavery. Migrant worker does not even come close to describing their situation.

    3. The only context in which I have heard the word expat used is for people from this country not living here any more (e.g. “an American expat in Britain”).

    4. The use of “expat” that I am familiar with involves professionals living abroad on extended, but not permanent, assignment. For example, your company sends you overseas for a 2 year assignment. You rent while you are there and make no attempt at becoming a permanent resident or citizen. However, I have met perpetual expats that move around the world without ever going home.

    5. Maybe I’m the dumb one on this, but doesn’t Ex-pat imply that you gave up your citizenship and migrant imply you’re there on a visa?

      1. nope

        You get hired by Acme Tool Company in Arizona. You get paid by Acme Tool Company in Arizona. But you spend two years living in southern Mexico opening a new tool plant. You are an ExPat.

        1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriate

          An expatriate (often shortened to expat) is a person temporarily or permanently residing, as an immigrant, in a country other than that of their citizenship. The word comes from the Latin terms ex (“out of”) and patria (“country, fatherland”).

          To the point of the article. Expats are professionals, and migrant workers dig ditches. But in reality, they are the same thing.

          1. I think modern usage implies that the expat is working abroad for a company in his native country. Often a transfer where he works at “home” both before and after.

            He gets a premium for this as opposed to competing on the local foreign market for a job.

        2. Short for “Expatriate”. Meaning “one living outside of their native country”.

          It includes temporary and permanent expatriate status. So both employees working abroad for two years and communist sympathizers who gave up their citizenship to move to the Soviet Union are expats.

          1. “You’re an expatriate. You’ve lost touch with the soil. You get precious. Fake European standards have ruined you. You drink yourself to death. You become obsessed by sex. You spend all your time talking, not working. You are an expatriate, see? You hang around caf?s.”
            –The Sun Also Rises

  22. I see Islamic sectarian violence is getting started in Canada. They should have quotas and bring in equal numbers of all of the different sects just to make the fights fair.

    1. Or we have a return of Quebecois terrorism, now even more nativist!

      I’d have never guess Canada would be the country where the first Deus Vulting took place, but if I had to, Quebec City might be on the list of likely places (Toronto for size and Edmonton for crime would be my first guesses).

      1. It’s a good thing Canada has common sense gun control, like banning AK47s.

        1. That’s the part that weirds me out. Where does a dipshit student manage to pick up a forbidden firearm? I mean, I get black market and stuff, but how does he manage to tap into it (and pay the exorbitant price, to boot)?

          I bet there’ll be screams of (((false flag))) Mossad op. He’s supposedly “pro-Israel,” after all.

          1. I’m going to go out on a limb and hazard a guess that it was a misidentified SKS, which you can get pretty much anywhere pretty cheap.

            1. Or maybe a CZ VZ-58.

          2. Montreal gun black market is actually pretty substantial from what I’ve heard.

            1. Montreal’s black market period is substantial.

              And Quebec’s uneasiness with Muslims go back a while. See ‘Charter of Values’.

            2. And where would you hear such things?

              1. Rufus, duh.

                *shifty eyes*

                1. If there’s a scam or fraud ring, you can bet we’re the biggest.

      2. first Deus Vulting

        Quebec, where saying you’re Catholic at a party nowadays is like openly admitting you’re a Marxist in 1950s America? Methinks it’s less ‘Deus Vult’ and more ‘Vive le Qu?bec libre’.

        1. Maybe Radical La?cit? then??

        2. I was looking for an anti-Muslim equivalent of “Alahu Akbaring” and it seemed to fit.

          1. In Quebec that consists of a long sentence of swearing based on Catholic iconography, use of ‘Anglais’ like it IS a swear word, and an insult directed at your mother.

  23. WaPo: Koch network could serve as potent resistance in Trump era

    1. Isn’t that same Koch network that sunk a lot of money into making sure Trump didn’t get the Republican nomination? And then sunk a lot more money into making sure Trump didn’t win the election?

      1. Isn’t that same Koch network that sunk a lot of money into making sure Trump didn’t get the Republican nomination? And then sunk a lot more money into making sure Trump didn’t win the election?

        No, that would be some other Koch network that I’ve never heard of before.

        The Koch brothers put their money on Scott Walker, and after he abruptly dropped out demanded their money back. They then stepped away from supporting/fighting anyone in the presidential race, but instead looked at congressional and state races.

        Trump did, IIRC, send out feelers to them, but they were rebuffed since the Koch’s were opposed to his bad economic ideas and dismissive attitude towards civil liberties. But they didn’t lift a finger against him. They just wrote some editorials explaining why immigration and trade restrictions were a bad idea.

        1. Heh. Point being, I doubt Trump much gives a shit about the Koch bros since he doesn’t owe them his position.

          1. True.

            But it’s irrelevant. Trump has some good ideas. He has lots of stupid ideas. The Democrats are in no position to effectively replace his stupid ideas with good ideas because their alternatives are pretty stupid, soemtimes more stupid than his ones(!), and having a significant faction of Republicans opposing those stupid ideas in a way that sells the right principles to the public is a good thing.

            And given the fact that without their support, the liberty caucus in congress would have a fraction of the members it has now, and the years of Koch derangement syndrome they have weathered to pull that off, I wouldn’t sneer dismissively at them.

            They’ve been playing a long game, and doing it better than most people realize.

        2. Yeah I thought the Koch’s mostly sat this one out.

        3. after he abruptly dropped out demanded their money back

          HA HA HA! Really? They really thought they’d get money back? Maybe they got some unspent money back, but I doubt it. Once the money goes in the hole it doesn’t come back out.

      2. Yes, but did WaPo get any of that money? If they write an article, maybe there’ll be a check or two in it for them. Bezos money is fine and good, but Single Payer Option is not popular when it comes to billionaire donors.

      3. Dude, Trump is the Koch Brother’s puppet.

        TW: Don’t click the link, just don’t. Unless you really want to see full-on batshit-insane frothing-at-the-mouth rage. Like this:

        Of course, Republicans are barbarous and cruel to humanity in general, but there are no instances of Republicans passing any legislation that has any benefit to the people. Their focus is on corporations, the oil industry, the gun industry and military-industrial complex, and of course sating the bloodthirsty evangelical extremists; the rest of the population be damned straight to the proverbial Hell. What is worse is the inclination now becoming a reality that Republicans are so inhumane that not helping the population is not barbaric enough; they are on a tear to eliminate what little protections and benefits the government does provide.

        Where do you start with that sort of insanity?

        1. “If any of this were true, you’d be in a concentration camp.”

        2. Well, I drink whiskey and smoke stuff, but YMMV.

        3. Fire would be a good start. Liberal amounts of fire.

  24. My neighbor now has a sign in the front yard that reads “Facts Make America Great”. I understand that not all leftists’ beliefs are the same, but it seems to me that a prominent faction of the left has been pushing postmodern cant for about 40 years stipulating that there is no absolute truth, everything is gray and open to interpretation, etc. Now they’re fact-based, fucking love science, and so forth. Cool. I’m tempted to pepper my neighbor with a half-dozen or so inconvenient facts.

