Deportation Squads Don't Come Cheap, French Women Flocking to Marine Le Pen, Fifth Circuit Affirms Right to Film Police: A.M. Links

|

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

NEXT: NRA-Backed Law Violates the First Amendment in the Name of Protecting the Second

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. Women can now get birth control pills without a doctor’s prescription in Colorado.

    1. And that’s all you get for that one.

      1. Neither count. I’m giving first to Rufus.

    2. Hello.

      Trump.

      #Makeeuropegreatagain

    3. Do the taxpayers get the bill?

    4. What about men, Colorado? So sexist.

      1. Men don’t get them due to their male privilege.

        1. Here’s a trans man talking about life with male privilege (and Bearing shitting all over shis nonsense) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVyY_SlWDtI

      2. Men can pay for women’s birth control without getting a prescription.

        1. +1 Pink Penaltax

    5. Whatever gets hippies to reproduce less.

      1. I could get behind a program to hand out BC pills to Boulder womyn.

  2. Ohio considers allowing an unlimited number of charter schools.

    charter, i barely know her

  3. Women can now get birth control pills without a doctor’s prescription in Colorado.

    This will make…. oh i dont know… every partisan person mad?

    1. Actually it probably will. Because most insurance doesn’t cover over the counter medication. But birth control pills are a God-given right and must be free to all.

    2. Seems like something non-socon Republicans should like. And liberals who aren’t completely nuts.

      But I suppose for many “access” means someone else paying.

      I suppose that since insurance is required to pay for BC now, one could still get a prescription even though it’s not necessary.

      1. Often when a med goes otc, insurance companies stop covering it. Prepare for threats of armageddon.

  4. Women can now get birth control pills without a doctor’s prescription in Colorado.

    The weed is killing all the sperm there anyway.

    (totally worth the wait)

  5. Harris County, Texas, has ended its participation in an ICE program that deputized local authorities to check the immigration status of anyone jailed and hold people for deportation.

    Entering into one that will deputize local citizens?

  6. A bill filed by Texas lawmaker Kirk Watson (D-Austin) would require all colleges and universities in the state to enact an affirmative consent standard for sex.

    That doesn’t seem to take into account different cultural sensibilities at all.

    1. Democrats really want to keep losing

      1. So much losing, they’ll get bored of losing!

    2. Pretty romantic. The mood hits you both, so grab the iPhone and record a quick video expressing your desire to fuck each other. Of course, that will eventually be ruled insufficient, because someone will claim that what happened afterwards wasn’t wanted (rough sex, anal, etc.). So now we’ll have to record the entire session.

      Chaturbate becomes the safest way to avoid being brought up on fake rape charges.

      1. The mood hits you both, so grab the iPhone and record a quick video expressing your desire to fuck each other. Of course, that will eventually be ruled insufficient, because someone will claim that what happened afterwards wasn’t wanted (rough sex, anal, etc.). So now we’ll have to record the entire session.

        Are you fucking nuts? Recording video of carnal acts is how you summon the dark beast Hagarg Ryonis. If even a minute of footage finds it’s way onto networks at large, his followers, working under the various guises of anti-sex-trafficking, feminism, slut-shaming, and non-conventional sex/gender norms will arise to torture your mortal soul.

        1. It’s the end of sex as we know it.

    3. “A bill filed by Texas lawmaker Kirk Watson (D-Austin) would require all colleges and universities in the state to enact an affirmative consent standard for sex.”

      Why limit the law to college students? There is an epidemic of rape. An idea this good needs to spread its wings and fly.

  7. “What she is proposing is really different, just like Trump offered something really new,” Cindy Blain, a 27-year-old pharmacist in rural France, told Bloomberg. “Maybe if we see Trump succeed, then voters will give her a chance.”

    Rural frenchmen speak astonishingly good english.

    1. They all speak English, that gibber jabber called French is just for the tourists.

      If they pretend they can’t speak English just talk slower and louder in English until they stop pretending

      1. just talk slower and louder in English

        I here they love it when American tourists do that.

      2. Or speak Chinese until they ask “Can you speak English?”

      3. The sentence, if you want to sell me that you are going to have to speak English, worked like a charm for me.

  8. Far-right French candidate Marine Le Pen is gaining ground with female voters.

    Is she grabbing them by le poussi?