    1. “Oh, ‘Facts’! I thought it read “Farts’.”

      1. You now know what you must do, B.P.

    2. Burn a Derrida quote into his lawn with bleach.

      1. Now you’ve triggered Jordan Petersen, SugarFree.

      2. Seeing the Trump press operation completely own the press with Deconstructionism and ressentement makes me smile a little. I mean, it makes me sad that so many people felt the choice was between people who fight with major media companies about the “facts” and people who would have lied to the same reporters and had them “explaining” why these lies were “facts”. But seeing someone just full on embrace the will-to-power of Derridian deconstructionism and having people like Dan Rather and Brian Williams scream about it is kind of like having someone put whipped cream on top of the pile of shit that they’ve been trying to tell me is chocolate ice cream.

    3. FMAG? You can’t yell that.

  25. This thing where businesses are becoming outgrowths of politics and politicians is NOT a good development.

    1. agreed.
      OT, Rufus, in the AM links you mentioned 1976 as a turning point in Canada, but I wasn’t sure what that was. Not being alive then probably made me miss it.

      1. It was the Canada Bicentennial. Duh.

        1. And Quebec got all upset?

          1. They also banned the importation of Billy Beer just a year later.

            1. We didn’t go to war over this??

              1. Iran distracted us.

      2. I think that’s when L?v?sque was first elected Quebec Premier.

        Or was it Bill 101?

          1. ah. Reading now. Thanks, PZ.

            1. Really it was just the longstanding consequence of the Quiet Revolution, when Quebec changed dramatically and dropped a ton of its historical institutions and creating way more statist ones.

        1. Yeah, but didn’t that start around 1960 after Duplessis finally kicked the bucket?

        2. He meant the end of the revolution, when Quebec elected a pro-independent Quebec Premier and the PQ became a constant of Quebec politics.

      3. It was the year the nativist, nationalist Parti Quebecois were first elected. It led to a massive exodus – 500 000 estimated – of Montrealers and businesses

        Montreal never recovered.

        I’ll repost this elsewhere in case you don’t see this.

        1. Thanks, Rufus! I never knew

          1. Just don’t tell nationalists. Apparently this had nothing to do with Montreal’s descent.

        2. BS. It was the f*ing Olympics!!

  26. What if it’s Merrick Garland?

    Never underestimate the power of doublethink.

    1. IOW, always overestimate the power of doublethink?

  27. Trump turned to Twitter to defend his immigration order to defend Americans from “bad dudes.”

    Not just ‘bad hombres’?

    1. I prefer “infamous.”

      Dusty: “What does that mean? Infamous?”
      Ned: “Ah, Dusty! Infamous is when you’re more than famous! This guy El Guapo is not just famous, he’s IN-famous!”

    1. HA HA HA! She went to France so obviously she wore a beret.

    2. Actress Pamela Anderson has made a surprise visit to a refugee camp in northern France, distributing children’s books, food and other supplies.

      Over 60% illiterate in their own language. How insensitive.

    3. Get hip to Hep C!

  28. Science news: Scientists find ‘oldest human ancestor’

    Well, to be fair, Warty is a time-traveler.

    1. So they found a single-celled organism?

      1. No, SF. Check out the image. I for one was shocked at the resemblance.

        1. I find comfort in its pained scream of existential angst.

          1. At least it has a mouth with which to scream.

        2. I assume this will be a new exhibit in that ark museum they built in flyover country?

  29. The two were identified as Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed el Khadir, but it’s not clear which was the suspect and which was the witness.

    Given their last names, they have equal chance of being the terrorists.

    1. Trump said he’d never let Americans down, but he said nothing about refugees.

      1. He’ll never let Americans down again.

    2. Tom Petty rocks.

      1. Word.

  30. The two were identified as Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed el Khadir, but it’s not clear which was the suspect and which was the witness.

    Not clear at all but that doesn’t mean one of them isn’t a pretty good bet.

    1. Looks like you’re wrong John.

      http://www.metronews.ca/news/c…..=hootsuite

      Also, in this instance, I don’t know why you would conclude that the guy with the Muslim-sounding name is less likely to be the witness. If the guy was a convert, there’d be no reason to think he was less likely to be the perpetrator. And how often do non-Muslim people in Quebec go to mosques?

      1. He could have been walking by or maybe there fore some other reason. But you are right good bet is not a certainty.

        It looks like the guy that did it is your typical loner nut. It doesn’t seem like they have much of an idea why he did it. Maybe he is some crazy Catholic who wanted to get his crusade on. But it looks like he is more like Dylan Root, just a psychotic loser with his own motivations.

        1. I think there’s a difference between loner nuts like, for example, the Colorado or Sandy Hook shooters that didn’t seem to have any ideological reason for doing it, but just wanted to kill people because they were crazy, and people like Roof or Breivik who weren’t connected to larger terrorist organizations (even in a mere “I pledge allegiance” sense) but had identifiable ideological motivation for their attacks.

          In this case, there’s been a few stories indicating the guy has right-wing and anti-Muslim views, and combined with his choice of target indicates that there’s a good chance this attack fits in the latter category. But to say for sure we probably need more confirmed information.

          1. Root wasn’t politically motivated. He was angry some black guy took his girlfriend. The difference is are you doing it to make a political point or are you doing it because of some screwball reason your psychosis has created.

            In this case, if the guy did it because he wanted to instill terror in Muslims and make them think twice before they went to Mosques or gathered, that is an act of political terrorism. If the guy did it because he thought Muslims were the agents of the CIA and had stolen his life essence and went to the mosque because that is where he could find them, that is not political terror. That is one lone nut.

            The question is, was the act done in hopes it would be repeated by others in the hope to achieve some end or was it done for this guy’s particular crazy reason. The former is terror and a real problem. The latter is a nut and tragic but not indicative of anything larger than the fact that he was a nut.

            1. “Root wasn’t politically motivated. He was angry some black guy took his girlfriend”

              I don’t know enough about Roof to know whether a black guy taking his girl was the initial reason for his slide into white supremacy, but even it was that doesn’t mean he didn’t develop ideological beliefs that played a part in his decision to kill people. He had a jacket made bearing the flags of regimes associated with white supremacy such as the confederacy, Rhodesia, and apartheid South Africa. He clearly put a little more thought and effort into it than “damn that black guy took my girl I’m gonna go shoot up this church!”

              A lot of Islamist terrorists may have had some trigger, whether personal or a political event, that spurred them to go down the road leading to terrorism, but that alone doesn’t ultimately determine whether or not it was terrorism.

              1. Sure they do. But they are doing what they are doing as part of a larger cause that is done to inspire terror. Can a lone nut also support a larger campaign of terror. But that doesn’t mean every lone nut does or that there is no difference between the actions of a psychotic and an actual terror campaign.

                If it the case that people start shooting up Mosques in this country in hopes of terrorizing Muslims, then we will have an anti Muslim terrorism problem. But just because one psychotic decided he wanted to kill some Muslims does not mean we have one. It may just mean we had one nut who did something horrible.

                The point is just because it targets one group doesn’t necessarily mean it is terrorism.

                1. I don’t think whether or not something is terrorism is dependent on the frequency of other people committing terrorism for the same reason. What is the threshold? Were early incidences of Islamic terrorism thus not actually terrorism until they were part of a widespread pattern? If I pointed out other instances of anti-Islamic or white supremacist violence, how many would I have to include to satisfy your criteria (I’m not even sure why we got bogged down on mosques, we were talking about Roof)?

                  Roof explicitly stated in his manifesto:

                  “I have no choice. I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country. We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.”

                  He acknowledges that there isn’t an organized group doing what he thinks needs to be done, but he states that this is the reason he did what he did. He wanted to incite others to follow suit, to be the one who got the ball rolling. I don’t see how those motives aren’t terrorist in nature. Did he need people to actually listen to him and copycat in order to qualify?

                  1. What makes something terrorism is that it is a rational choice made to obtain a political end. Maybe roof was a terrorist? You seem to not understand the difference between pschosis and evil.

                    If I decide that I have had enough of Muslims being in this society and go down and shoot up a Mosque in hopes of inspiring others to do the same and terrorizing Muslims into giving up their faith or going somewhere else, I am a terrorist and evil. What I am doing is entirely rational and might well succeed in accomplishing my goal.

                    If I decide that Muslims are aliens or have a personal grudge against a particular Mosque because I think it did something to me and shoot up a Mosque, I am psychotic. I am not a terrorist. You could argue since I am not rational, I am more insane than evil. Whatever, I am , I am not a terrorist and something entirely different than I would be if I did the above.

                    Rational decisions, even evil ones have lager lessons and create larger dangers. Psychotic decisions, even the most horrible ones, do not. They raise no larger issues than the person who made them.

                    1. Ok, I see your point. I’m just saying that I don’t see any reason to think Roof is any more psychotic or irrational than your run of the mill Islamic terrorist.

                2. But they are doing what they are doing as part of a larger cause that is done to inspire terror. Can a lone nut also support a larger campaign of terror. But that doesn’t mean every lone nut does or that there is no difference between the actions of a psychotic and an actual terror campaign.

                  There’s also a difference between an ideological motivated psychotic and a “run of the mill” psychotic. The ideologically motivated ones are used as a bludgeon for the ideology’s opponents to get their policy goals enacted.

                  Terrorism doesn’t appear to be relevant to the analysis.

                  1. Yes it is. Terrorism is a rational act done for concrete ends. It therefore is something that can be repeated by others and be a part of a larger cause. Psychosis has no logic or ends beyond those of the psychotic. It therefore has no larger lessons and is never part of a larger campaign and danger.

                    If someone shoots up a Mosque because they are a psychotic, you can write that off as one of those things. If someone shoots up a Mosque because they have made the rational decision to terrorize Muslims, you can’t write that off because it is about a larger cause that others may also rationally choose to join.

      2. And why do I have a bad feeling Canada has some absurd rule that says no one can get more than 20 years no matter what they did? I am not optimistic this moron will get what he deserves.

      3. “And how often do non-Muslim people in Quebec go to mosques?”

        Whenever convenient to John’s narrative??

        1. Whenever they are arrested at the scene of a mass shooting?

          And the guy went to the Mosque to shoot a bunch of people. Not sure how that fits my narrative. Jesus Christ you are a half wit. I mean really. Try harder.

          1. “Not clear at all but that doesn’t mean one of them isn’t a pretty good bet.”

            Original comment implies that the betting money is on random non-Muslim Quebecois being the witness to an event inside a Mosque while the guy with the Middle Eastern name being the shooter.

            You acted as if the more unlikely scenario was the more likely, until evidence discounting that came forward.

            1. If I were betting money on which of two people just arrested for mass murder is guilty and which is the witness, betting on the guy with the Muslim name is a good bet. Not a perfect bet but a good bet.

              Just because it was a Mosque doesn’t mean it wasn’t the victim of Muslim terror. Islamic terror kills more Muslims than it does anyone else.

  31. Democrats Discover Placating Stoked-Outrage Not So Easy

    I am reminded of the way immigration-panic eventually produced Trump. The GOP ginned up all sorts of Xenophobic and Nationalist outrage for short-term political benefit, then suffered a widespread backlash after the milquetoast Immigration Reform attempts of 2007

    I suspect the ‘moderate’ democrat establishment is going to yield something similar. Their posturing about “Resisting Trump” and their silly demonization of people like Betsy DeVos or Tillerson is actually going to bite them in the ass… because what will happen is that these people will get affirmed, and the establishment will be seen as “Doing Nothing” about Hitler 2.0.

    consquently, the activist parts of the base is going to go running to some Progressive-SJW freakshow *(not that they wouldn’t have done so otherwise, but the vehemence is simply going to overwhelm the ‘not crazy’ democrats the same way the Tea Party evicted go-along-get-along republicans)

    1. Couldn’t you at least partially explain Hillary’s loss to just that? Hillary was seen as a go-along-get-along type, often as or more conservative than her electoral opponents– the ‘corporate Democrat candidate’ and they ran for Bernie Sanders?

      1. Couldn’t you at least partially explain Hillary’s loss to just that?

        sure, some. I don’t know how many bernie voters stayed home. the few times i checked, they’d claimed in Sept 2016 to be “50% on board with hillary”, but then by late October, they were like “89% on board with hillary”

        as we both know a lot of those polling #s are mostly bullshit because stated preference is a poor measure of actual behavior

        but i think there are millions of young people still ass-chapped about Bernie, and the Dem establishment isn’t going to naturally benefit simply because Trump is Hitler. they think they can still pander to them and play along with their rhetoric,… but then when it comes down to actual “action”, they won’t really do shit (*what can they do? they will sign off on the occasional spending bill because they’ll get bought off, just like the GOP was)

        I think the actual effect will be something like a left-wing tea party, tho less organized and not surrounding the at least semi-coherent issues that the TP had when it started. Its going to be more of a left-wing push to control the establishment rather that replace it.

        1. I think the actual effect will be something like a left-wing tea party

          Wasn’t that OWS? Or are you talking something more Occupy Wall Street-ish than OWS?

          1. Wasn’t that OWS?

            No. OWS didn’t see the Democratic establishment as the problem.

            1. I’ll accept that point– although I seem to remember a lot of complaining that Democrats “were just like Republicans”. I am guessing that a lot of OWS people supported Bernie who was detested by the DNC establishment.

              My issue with OWS was they didn’t see Big Government Establishment as the problem. They were essentially a Pro Government pep rally.

    2. Speaking of devos. Against my better judgement, I took to the face derp last night. A Prog cousin of mine has been constantly shit posting about duvos for a few weeks now. I spent a few hours debating the merits of school choice.

      I got attacked by a whole pack of progs. I tried to fend them off with logic and reason and statistics, but it was all to no avail. I probably have a cousin that won’t talk to me for awhile now. oh well.

      As a bonus, I was told that I was gaslighting. Haven’t bothered to look that one up yet.

      1. It’s such a doomed paradox. Talking to these people is to invite death; not talking to them is to let them run wild.

      2. I was told that I was gaslighting. Haven’t bothered to look that one up yet.

        technically its supposed to be “suggesting that someone is being hysterical and irrational and maybe even mentally ill” when they are ACTUALLY making rational points.