      1. Oui.

        1. Bien bien (Chinese for shit).

    1. What qualifies as ‘Center Right’ in Europe? A Trotskyite?

      What do we have to do get libertarians in our country to stop parroting these European propaganda terms?

  9. Economists and advocates weigh-in on what Trump’s plans to escalate deportations would cost (billions) and the effect they could have on the U.S. economy.

    Each of them more scientific than the previous

    1. Are they still assuming he is deporting everyone?

      It is just a little more than obama did

      1. His secret plan is to deport economists and advocates. He just collecting names at this point.

      2. Ahhh, new amsoc, be honest – Trump hasn’t deported even CLOSE to the number Obama did.
        That aside, you, FoE and Rufus and I may end up being the last ones here….

        1. Well he hasnt cause he has been in office long enough. I do think it may be like 600k per year or something compared to 400k for obama

          Certainly not all 13 million

        2. ^Tulpa

      3. I self-deported long ago. I got sick and tired of an effective 50% tax rate.

  10. Economists and advocates weigh-in on what Trump’s plans to escalate deportations would cost (billions) and the effect they could have on the U.S. economy.

    WHAT DO RAMPANT TERRORIST ATTACKS DO TO THE ECONOMY???

    1. Let’s poll the window-makers

      1. Fuck that, pole the widows.

    2. Ask Krug-Man.

  11. Chicago Public Schools told principals not to let Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials inside school buildings without a warrant.

    Now that’s interesting. Does law enforcement generally need a warrant to enter public property?

    1. Not entirely sure, but I generally enjoy Government on Government violence, so this could be fun.

      1. Which side has the guns? My money is on those guys coming out better in the exchange.

        1. It’s Chicago, so the cops are probably outgunned by the students.

      2. CPD squared off against ICE outside Capone Jr. High. “Send out the custodians or we kill the block grants!”

        1. Or get other cops to kill you.

      3. Government on Government violence

        That’s called “war”, and it’s a Bad Thing. Innocent people get killed.

        -jcr

    2. Good question. Since the school isn’t open to the public, I’d think maybe they need permission or a warrant if it isn’t an emergency. I could well be entirely wrong.

      1. That’s why there are courts of law.

      2. Also, federal agency vs state/local property.

    3. Hmmm, good question. I would have thought so. I was assuming they’re talking about an arrest warrant, which I would think they’d need regardless of where they arrest the person. They’re not allowed to pluck people off public streets, after all. But a search warrant? I don’t know. Do SROs need a search warrant before searching a kid’s locker? IMO, they should be required, but the 4th amendment is so fucked up and weakened at this point, who the fuck knows?

      1. That’s why there are courts of law.

  12. “Chicago Public Schools told principals not to let Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials inside school buildings without a warrant.”

    Considering that CPS in teetering on the edge of insolvency, you would think they wouldn’t want to give the federal government an excuse to cut funding, but progressives never have understood math

    1. Math? Children are at stake!

  13. Breaking news:

    Johnny “Tulpa” Titor passionately contends that the conception and definition of socialism is cabined by what Marx wrote and that the basketful of welfare state constructs such as the income tax, the progressive income tax, the estate tax, the compulsory public education system, Medicare, Medicaid, minimum wage laws, public employee collective bargaining, public employee pensions, deposit insurance, anti-trust statutes and regulations, zoning, environmental regulations, monopolization of the money supply and currency, and the entire alphabet soup of regulatory regimes redistributing wealth are not within the ambit of socialism.

    In fact, Johnny “Tulpa” Titor adamantly avers that those who would argue that socialism includes all of the above are idiots. Perhaps Johnny “Tulpa” Titor should read Ryan McMaken’s December 4, 2015 column, published at Mises.org. To wit, McMaken penned the following:

    “To get a sense of what has constituted socialism, historically speaking, it is a mistake to rely on Marxism as the benchmark. Marxism was just ONE TYPE OF SOCIALISM (emphasis added for Johnny) in the 19th century, and it failed to gain traction in western Europe. Part of this is because, by the mid 19th century, it was already becoming clear that the predictions of Marxism were wrong.”

    1. True there were other brands of socialism in the 19th Century and that Marxism or ‘scientific socialism’ was the least popular of these ideas. But, none of the other ideas would be possible without a strong state to force people to follow. That’s why anarchists broke from the 1st International.

      1. Oh wow, Tulpa replying to itself and accusing someone else of being Tulpa. That’s totally not the standard way it tries to hide.

        1. It’s all Tulpa, all the time, all the way down.

      2. Technically, anarchists got kicked out of the First International, but as an anarchist i’m fine with that.

        1. Bakunin would say they were kicked out. Marx would say they were thrown out.

          1. Trotsky would say that they were excluded. Stalin would say that they were sent to Siberia.

            1. Yeltsin would say that “The Ukraine girls really knock me out”.

              1. And so would Bill Clinton.

    2. So what your saying is everything but anarchy is socialism.

      This seems like the argument progs use…roads are socialism therefore you should support x y and z

      Using the US as an example of socialism would diminish the empirical evidence of how terrible socialism is

      1. That’s not what I was saying. I was just saying that all types of socialism require state action, ergo they are all failed systems as they disregard the rights of individuals and manipulate market choices.

        Anarcho-syndicalism could work, theoretically, but that system believes in no state and therefore, is distinctly different from Marxism

          1. Yes, but in the future

        1. Anarcho-syndicalism could work, theoretically, but that system believes in no state and therefore, is distinctly different from Marxism

          It’s communism with lipstick, it absolutely could not work. It’s not even internally consistent. In their view, the workers would own everything and redistribution would be the order of the day. Yet all this gets done without a government, instead there would be worker’s councils that maintain a monopoly of ultimate decision-making and legal violence….but it’s like totes not a state or something. A rose by any other name would smell as foul.

    3. McMaken continued:

      “More astute socialists saw this and departed from Marx, forming the backbone of western style democratic socialism. Chief among these theorists was Eduard Bernstein. For Bernstein, socialism was not about revolution. It was about using democratic institutions to regulate the capitalists in a way that Bernstein thought benefitted the workers. These included things like government pensions, minimum wages, state regulation of labor hours, and more.”

      McMaken cites social security and other welfare programs as being hard core socialist. He castigates those who proffer that social security and Medicare are not socialist because they paid into the programs, “[s]ure, the supporters of Medicare and Social Security rationalize their support for a socialist program by claiming they ‘paid in’ some imaginary trust fund. But, in reality, support for Social Security is nothing more than support for taking the property of current wage earners and redistributing it to pensioners.”

      1. McMaken makes the compelling point that when measured by the sheer amount of wealth redistributed, the US ranks second among nations in the west. He wrote, [t]he fact of the matter is that government spending on old-age benefits and health care is so immense in the US, that by no measure could the United States be deemed ‘not socialist’ if we’re going to turn around the next minute and call Canada or even Norway ‘socialist'”.

        The author also reminds us that the regulatory regime in the US constitutes socialism because of the trillions of dollars that are redistributed in connection therewith.

        I am making this point because Tulpa frequently criticized my description of Obama as being a socialist. Like Johnny Titor, he made the mistake of insisting that socialism is strictly limited to the Communist Manifesto. Like Tulpa, Johnny Titor errs when he asserts that my use of the word socialism neuters its meaning.

        1. Back in the USSA?

    4. Johnny “Tulpa” Titor

      DURR HURR YOU’RE TULPA. Grow up.

      Again, stomp your feet and scream socialist more. Make it a meaningless term and make your input useless to the discussion, you wanker.

      1. And your belief in allopathic medicine makes you a double Tulpa, commie fag.

      2. Dude, socialist slavers like you just don’t get it.

        Rand Paul is a senator, therefor he’s a statist.
        Paul pot was also a statist.

        Reform Rand Paul is really the same as Paul Pot.
        They both even have Paul in their name.

        Duh.

        1. You’re so stupid, the Senator’s name is Rand Pol.

        2. Paul Pot

          John?

    5. There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who agree with me on everything, and goddamn communists.

      1. There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who agree with me on everything, and goddamn communists socialists.