        Its basically the sort of patronizing’ way men talk to their crazy wives.

        but its actually used by hysterical people to defend their own hysterical claims. If you disagree with their hysteria, you’re gaslighting, even if you just point out facts.

        1. That explains why Salon and Slate et al are constantly accusing people of gaslighting lately. Strange how cranks up the emotion and virtue signalling and suddenly won’t stop accusing people of gaslighting. Well maybe all those people are calling them hysterical because they are.

        2. That and also telling someone that they are remembering something wrong to push your false narrative. And women are certainly capable of it too.

          Ironically when someone uses it outside of a relationship context, like your cousin on facebook, they are actually attempting to gaslight you by saying that.

          1. “REMEMBER WHEN JAMES COMEY FOUND HILLARY INNOCENT”

            “…uh, that’s not technically what refusing to bring charges mea…”

            “UGH GASLIGHTING”

      3. Gaslighting is when you claim things happened/didn’t happen that didn’t happen or did happen. It’s a technique to mentally unbalance someone by making them doubt their grip on reality. It’s named after the movie Gaslight where a man is trying to make a woman appear crazy to everyone else (and herself) and uses it and several other techniques to accomplish the deed.

        Of course, informing people of facts is not gaslighting. But proggies have been, in my experience, trained to reject any facts that call their faith into question, by accusing the heretic of gaslighting. And, frankly, it’s easy to understand why the training took hold. Their faith depends on their believing an incredible pile of lies to make it look humane. For example, if FDR was forcing farmers to produce less food and to destroy ‘excess’ crops to drive up food prices while people were going hungry, that might mean he wasn’t a saint who fed the poor!

        1. Progressives used to declare that their opponents suffered from “false consciousness”; now when someone challenges their beliefs it’s “gaslighting.” Both tactics, ultimately, have the same goal: to deny that anyone could hold reasonable or valid opinions outside the prog hivemind.

          In a way, progressives used the “false consciousness” narrative to gaslight their opponents.

  32. President Donald Trump today signed an executive order demanding that the government cut two regulations if it wanted to pass a new regulation.

    The Trumpocalypse isn’t ALL bad. Future headline: “Trump dismantles regulatory state, wants children to die in the streets.”

    1. I’m prepared. I’ll just point the black end of the compass needle to the “N” instead of the red one.

      1. When the poles flipped in that movie we had to repopulate the flooded and blown-to-shit earth with a few hundred people on indestructible boats from the Cape of Good Hope. I’m just saying, South African real estate could be very lucrative.

    2. You know, this article has been running for at least five years. I’ve seen cheap strip club owners swap poles faster.

  33. Interesting, if only because i think this is the first time there has been a broadly defined “Naval Engagement” since the USS Cole was attacked – also in Yemen, fwiw, even tho it was a terror attack while it was docked & refueling.

    Two killed in attack on Saudi warship off Yemen

  34. This has already been noted by others, but the part that made me LOL was the “Breaking Silence” in the headline

    as though he’s actually been out of the press for more than *a few fucking days*

    1. Wasn’t there a pool for this? Who had “ten days” and what do they win?

  35. Philippine’s Duterte to Disband Anti-Drug Police Units After Korean Murdered:

    Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte said he’ll dissolve all police units involved in enforcing his war on illegal drugs after rogue officers were implicated in the murder of a South Korean businessman in October.

    Duterte said he may set up a new narcotics command run by trusted men.

    I think he got the first part right.

    1. He should form anti drug-police units.

    2. That should read Trusted. Men.

      1. Meu Deus do c?u…she even has her own channel.

        1. She should be a spokesperson for school choice week.

      2. She has a point. The Alaskan language has always confused the hell out of me.

      3. But what happens when an American can’t even speak American?

  36. Science news: The universe is just a big hologram, astrophysicists claim

    “Imagine that everything you see, feel and hear in three dimensions (and your perception of time) in fact emanates from a flat two-dimensional field.”

    “Now, image you are *really* a chicken.”

    1. *imagine*

      *** gets coffee ***

        1. No hell below us!

    2. Why do astrophysicists always send out these press releases when they’re stoned out of their minds?

    3. “Imagine that everything you see, feel and hear in three dimensions (and your perception of time) in fact emanates from a flat two-dimensional field.”

      Binocular vision, that thing every human has, debunks that idea.

      Are these REALLY astrophysicists?? Not, like, members of a hit new reality prank show called “I Fucking Love Science” that goes around and tries to see if scientific-sounding nonsense can make people believe stupid things??

      1. “Binocular vision, that thing every human has”

        Well, I guess, except the blind and one-eyed.

    4. “Imagine that everything you see, feel and hear in three dimensions (and your perception of time) in fact emanates from a flat two-dimensional field.”

      Wait until I tell my wife about this! She’ll be so excited! Oh, wait.

    5. I like how the article says it strengthened the claim for the holographic universe, but when I read the study, it just didn’t disqualify it.

      I’m actually hazy on the part where we could definitively prove that there was not a projection. IIRC, all information has to hit the membrane at some point, so it will always transit a 2D “hologram”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the 2D surface is the only reality.

    6. What difference, at this point, does it make?

  37. Democrats may filibuster Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, regardless of who it might be.

    And out of left field Trump nominates Judge Nap.?!?! //wishfulthinking

    1. They will and the Republicans will go nuclear. I suspect they won’t. They will threaten it and back down to keep up the pretense that they can. Do they want to make the Republicans go nuclear over replacing Scalia and keeping the court as it or do they want to keep those measures in their back pockets for when the Notorious RBG finally keels over?

      1. Dude, I don’t think the Notorious RBG is going anywhere for a long time. The left will give her the incorruptibility treatment and her corpse will be churning out opinions.

        1. Its the smell. The other justices will notice the smell. And if they don’t her fellow opera fans at the WNO will.

    1. What about the Hihnfected ones?

      1. The only known cure for Hihnfection is Randicillin. You must jab it in the ass good and hard in order for it to work.

        1. A hind for a Hihn in the behind.

  38. I was trying to think of some good news.. then blamo of course!

    Thank you Roger Federer for being the prince of tennis and men. Long may be your reign!

    230am start time and I was still drinking beers in revelry come dawn.

    1. Thank you Roger Federer for being the prince of tennis and men. Long may be your reign!

      My reaction.

      1. I’d go gay for Roger Federer, not even a question really. The man has the divine right to rule, ordained from heaven. Yet he chooses to live amongst us as a mostly human tennis god.

    2. You need to be in a real time zone.

      And thank god Nadal and his constant cheating didn’t win.

      1. What cheating are you referring too?

        I kinda like Nadal minus the fact he is Federer’s nemesis. Nadal is infinitly superior to Djoker and Murray.

        1. I was elated that Roger won. 18 Majors! Here’s hoping that he wins Wimbledon. I don’t think he will win the French given that is not his favorite surface.

          Roger now joins Jack in the 18 club.

          In the past year, we have had Peyton Manning, David Ortiz, Tom Brady, and now Roger demonstrating that the geriatric crowd can be champions.