      2. There are two kinds of things on Earth. Things that I can eat and those that i cannot.

    6. read Ryan McMaken’s December 4, 2015 column, published at Mises.org

      Link? Sounds like it could be interesting reading, and I’m too lazy to go search for it (yes, I’m asking you to “enact my labor” for me).

  14. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has joined the First and Eleventh Circuits in affirming citizens’ First Amendment right to legally film police.

    Will the officers face any penalties for illegally arresting someone for legally filming them? No? Then nothing will change.

    1. They will be forced to retire with full pay at 19 years instead of 20 years.

      1. After a one-year paid vacation.

    2. The process IS the punishment….

  15. Chicago Public Schools told principals not to let Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials inside school buildings without a warrant.

    Sounds like they need a remedial education, because they apparently don’t know what the word “public” means.

    1. And if anyone would know from remedial, it’s our Mikey here.

      1. No, his comment his correct here

        1. That doesn’t mean he’s not an irredeemable simpleton.

          1. Something about “broken clocks”…

            1. +1 Clock Insane Yomomma

    2. “Public”, in the case of schools, means they are paid for and run by the government.

      I can’t just walk into any school because it’s public. Not sure why federal law enforcement should be able to simply because it’s “public”.

      1. You can just walk in if you are a law enforcement agent doing your job. The only reason a government agent can’t walk into any building he wants is because the 4th Amendment says he can’t. So again, do you think the 4th Amendment should apply to government buildings? I don’t.

        1. Of course it should apply to government buildings. What if the feds are coming after local government officials for some nefarious purpose? What if two government fiefs are attacking each other, should they be able to just ransack each other’s facilities at will? Federalism is important and all unenumerated police powers reside with the states. Granted immigration, borders and basically any foreign interaction is the rightful purview of the feds own limited enumerated powers, but those are basically the only areas where the feds police powers trump the states. They still ought to get a warrant though and they shouldn’t have any trouble doing so, the feds have legions of rubber stamp judges.

        2. State trespassing laws apply to federal agents.

        3. I haven’t made up my mind. It seems like there is enough variation in the purpose of government buildings that it might not be the same in all cases.

          Of course, the best solution would be not to have government buildings except as necessary for the essential functions of government.

  16. I’m confused about this ICE participation thing.

    Don’t the police confirm the identity of every person they arrest? I would have assumed that no matter the infraction, if they take you into custody they would run your name through the various databases and find out exactly who you are, where you are from and what other jurisdictions might have an interest in you.

    How would your citizenship (or non-citizenship) not show up on that?

    Do the police really arrest someone for – I don’t know – let’s say burglary, and then when they run their ID they get nothing – no citizenship, no social, etc….. they just let it go? And then they release them on $1,500 bail, like any other schlub? How do they know they have the same guy? What is to stop them from just changing their name?

    This is an odd situation.

    1. Don’t the police confirm the identity of every person they arrest?

      No, they do not. They try but they don’t always succeed. If the police arrest an illegal alien who has no identification, they have no way to identify them. If the charge is something minor, the person is just released and that is it. Quite often illegals are pulled over and have no registration no insurance or driver’s license and in many places just allowed to go where a native who had ID would be arrested.

      What does a police department do with someone who isn’t listed on the NCIC database, has no ID and can’t be identified? Unless they are being charged with a felony, usually they jus let them walk. What else can they do? They can’t and don’t want to hold them forever and there is no way to ensure they will return if released with a summons or on an ROR bond.

    2. Both citizens and non-citizens could well have no ID and/or refuse to identify themselves. It’s a problem that will exist as long as everyone isn’t required to have an ID that’s in a national database.

      1. But it is a problem that rarely happens with citizens. This is a problem that is almost entirely created by the presence of illegal aliens. Are their citizens who have no ID and can’t be identified? Sure. But that is a very small percentage of the people we are talking about.

        1. I’m sure that’s true. And it is a problem. A problem that I would solve by allowing any immigrant who is here to work and who isn’t causing trouble to stay legally and get ID and a taxpayer ID so they can be identified and don’t have to steal peoples SSNs and stuff to work.

          I like to worry about the unusual cases around the edge, though.

          1. Most states give out IDs and in many cases licenses to anyone regardless of their citizenship status. There is no more excuse for an illegal having no ID or license than there is for anyone else not to have one. They just don’t do it because they know it can be advantageous not to be easily identified.

            1. Making it legal for them to work is at least as important as the ID part in my plan.

              It’s also advantageous for the type of citizen who is likely to have lots of interaction with police to be difficult to identify.

              I wonder if many people pretend to be illegal immigrants with no ID. If illegals really do get let go a lot, it would seem like something people would do.

            2. Shit man, places like Louisiana and Alabama have made it a criminal offense to drive an illegal to the grocery store so I damn well know they aren’t passing out driver’s license.

    3. Do the police really arrest someone for – I don’t know – let’s say burglary, and then when they run their ID they get nothing – no citizenship, no social, etc….. they just let it go?

      That person obviously doesn’t exist, but is just a figment of the fevered imagination of an overworked cop. The only solution is to clock out and get donuts ? that low blood sugar has him seeing things!

  17. A bill filed by Texas lawmaker Kirk Watson (D-Austin) would require all colleges and universities in the state to enact an affirmative consent standard for sex.

    People told me that if I voted for Trump the state would be regulating the sex lives of consenting adults. And they were right.

    1. Reminds me of the time my father said that people told him if he voted for Goldwater, the Vietnam War would escalate and darned if they weren’t right.

  18. Chicago Public Schools told principals not to let Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials inside school buildings without a warrant.

    I would have thought that would have gone without saying. “No warrant? GTFO.” It’s nice that progressives are finally realizing this thing called the “4th Amendment” exists, but at the same time I realize they’re only doing this “because Trump.” Once the “right” TOP. MAN. is back in the White House they’ll be back to business as usual.

    1. Since when do you need a warrant to search a public building? Do you really want the 4th Amendment to apply to and protect the government from other governments and itself? I don’t.

      1. Searching a building is one thing. I’m not so sure they should be able to search students’ lockers or personal items or interview students just because they feel like it.

        1. You can’t search the lockers. The local police couldn’t do that. You can, however, ask them for identification. That is not considered interrogation for the purposes of the fourth amendment nor is forcing the person to produce such self-incrimination under the 5th.

      2. I was assuming they were talking about arrest warrants. If they want to haul a kid out of class, then they damn sure better have a warrant, I don’t care where they are. Search warrants are a good question. I honestly have no idea if they need a warrant to search a public building or not, but probably not (also discussed briefly upthread).

        Do you really want the 4th Amendment to apply to and protect the government from other governments and itself?

        Maybe it’s early and I haven’t had enough caffeine yet, but I’m not sure what you mean here, so I’ll just say what I expect the 4th amendment to do: I want the 4th amendment to protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by all levels of government.

        Thinking about the issue a little deeper, I can see the argument that the school may not have a right to demand to see a warrant from an ICE agent before they allow them into the building (public property), but they damn well have the right to demand to see a warrant before allowing them to search a kid’s locker or place a kid under arrest (which is where my mind initially went).

        1. If they want to haul a kid out of class, then they damn sure better have a warrant,

          You do not need a warrant to arrest someone who is committing a crime in the officer’s presence. So if the LEO sees that they are illegal, he doesn’t need a warrant to arrest the person, no more than he needs one to arrest the person for any other crime.

          The rule on lockers is pretty clear. LE does not have a right to search lockers and things which the students are given exclusive use and possession. They do, as I explain above, have the right to ask the kids for identification and proof of citizenship. And the school cannot deny them entry onto the grounds for a legitimate law enforcement purpose, which this would be.

          1. Haven’t I read umpteen times about school kids lockers being fair game to search sans warrant?

            1. We need “illegal” sniffing dogs that can signal the cop.

            2. I think that is if the school administration does not object. The administration has a right to search lockers as they are school property and as a function of their in loco parentis authority over minor students.

          2. But you would agree that the federal cops could be barred from entering private schools under state trespassing criminal laws? Can you point out the authorization in federal or state law that exempts federal cops from state criminal laws that probibit unauthorized entry.

            1. I would agree with that. Private schools are totally different.

    2. My guess is that ICE isn’t raiding school buildings and that this is nothing more than social signaling.

      1. this is nothing more than social signaling.