        2. Constant time-wasting and then bitching if any of the chair umpires have the audacity to give him a warning.

          Getting coaching from the box.

          Phony medical timeouts and bathroom breaks to halt the opponent’s momentum.

          Nadal comes across as a bully who doesn’t like it when somebody calls him on it. (I’m reminded of S?derling at Wimbledon 2006.)

  39. I am sick and tired of everyone using shootings and terrorist incidents to soapbox their ideology while still pretending that they actually care about the victims. The incident in Canada was a perfect example. The left immediately assumed it was right-wing extremism and made a big deal of that, quieted down when it looked like it might have been a Muslim, and now are back to using it to bash their opponents now that it was confirmed that the Muslim guy isn’t a suspect (Reason’s linked article is not up to date, Bissonnette is the suspect and the other guy was a witness). And on the flip side, the right immediately concluded it must have been a Muslim, proclaimed themselves right again when one of the guys had an Arabic name, and were all set to use the incident to push their agenda while mocking their opponents, and now that their narrative fell apart it’s back down the memory hole (which is, ironically, exactly what they condemn the left for whenever there’s an attack that doesn’t fit their ideological narrative).

    1. Guess what, it’s never going to stop. Tribalism 101, our opponents are barbarians and every negative action we can find is to be repeated over and over again until the end of time. The violent actions on ‘our side’, however, are to be hidden or excused.

      1. I know you’re right. I just wish the people doing that would at least acknowledge that they care more about scoring political points than the dead people.

        1. I agree, it’s monstrous.

    2. Yes, and he was also apparently pro-Israel, according to an article posted by Raston Bot. So that fucks up the narrative of him being a neo-Nazi white supremacist, I guess.

      1. Can’t find it now, but there was an article about Trump craftily combining anti-Semitism with ultra-Zionism.

      2. Can’t find it now, but there was an article about Trump craftily combining anti-Semitism with ultra-Zionism.

    3. Look, tomorrow we’ll pass the right law/implement the right policy that will stop terrorism/violence. Just you wait.

    4. I will confess that I was actually following the story to see if it was a Muslim perp or a right-wing guy, and I worried about it being a right-winger, such that I forgot that the main issue is that fellow human beings just got killed in cold blood.

      The affiliation of the attacker is important information (if he has any affiliation at all), but I really need to see that the main tragedy is the killing, not whether it gives ammunition to the Left. Though it does.

      1. Eh. It’s shitty, but worrying about whether (or, in this case, how) this is going to escalate is not wrong, and the killer’s motivations play a role in that.

    5. I will confess that I was actually following the story to see if it was a Muslim perp or a right-wing guy, and I worried about it being a right-winger, such that I forgot that the main issue is that fellow human beings just got killed in cold blood.

      The affiliation of the attacker is important information (if he has any affiliation at all), but I really need to see that the main tragedy is the killing, not whether it gives ammunition to the Left. Though it does.

    6. It’s the lack of principles that makes the whole affair irrelevant.

      It only wins the day’s media coverage for red or blue.

      In 15 minutes some new mass murder will happen and the cycle will rinse and repeat.

    7. I didn’t think it was a Muslim. I figured it was likely some anti Muslim nut. It wasn’t until they released the two names that I thought it was a Muslim. But it turned out to be a anti-Muslim nut.

      It is a horrible thing. And sadly one that will likely happen again if things do not change.

    8. You can take heart in the fac that *everybody* hates the French.

    9. Then you’re sick and tired of politics. Like Titor said, it’s never going to stop. Tune it out as best you can.

    10. Calidissident, I am 100% with you on this one. It is appalling and nauseating the degree to which EVERYTHING has become a justification to push the narrative of one tribe or another. “Facts and reason? Pffft! What’s most important is that people believe MY NARRATIVE of the story!!!!”

  40. Trump turned to Twitter to defend his immigration order to defend Americans from “bad dudes.”

    Thanks, daddy!

  41. Waffles ski report. Squaw Valley was okay on Saturday.

    There must be so much hype and demand coming from the bay area because the parking lot was full before 10AM. However, on the mountain itself I found blissful skiing, I climbed to the summit of KT-22 to check out the Shane McConkey memorial on top of it. The lines from Eagle’s Nest are considered skiable. I can tell you firsthand, as a lifelong skier who has put some serious dedication to the sport, that the gap between myself and a skier like Shane was is bigger than the gap between myself and a beginner. The gulf you have to cross to see a razor sharp precipice that ends in a three story vertical drop between trees and say, “yep, that’s my line” just isn’t for mere mortals. This is great for me because it gives me something to work towards. Charge harder, fly or flail, and when it doubt, air it out.

    1. You know who else was at a place called the Eagle’s Nest?

      Sorry, reflex action, sounds like you’re tackling the obstacles like a winner.

      1. Sorry, reflex action

        You have to relax your throat.

        1. I won’t even ask what that means.

    2. That fall looked gnarly, but I still chuckled a little.

    3. Nice! that line you took off Eagle’s Nest looks nice and narrow. How was the snow?

      1. Chalky and dry packed powder, very nice. The line I tumbled down was the easier way called Ambrosia Chute. If I had a do-over I would have just pointed it. The left side was thinly-covered rock and my hesitation got me caught. Below that it’s fairly wide open. The warmer weather Sunday and early this week will mean spring conditions until the end of week storm.

        1. Yeah, I almost always end up doing what you did when I try a line like that. There are a few on the back bowl of copper that you really have to just point and get through the pinch point.

    4. NOICE DOOD.

      That line reminds me of a trail called “Elevator Shaft” at Aspen. Not anywhere to go but pretty much straight down.

    1. Yeah! If Iranians can’t travel then no one gets to travel!

    2. I for one am just happy these leftists keep making new friends.

    3. Live by the social media, die by the social media.

    4. Rob Lowe under fire for tweet about LAX protest against Donald Trump’s travel ban.

      He tweeted:

      Just landed. Saw grandmas and little children dragging heavy luggage for for BLOCKS just trying to get home. #laxprotest’

      1. That’s great, and then all the Twitter warriors started asking him if he helped them carry the luggage, as if Twitter isn’t built around giving every fucking moron a voice to shout about things from the comfort of their laptop without having to lift a finger to help otherwise.

  42. Democrats may filibuster Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, regardless of who it might be.

    Fuck these assholes.

    1. This was expected. Wouldn’t even matter of it was a different Republican President.

  43. Dems can filibuster all they want, there’s no way they can prevent Trump from appointing a justice for the next 4 years. Obama got 2 picks, stop being such sore butt losers, Demtards.

    1. The guy’s just a dick. I’m going to wager that he was a dick even before Trump announced his run from president.

      1. They both acted like assholes. Glad it made the news. This is important shit.

      1. ^laughed out loud

    2. Toss him in the trash where he belongs.

      I feel like a great boon of white people is we can readily admit we have bad apples in our demographic and we are more than willing to tie the noose. Other tribes are all for one, even if it means protecting murderers.

    3. She should probably stop shitting her pants.

    4. The wife of a friend of mine went to one of the airport protesters. While she was on the train carrying her placard, a black man stopped her and said that Trump was going the right thing.. that immigrants were ruining America.