        Oh, it’s definitely social signaling, which is why I expect this to go away the next time someone with the “correct” letter behind their name and the “right views” gets elected president.

  19. just like Trump offered something really new

    Ah, yes. All those innovative new ideas like tariffs and deportation.

  20. “Deportation Squads”

    Hyperbole much?

    1. Reason’s position is that no one should ever be deported for any reason.

      1. Yea it is bizarre. The open borders thing is purely utopian thinking

        Someone presented example of south and north korea. If you have open borders, are you violating libertarianism if you dont allow the country to come and occupy?

        1. It is bizarre. You would think that reason would take a hard line on deporting someone, like violent felons for example, so that they would look more reasonable in arguing for letting other people stay. But no, there is no open borders hill that Reason is not willing to die on.

        2. I posed the N/S Korea question yesterday.
          I should have called it East Liberty/West Tyranny in the example because someone got hung up on a long dissertation about the Koreas instead of dealing with the simple question: ‘Does a country have to commit suicide in order to maintain libertarian purity?’

          BTW, I’d like to join the Deportation Squad if they change the name to the Brute Squad and I can work with Andre the Giant.

          1. …and I can work with Andre the Giant.

            Ooh. Bad news on that score, dude.

          2. work with Andre the Giant.

            You’d have to be dead first. And not just “mostly dead,” which is still partially alive, all dead.

        3. I don’t see why it’s controversial to admit that not all immigrants are of equal worth. Some of them are preferable to others. Some of them have barbaric and incompatible cultures. I’m fine with a Muslim ban on the general entry visas, not so much on the K-1s or even the H-1s and others that are situation specific. I’d rather we be receiving immigrants from Japan, S Korea, Singapore and Europe and others rather than from the Middle East and Africa. I don’t care if that policy would hurt people’s feelings or if it makes egalitarians upset. Let’s say that instead of Muslims, Europe was receiving mass amounts of Japanese, would they be experiencing the same problems? Of course not, because cultural groups are different from one another and this shouldn’t even need to be pointed out.

      2. It didn’t used to be quite that extreme, until it got hijacked by the left-wing shitbags.

    2. I’m not sure how you are going to deport millions of illegal immigrants without something along those lines.

      1. I dont think they are deporting millions or will be

        1. It is the stated intention of the Trump administration.

          1. Isn’t it the stated intention of immigration law that people here illegally stop being here? Regardless of the admin in power?

            1. Yes, but they have taken very different approaches to enforcing it, so I’m not sure what your point is. One of Trump’s major campaign promises was that he would enforce the immigration laws with much greater vigor than previous presidents have. Which is going to require a lot more enforcers on the ground. I.e. deportation squads.

              1. So, Trump is going to administer the law more effectively than Obama. Why is that a controversy? If the law states that people here illegally should not be here, then we should praise anyone who makes that happen the best. That’s my point.

                1. Well, “the law is the law” is not an argument I consider legitimate. Attempting to deport all illegal immigrants would require significant impositions on legal residents and citizens, which I find entirely unacceptable.

                  Are you celebrating the appointment of Jeff Sessions too because he is likely to enforce federal drug laws more efficiently too?

          2. And they will ask for 10,000 agents and congress will give a smaller number and we will deport many but not all illegals.

            I think prior experience is that even a small effort to arrest and deport will lead to a large number of self deportation. Upside is that they stay eligible for future immigration visas.

      2. Seems just a little more than obama did

      3. Several large scale publicized mass deportations (Eisenhower’s method) and getting rid of sanctuary cities tends to incentivize people to leave on their own accord.

    3. Ok then, Deportation Panels.

      1. Well, do you think “Squad” wasn’t chosen deliberately to conjure images of brown shirts and jack-boots?
        A deportation panel is a better description of courthouse.

        1. I think border patrol does indeed wear brown shirts. Not sure about the style of boots.

          1. Did they where brown shirts when Obama was President? It’s like he’s Hitler.

        2. It’s also a normal word used by police and military to refer to groups of people with specialized purposes.

  21. How come the progs who wanted to move if trump won never put mexico as a destination?

  22. and everybody went where, exactly?