      I think the interaction was very confusing for her.

      1. typing is very confusing for me.

      2. And that black man was… Barack Obama.

      3. I bet it was the first time she had ever met a black man who thought for himself. It must have been shocking to her. Black people are real human beings who have opinions, including opinions that are wrong or that Progressives find distasteful. That had to have come as one hell of a shock to her.

  44. Bobcat Missing at DC’s National Zoo

    A bobcat has gone missing at the Smithsonian’s National Zoo after apparently escaping her enclosure, a zoo spokeswoman said.

    The 25-pound bobcat, named Ollie, was last seen with two male bobcats at 7:30 a.m. Monday during a routine count. When a zookeeper went to feed the bobcats at 10:40 a.m., Ollie was gone.

    “We are doing everything we can to ensure that we can get her back. The likelihood that we get her back? I mean, I’d be lying to you if I said that we’re definitely going to get her back,” Saffoe said. “We’re setting everything up to get the best chances of success here.”

    1. There are endless amounts of rodents, stray dogs, raccoons and squirrels for her to eat in Rock Creek Park. I bet Ollie is having herself a grand time. Sounds better than being stuck in a cage your whole life. Go Ollie. And doubt bonus points if you eat any large biped on a bicycle.

    2. Just go to wherever reports are of small dogs going missing…

    3. Didn’t they just lose a Red Panda? Jesus, Trump, fire these losers and get some zookeepers who can keep the zoological specimens in their cages.

      1. Red Panda was the worst Marvel character ever.

        (though, seriously, red pandas are adorable – somebody stole it).

      2. Trump probably stole the bobcat and red panda as his new pets.

    4. Why the fuck is there a bobcat in a zoo anyway? Could they not put together a possum or squirrel exhibit or something?

  45. What if Trump Really Does End Money for the Arts?

    Annual funding for the two endowments lags behind where it was in the early 1990s after controversies over money for provocative arts projects like Andres Serrano’s urine-immersed crucifix created a climate that led to budget cuts. The two endowment agencies each receive about $148 million a year now. The budget for public broadcasting, currently $445 million, has been more consistent over the years.

    Together they still account for only $741 million, or much less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the United States’ annual federal spending, an amount supporters say is too small to make a difference. Conservatives suggest it will take many small cuts to roll back uncontrolled federal spending.

    1. Artists by their very nature are supposed to push boundaries. But conservatives have long argued that federal arts funding underwrites a lot of silly projects. In 1990, they didn’t like Karen Finley’s chocolate smeared performance pieces and they don’t like a more recent program, “Doggie Hamlet,” a dance project set in a Vermont field with dogs and sheep. It was one of a number of works financed through $80,000 in grants to two New England arts groups. Described as “a full-length outdoor performance spectacle that weaves dance, music, visual and theatrical elements with aspects from competitive sheep herding trials,” the project was ridiculed in The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative online magazine, under the headline Taxpayers Foot Bill for ‘Doggie Hamlet.’

      1. Tell that to the guy who did”Mirth and Girth”.

    2. Criticism was also recently directed at another project, this one designed to create a video game based on Henry Thoreau’s “Walden Pond,” and funded by $450,000 from the National Endowment for the Humanities.

      Supporters of federal arts funding say the selection process includes an expert, independent panel and that the money has underwritten important work for decades. It was a National Endowment for the Humanities grant that helped pay for the “Treasures of Tutankhamen” exhibition to travel to six American cities from 1976-79. That groundbreaking exhibition, heralded as one of the first museum blockbusters, drew 1.36 million visitors to the Metropolitan Museum alone. Such work continues, supporters say, pointing to the National Endowment for the Arts funds that helped underwrite the Met’s recent “Jerusalem 1000-1400: Every People Under Heaven.”

      “It is the mark of a great democracy to support the arts, which are an expression of what makes us human,” the Association of Art Museum Directors said in a statement on Jan. 19.

      1. “It is the mark of a great democracy to support the arts

        How many people actually get to vote on said funding? This is just more of the “I like something, therefore that something is good for democracy.”

        Plus, standard Bastiat quote.

      2. Do The New York Times and other mainstream outlets want to cut funding for any fucking thing? Seriously, every time the fed-gov proposes cuts to some program some where, the press always has the sob story or concern-trolling article (“that’s only a tiny fraction of the budget!” As if they’d support cutting a large fraction of the budget).

        1. The whole piece is a giant cliche.

          1. Should have added the bracketed:

            “It is the mark of a great democracy to support the arts, which are an expression of what makes us human,” the [lobbying group called] Association of Art Museum Directors said in a statement on Jan. 19.

            There is no support for anything unless the government funds it. Derp.

            1. Sooooo Trump wants to take away everything that makes us human!

              1. Already he’s turning lots of people into brainless zombies running around and yelling incoherently.

        2. “Ok. so you won’t accept tiny cuts. Fine then. All entitlement spending is hereby cancelled. That’s not a tiny cut. Hope you’re happy.”

          Is what I wish would happen.

        3. The correct answer to “it’s only a drop in the ocean” is:

          “Yet what is any ocean, but a multitude of drops?”

        4. Tim Cavanauh and (I think) Nick Gillespie have defended government arts/humanities funding as “nothing but a rounding error” on this very blog.

            1. I can’t believe Gillespie wrote that!

      3. It was a National Endowment for the Humanities grant that helped pay for the “Treasures of Tutankhamen” exhibition to travel to six American cities from 1976-79. That groundbreaking exhibition, heralded as one of the first museum blockbusters, drew 1.36 million visitors to the Metropolitan Museum alone.

        There’s no way that a traveling exhibit that drew 1.36 million visitors could possibly be done without government funding!

      4. And a Walden Pond video game? What would that entail?

    3. We’ll get better art?

    4. What if Trump Really Does End Stolen Money for the Arts?

      fixed

    5. Nothing says “subversive art” like taking money from the government to do it.

    6. “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re taking about real money.”

  46. “analysts are a bit baffled as to how the order would actually be implemented in practice.”

    I bet

    1. For some reason I imagine Kirk trying to explain love to a green haired alien chick.

      Cut regulations… what is cut?”

  47. I see that Google is indulging in some social signaling by putting Fred Korematsu on its daily doodle.

    The idea is that delaying the admittance of certain foreign nationals = ordering the internment of American citizens because of their race.

    Incidentally, California Reasonoids, today is Fred Korematsu Day.

    And if you’re in the Byzantine tradition, today is the feast day of The Three Holy Hierarchs.

    1. Incidentally, California Reasonoids, today is Fred Korematsu Day.

      “Trump: as bad as FDR.”

    2. OK, if you insist, I’d *love* to expand on that last point.

      “The Three Holy Hierarchs; St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory the Theologian, are giants in Eastern Christianity. Saint Gregory the Theologian is known for purity and profundity of his language, St. Basil for his understanding of the Holy Spirit and Saint Chrysostom for his elegant homilies. They all lived in the east, near Cappadocia (Turkey) at the same time in the 4th century.”

      1. What’s St. Jerome, chopped liver?

        1. Feast day Sept. 30, at least in the Western tradition

          Bad tempered *and* (hopefully unrelated) the patron saint of librarians.

        2. Has his own saints day. Speaking of St. Jerome, has anyone ever checked to see if his bible translation (Vulgate Bible) was correctly done? Would have been a great opportunity to put words in the mouth of people dead for 300 years.

          1. There was a bit of controversy…the worst problem was the Johannine comma.

            (But, then, since Catholics never read the Bible anyway, no harm done! /sarc)

    3. Pretty diabolical of Korematsu to have his birthday a few days after Trump’s EO.

      1. I was researching the issue even as I was posting, and now I realize it’s a holiday in the same state where Google has its headquarters.

        But some news outlets are spinning it that Google is giving Trump a *sick burn.*

    4. They’re being interned in not-America, which is basically a giant concentration camp. See, even the progs are hyper-jingoistic.

  48. Zoolander: Make no mistake this was an act of terrorism.

    Yet, something tells me he wouldn’t be so quick to say this if it was a Muslim who shot up a Christian church.

    Yes, progressives are that pathetic.

    These past couple of weeks have really left me disheartened. Irrational emotional hysteria seems to have taken the lead.

    1. Yes, “Rufus,” conservatives are very hypocritical and pathetic. And yes, Trump The Hump is leading the way with his extremely emotional hysteria. See, I can be just as trite as you are.

      1. You realize you just put together a string of words with no cogent point, right?

        It’s not even sophistry.

        1. I merely paraphrased part of what you said, “Rufus.” Are you actually that much of an idiot? That’s obviously a rhetorical query. I point this out because, apparently, you’re a retard with Down Syndrome. Are you Palin’s kid?

          1. You don’t rule the night. You don’t.

            1. You’ll “rule the night,” “Free Society,” because you have no job to go to in the morning, so you have the luxury of staying up all night like Trump The Hump posting and tweeting. Are you that 400 pound fellow Donny talked about?

          2. If you say so…sure. I’m an idiot.

            Why not?!

        2. Your “truth,” “Rufus,” is different than mine. Ain’t (sic) that a kick in the head? There really is such a thing as “alt truth.”

    2. Yet, something tells me he wouldn’t be so quick to say this if it was a Muslim who shot up a Christian church.

      Meh, I don’t think Zoolander would be able to sell it that way. There’d probably be some collection of Old Guard Liberals going “the fuck are you doing you idiot, yes call it a terrorist act.” The man has to at least sort of worry about re-election.

      Of course, the nuance between ‘terrorism’ and ‘random lone douchebag with guns’ is probably not something that Zoolander is capable of understanding, Muslim or otherwise. That’s the fun thing about the ‘War on Terror’, it’s easy to redefine.

    3. But, it was. So fuck it, he’s right whether he’s right for the wrong reasons or not.

  49. God the Surete du Quebec is pathetic.

    Few of their officers can speak English to the media.

    Really lame.

    1. Yeah, “Rufus,” you’re really lame for using the phrase “really lame.”

      1. Huh.

        Don’t you have a vapid sign to go write up for the protestors?

        Here’s a Crayola….and a helmet.

        1. Yeah, I’ll join the Tea Party and “pro-lifers,” and hold up signs saying, “Hands off my entitlements,” and “A fetus is a human being.” Why don’t you come and join me, “Rufus?”

  50. Maybe the nice, sweet dream I had last night about the ugly, fat-faced, psychotic, conspiracy theorist little (well, in brain matter and intellect) Stevie Bannon dropping dead from a heart attack like his former, and equally crazy, buddy Breitbart, will become reality real soon. That would be fun, funny and cool. It certainly was when little Andy croaked; and fuck his cunt widow and four rotten kids. LMAO How’s that for “politically incorrect,” assholes?

    1. Are you lost?

      1. You lost your sanity long ago, “waffles.”

      2. it loves vagina and this is a libertarian site, so yes.

    2. My, my, aren’t you the edgy one.

      1. No more “edgy” than say, chimp-faced, Trump (and Assange) ass licker Hannity, or adam’s-appled tranny Coulter.

        1. We were just discussing this on another threat…what could libertarians do to make an effective alliance with leftists?

          1. Oops, on another *thread.*

          2. Well, I’m pretty sure he and I agree on at least one thing. But that doesn’t make for much of an alliance.

            1. But surely there are some areas of agreement which can form the basis for a fruitful and mutually beneficial alliance?

              1. a fruitful and mutually beneficial alliance?

                I wouldn’t characterize a devil’s threesome that way, personally. (SLDs apply)

              2. You mean like being each other’s wingman? It’s worth considering. And don’t call me Shirley.

          3. You “faux libertarians,” who are actually merely partisan, conservative Republicans hiding behind the “libertarian” label,could start by admitting your side is often wrong, too. See, but neither is willing to do this, thus, things will never change. Ah, who the fucks cares anyway? Only lonely people with no lives post on bullshit political sites such as this one. Hey, wait a second……..LMAO

        2. Hannity and Coulter, those great libertarians?!! My goodness! You certainly have my panties in a bunch, good sir! Bravo!

          1. You wear panties, “Fatty?” I knew you were that type of guy; assuming that you are male. Or maybe you’re a heshe like Ms./Mr. Coulter.

    3. “politically incorrect”… “vagina lover”… coke-fueled screed…

      My goodness, I think this is Bill Maher! Welcome Bill!

    4. Steer clear everyone, this guy is a badass.

    5. In a word, naif.

      The imagery is vivid and well-seated. I can’t fault your technicals at all, this was obviously the product of a million dollars worth of American schooling. Sign-flashing your political-junkie creds was appreciated. It’s always nice to know we’re not dealing with a complete oaf.

      At heart, though, this sings of gilding the lily. Unfamiliar with the tools of the trade to which you aspire, you lash them about in a vigorous manner, hoping frenzy takes the place of effort. It doesn’t, leaving this in the amateur ranks.

      4/10, bonus point for spelling. Don’t be afraid to try again. We admire spirit.

    6. Reddit’s down the hall and to the left.

  51. Good lord, Hihn jumped on one of Sollum’s threads from this morning and left forty comments after almost everyone left. The man is certifiable.

    1. I’d say that I’d like him for once not to jump into a thread hours after it’s over, so he couldn’t claim he “won” any arguments by getting in the last word.

      But then I’d have to deal with him, and I’d rather not.

  52. Little late, but I will ask anyway: what is Tulpa going by now, and is Bo Cara still lingering like a fart?

    1. Tulpa has a number of current incarnations, but Bo seems ‘mostly gone’

      *this assumes you think they were different people (as i do, but not everyone does)

      i think Bo popped in once or twice during the 2016 election to provide some expert forecasting on how huge the Hillary blowout was going to be. since then, i have not heard much of the “ignorant pedantry” he was typified by.

      1. Seconding Gilmore’s conclusion that Bo’s mostly gone. No one’s called me an angry white guy for months.

  53. So i’ve been watching The Sopranos for the first time…

    (*look, i told you, i went years without a TV)

    …and one of my favorite little details is when they try to shake down the local version of “fake-Starbucks coffee”, and the baristas refer to “just plain coffee” as a Regular?