    1. Tulpa officially retired most of his socks. Sad!

      1. NOOOOOOOooooooooyyyyeeeeeeEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

      2. They may have all been banned again so needs to work on new ones. He was out of control shitting all over threads.

        1. I saw a couple people arguing with nobody over on the thread about Matt Welch’s book review. Maybe another handle went poof?

    2. To the other place? I checked it out, but the impression I came away with was “catastrophe”.

      1. They’re just going for that authentic Somalian highway theme.

  23. Far-right French candidate Marine Le Pen is gaining ground with female voters. “What she is proposing is really different, just like Trump offered something really new,” Cindy Blain, a 27-year-old pharmacist in rural France, told Bloomberg. “Maybe if we see Trump succeed, then voters will give her a chance.”

    There’s so much to comment on this. 1) Use scare quotes when calling Le Pen “far-right”, she’s slightly left of Newt Gingrich for fuck’s sake. In Europe “far-right” includes socialists whose only point of contention with the left is mass immigration. It’s just a term used to keep the right out of power.

    2) She’s still getting only a minority of women voters, just more than “far-right” candidates usually get. Women tend to vote for the left because they often have an over-active empathy instinct that inhibits rational decision making. I’ll be genuinely shocked if she gets the majority of the women vote.

    3) I sincerely hope that, for France’s sake, Le Pen’s vote share isn’t contingent on Trump’s approval ratings.

    1. Yea isnt her economic policy that of comrade sanders

      1. I don’t think she’s as bad as Sanders. But if she were in the US she’d probably be an anti-immigration Democrat. She’s not all that impressive. She’s just represents a push-back against the Islamization of France which is something that is desperately needed. For people who don’t understand, try living in small town that’s been conquered by the inhabitants of a local refugee colony, you’d start seeing the merits of restricting Islamic immigration pretty damn quick.

    2. She refused to wear a hijab when meeting some Grand poobah in Lebanon. That alone should make her a feminist and Western hero.

      1. And she still has her head?

          1. Impressive

            1. Yeah, in this instance, she puts to shame the liberals who try to put her to shame.

      2. Yeah, I thought that was fucking great. Major kudos to her.

    3. Don’t sell yourself short, buddy. You have almost unlimited empathy for the male guardians of sex abuse victims.

    4. I don’t think that right/left is all that useful the way it’s used these days.

      But it’s always worth pointing out that they don’t always translate well between European and American politics. In Europe “right” really doesn’t have the anti-socialist connotations it does in the US and seems to have more to do with traditional views on national identity.

  24. So I’ve been selected for the US Census this year. I’ve been ripping up all the questionnaires they sent me and now they started sending someone to my house. The lady has come by 3 or 4 times while I’m at work. She’s started leaving threatening notes on my door threatening fines and jail time. What’s the likelihood of that coming to pass?

    Also, I’ve been thinking about replying but instead of filling out a paper questionnaire or entering information on the census website, I was thinking of opting for the phone interview. My reasoning is that if I’m filling out forms on the website, it will ask for definite answers and it won’t let me progress through the questions without giving more information than I’m comfortable with, or lying to them. But if I go with the phone interview option, when they start asking me about income and mortgages and so on, I can plead ignorance or give answers that are half true and put out my disclaimer that I don’t know for sure. Thoughts? Has anyone else dealt with this?

    1. Just make everything up. Take them to court for not including whatever race or gender boxes you want to make up.

      1. I filled out ‘Martian’ as my race on a census form when I was in college and I am pretty sure this is why I’ve never been offered jury duty (I have no idea actually if their database has that information).

    2. Take the fifth from the start.

      That should shut them down.

    3. What’s the likelihood of that coming to pass?

      Extremely slim.

    4. She’s started leaving threatening notes on my door threatening fines and jail time. What’s the likelihood of that coming to pass?

      The materials received by Cole included an FAQ with this question: “Do I have to answer the questions?”

      “Yes,” the bureau’s reply states. “Your response to this survey is required by law (Title 13, U.S. Code, Sections 141 and 193). Title 13, as changed by Title 18, imposes a penalty for not responding. We estimate this survey will take about 40 minutes to complete.”