    1. The one where the shakedown fails because the chain coffeeshop does too good a job of recordkeeping? That’s a good one.

    2. You watched “The Sopranos?” I’d never watch such a horrible show, because I can’t stand dirty degos/wops; they’re all criminals. Why, if I were President of these United States, I’d send them all back to Italy.

  54. Welcome Vagina Lover.

    Make it good.

    1. I don’t take orders from conservative, Faux News-loving, faux libertarians, “Rufus;” but thanks for the welcome mat.

      1. Oh man, you have to be parody, that’s adorable.

        1. “Adorable,” you say, “John?” Are you a fag?

          1. Nope, time traveller. My resume’s available online.

      2. Faux News, is that cajun for CNN?

        1. Is CNN an acronym for “Clinton News Network?”

    2. Anybody else think Vagina Lover is just another Tulpa sock?

      1. +1 he loses them in the dryer and this is where they go

      2. No. Tulpa’s style is more argumentative and the insults start to fly as he gets backed into corners. This is more Hail Rataxes-style aggressive insulting. It’s like one of the regulars has some sort of bipolar disorder and occasionally has a manic episode of “playing the devil” on H&R.

        1. You just described Trump The Hump perfectly. Thanks.

          1. You’re welcome. I really appreciate your performance art…. acting like a prog that has legitimate lost their mind to TDS is a great character. Hopefully the NEA will be around long enough to fund you.

      3. Tulpa might well be dead for all we know. Turns out, there are literally hundreds of assholes on the internet.

        1. It’s interesting the ones we attract here. Half are gluttons for punishment, and the other half just waltz in once every blue moon to scream obscenities and leave. Trolls are generally mentally questionable, but I think some people who troll on here are seriously mentally unbalanced.

          1. No doubt about that. Hail Retaxes is an interesting species of troll. Professes to be a libertarian, which may or may not be true, but he’s twice the amount of asshole of anyone that’s ever posted at Reason.

            1. I debated “troll or not” about him after a cop thread one time (cop threads can get people’s hackles up), but when I saw that he was the same excrable hothead outside the cop thread, there was no question. Either he’s a troll or emotionally stunted. Either way, I reasonabled him.

              1. In the past I’ve shunned the block feature. But I’m seriously reconsidering of late.

          2. Your definition of a “troll” is someone who merely disagrees with you and the mostly partisan, conservative Republicans on here masquerading as “libertarians.” You idiots are just as anti-free speech, and willing to resort to personal, ad hominem insults, as you claim liberals are. Let’s face it. Hate is in the air, and always will be.

            1. Your definition of a “troll” is someone who merely disagrees with you and the mostly partisan, conservative Republicans on here masquerading as “libertarians.”

              Funny story. I don’t actually consider Tony a troll. He’ll certainly throw down with the best of us, but at least he’ll engage in something that approximates a good faith argument. He can’t keep it up for too long before getting frustrated and going all bad faith, but at least he has moments.

              You, on the other hand, have done nothing but drop a giant intellectual deuce on this thread. If you have something to say, say it. Then, have the balls to stick around long enough to defend it when people who disagree with you tear your idea apart. I have a ton of respect for John because he does exactly that.

              1. “Giant Intellectual Deuce” should be my new handle.

          3. “Half are gluttons for punishment,” “Trshmnstr,……..,” when you refer to whom you consider trolls? Really? This indicates to me that you have gross delusions of grandeur, because you couldn’t outwit even Palin’s retarded kid. I suggest you see a psychiatrist for your extreme psychosis. How to improve your intellect and intelligence? That’s not possible in your case.

        2. Biased, partisan assholes such as yourself, “Free Society.”

      4. Quotation marks around a poster’s name? I’m not a Hihnspert, but that feels familiar.

        1. *didn’t see your comment, but that was my same conclusion above

      5. Its Hihn. notice the compulsive use of quotation marks.

        1. I thought computer time at the old folks home was only on Sunday from dinner until 5pm.

          1. I know? he’s branched out. or his meds pattern has changed.

  55. My, you people (do I sound like Ross Perot?) are so overly-sensitive. All of you need to take an extra dose of your antipsychotics and try to calm the fuck down. Now, the question I have is, why are you little ones (of mind, that is) all in a little hissy fit (faux libertarian Tucker Carlson likes to use the term “hissy fit” a lot) over my posts?

    Is it because my assessment of your true partisan leanings, which you wish to obfuscate, is correct? The truth hurts when it’s inconvenient, and most often when one hears it about themself, he or she becomes very defensive and denies it to avoid embarrassment. The question is obviously rhetorical. You’re a bunch of Trump-loving, very conservative (fiscally AND socially) Republicans who think your beloved party isn’t right-wing ENOUGH. As such, you view the term “conservative Republican” as a pejorative, so you call yourselves “libertarians” because it sounds more hip and palatable. And, you’re just as “politically correct” as you claim liberals are, in that, you have your own “codes of speech” and “sacred cows” that can’t be touched.

    By the way, stop using words like “proggy.” It makes you sound dyslexic and, at the risk of sounding plebeian, gay. Speaking of progressive, if you’d like to hear some good music, listen to Yes, ELP, Traffic, Renaissance, Genesis, Pink Floyd, King Crimson and Jethro Tull.

    1. If even half of the people who whine about Republicans actually contributed to the comments then there would be substantially more interesting discussions. But it’s easier to point fingers and make sweeping generalizations than it is to contribute so here you are.

      1. This is likely another Hihn sock. His Galt 2 sock sounded like this until he couldnt help himself and forgot to switch handles.

      2. “kbolino,” almost all of the whining on here is by conservative Republican, faux “libertarians” about liberal, “proggy” Democrats.

    2. you call yourselves “libertarians” because it sounds more hip and palatable

      Clearly you haven’t been watching politics for the last century if you think libertarians are hip and palatable.

      1. “Glide,” while I realize that all politicians are, to varying degrees, corrupt liars, I still do generally side with “liberal Democrats” on most issues. Yes, I do adhere to the philosophy of “the lesser of two evils” but, unlike most of you right-wing Republican, faux “libertarians” whose posts and replies compose most of these comments sections, at least I freely admit it.

        With this, I think that I just put the kibosh on your belief that I’m not a follower of politics. I’m well aware of what’s going on, which leads me to my next point. The term “libertarian” may not be hip and palatable in a general sense, as you suggest, but to those who are genuine libertarians, like say, Penn Jillette and Gary Johnson, and, at the same time, to those faux libertarians who are actually very conservative Republicans, it is. In the former case/s, the reason is obvious. In the latter case, the word is viewed as positive because “conservative Republican,” not unlike “liberal Democrat,” is seen as partisan and pejorative.

        Even though these faux libertarians are really conservative Republicans who support most of the Republican agenda, they also realize precisely that most react negatively to the two party labels, so they call themselves “libertarians.” Among other things, it’s a way of trying to convert others. In fact, for example, I know several people who worship at the altars of O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter, but yet, claim that they’re libertarians. Obviously they’re not.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.