      Title 13
      Title18

      1. From the politfact link above:

        Our search for more information yielded a Jan. 9, 2013, commentary by David Whiting of the Orange County (Calif.) Register quoting a bureau spokeswoman, Jennifer Smits, saying that nobody had been fined for failing to participate to date. By telephone, bureau spokeswoman Stacy Gimbel Vidal told us that remains so; no fines have been levied. The bureau, she said, is “really not in the business of prosecuting people who don’t comply.”

        On July 18, 2012, Andrew Reamer, a research professor at George Washington University, told a U.S. Senate subcommittee that the bureau had not prosecuted someone for not responding to a survey since the 1960 census. Not quite: Bureau spokesman Brian Lavin told us by email that no one has been prosecuted for failing to respond to a survey since the 1970 census.

        Sounds like technically, yes, you could be fined, but they don’t really enforce it though.

      2. I’m aware of the laws. The fines and prison time are what they are, but I never hear of anyone actually getting prosecuted. I’m not sure if that’s because it never happens or because it’s just not reported widely.

        1. Welp, there’s one way to find out. If you do get arrested, maybe John will represent you pro bono.

        2. It sounds like, based on the politifact link, it doesn’t get enforced. The threatening letters are probably just their way of trying to scare you into filling it out. So in theory you get fined or thrown in prison, but you probably won’t.

          I guess it’s up to you to decide if you want risk it or not. I think the best course of action, if you decide to risk it, is to just ignore them. Don’t tell them to “fuck off, slaver” or anything like that, because then they might decide to make an example out of you for disrespecting their authoritay. Stay off their radar, is what I’m saying. Also, it sounds like refusing to fill out the form comes with a lesser penalty than providing false information. Just my $0.02.

          1. Yes I’m inclined to agree with your two cents. I definitely want to stay off the radar, but I’m going to call this cunt by phone and not let her know how I feel about cunts like her. Then maybe I won’t have to answer all the questions with 100% accuracy and she’ll let it slide because I didn’t tell her that I hope she dies in a grease fire.

    5. Just make shit up. That’s what I did when I got the long questionnaire one time. I told them my wife was Sentinelese and some other goofy stuff. Nothing else happened.

      If you ask me, the census should do nothing but determine how many people live where so they can make electoral districts appropriately. That seems to be all that is constitutionally required.

      1. That’s exactly right. Everything else they ask feels like gnarled fingers creeping ever more deeply into my asshole, I’m not a fan.

    6. “”But if I go with the phone interview option, when they start asking me about income and mortgages and so on, I can plead ignorance or give answers that are half true and put out my disclaimer that I don’t know for sure. Thoughts?””

      I don’t recall.
      And if they call you out, then you misspoke.

      Just ask yourself, how would Hillary answer this question.

    7. A few years ago we had some guy come by pounding on the door with his fist like he wanted to break it. I ran downstairs thinking somebody was bleeding out from a car wreck or got mugged. Turns out this guy was from the extra bullshit census they were enacting as part of the healthcare law. And of course gave me a spiel about the penalties for noncompliance and so on. I “declined’ pretty much everything that wasn’t “mandatory” (humoring the legal fiction that they can do this to begin with) and answered enough to get the guy to go away, and got a receipt for it. Other than “how many people live here” they didn’t really get much. Checked with a lawyer when I could, and as I recall she said yes this was a real government survey but as far as she knew the penalties had never been enforced.

      I really should have told him “fuck off slaver” and slammed the door, but having lurked here a while I know how vindictive the State can get over petty bullshit. Gotta pick your battles. It still pisses me off just thinking about it.

  25. “effect they could have on the U.S. economy.”

    Deporting criminals = positive financial impact
    Deporting workers = negative financial impact

    1. Add welfare dependents to that equation and it’s a deal.

  26. Women can now get birth control pills without a doctor’s prescription in Colorado.

    Fine. But they better be free.

  27. “”Economists and advocates weigh-in on what Trump’s plans to escalate deportations would cost (billions) and the effect they could have on the U.S. economy.”””

    Funny, I didn’t hear the economists and advocates complain about the Deporter-in-Chief’s deportations.

  28. Women can now get birth control pills without a doctor’s prescription in Colorado.

    Vagina privilege strikes again.

    Maybe someday medical freedom will extend beyond hormones for female birth control.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.