A.M. Links: Florida School Shooter Charged With 17 Counts of Premeditated Murder, NPR Host Fired Over Workplace Abuse Allegations, South African President Resigns


  • Gage Skidmore / Flickr.com

    Over 100 White House officials reportedly lack permanent security clearances.

  • Nikolas Cruz, the suspect in yesterday's school shooting in Parkland, Florida, has been charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder.
  • "The portrait of Nikolas Cruz, suspected of fatally shooting 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland and wounding 15 others at his former school, is a troubled teen with few friends and an obsessive interest in weapons. Administrators considered him enough of a potential threat that one teacher said a warning was emailed last year against allowing him on the campus with a backpack."
  • South African President Jacob Zuma has resigned.
  • Tom Ashbrook, the host of the National Public Radio show On Point, has been fired over allegations of workplace abuse.

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

NEXT: The Inconvenient Individualism of Frederick Douglass

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. Over 100 White House officials reportedly lack permanent security clearances.

    Time to outlaw security clearances.

    1. 60 plus billion spent on “intelligence and they can’t even figure out the White House Security clearances

      So another failure of the intelligence community.

      Sounds like its time to fire them all and audit the books.

      America will never be great again with these bozos.

      1. Yeah, right, like I’m going to listen to Donald J Frump

    2. I have a clearance…maybe I should go to DC and live off that sweet government teat.

      1. Not if you’re commenting here you don’t.

      2. If you comment here, you are on some red flag list.

        Once your new government employer signals a check to make sure your clearance is valid, you get red flagged.

    3. Hello.

      RIP to the victims.

  2. The Liberal Media’s Slobbering Over The Norks Reminds Us Why We Have The Second Amendment
    …But besides having bad taste, our mainstream media is revealing our ruling class once again. You watch the non-stop squee over these monsters and the only conclusion you can reasonably draw is that, for our worthless establishment, the North Korea murderocracy is not a cautionary example. It’s an objective.

    Just think of it! The ability to simply make all those Normals who disagree with you go away ? either for good or by exiling them to rural fun camps. No fuss, no muss, no more tiresome dissent by those banjo-jockies between the coasts!…

    1. “slobbering” = reporting that she smiled a lot.

      Wow, the mind of a wingnut is an amazing gulch.

      1. Weigel is evidently illiterate.

        1. He’s convinced Kim has the trains running on time, and that’s enough for turd!

  3. Over 100 White House officials reportedly lack permanent security clearances.

    I thought we wanted them to leave office?

  4. Progressives Must Stop Using Terror To Try And Intimidate Conservatives
    …We don’t toe the lefty line, and so we aren’t human and should not be treated as such.

    The FBI can buy manufactured evidence to spy on us, and that’s okay. We aren’t human.

    The IRS can persecute us if we try to exercise our right to participate in the political process, and that’s okay. We aren’t human.

    Some Sanders fan who no doubt had a COEXIST sticker on his minivan can shoot up a bunch of Republicans, and that’s okay. We aren’t human.

    Maybe his family getting sent fake anthrax will teach Don Jr. some obedience.

    Let’s slide past the hideous moral bankruptcy of this way of thinking and get to the practical problem with normalizing terrorism and dehumanizing opponents. It creates a set of new rules, and the complicit liberal elite better think really hard about whether they truly want those new rules in effect. After all, they enacted new rules regarding vicious campaigning and then Trump came and wiped out Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit using them….

    1. You are posting Kurt Schlichter articles to prove anything? Just stop.

      But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
      You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow

      Your word soup is making the wingnuts look good by comparison. Trying making sane arguments about real news, or we’ll just put you in the troll pile.

      1. The facts are what they are. Leftist violence is real and much more prevalent than any violence coming from the right. Progressives own that. They own it more than anything because they constantly engage in revenge fantasies about those on the right. They wrote plays about assassinating George Bush. They openly celebrated the death of Andrew Breitbart. Just this week they gloated and laughed over the President’s daughter in law being hospitalized after receiving an envelope full of white powder. I get it that they hate Trump, but what the fuck did his daughter-in-law do?

        If you don’t like those facts, too bad. Go live in another universe.

        1. I’m not arguing the facts, in this case. I’m saying, if you are trying to say the progressives are bad, and you do that by linking a barely readable rant by Kurt Schichter and then making arguments like

          Let’s slide past the hideous moral bankruptcy of this way of thinking and get to the practical problem with normalizing terrorism and dehumanizing opponents

          then you are not helping your case.

          “Imcomphrehensible Bitching” should not be a role model for one’s posts. Take a breath. Re-read the Longtorso 9:02AM post as someone from the SANE universe … it makes no sense. And reading the link helps even less.

          1. So you’re saying we should listen to people who immediately attack the messenger and point out some non-existent comprehension problems?

      2. It’s like a yokel detachment has decided to ride through town again.

        At least it’s a reminder that things could always be worse.

        1. I just like seeing the post number go up. It’s how I pass my day.

  5. South African President Jacob Zuma has resigned.

    And I just read that Omarosa took his place!

  6. Tom Ashbrook, the host of the National Public Radio show On Point, has been fired over allegations of workplace abuse.

    Thank goodness #MeToo is giving employers cover to finally rid themselves of problem employees.

    1. WIH is “workplace abuse”? He tried to hook up with a stapler or something?

      1. He xeroxed his butt on the photocopier, without using a clorox wipe on the glass afterwards.

    1. Paging Weigel, Tony, etc. Come and get it.

      1. At least Weigel’s posting is spotty given that he’s on vacation in Mexico. And as a bonus, it looks like his butt-buddy Citizen Crusty may have gone down there with him.

        With luck, maybe it’ll be a permanent vacation for both of them. It’s glorious around here right now.

      2. Antifa Militants Ready To Break Bones, Invade Homes
        …One antifa activist, who would give only the name “Dominic,” talked proudly in a series of interviews with Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting about forming this broader alliance of “Nazi hunters” to seek out, reveal and fight these enemies wherever they might show up. Their goal became even more specific after Charlottesville: to prevent more casualties like that of activist Heather Heyer.

        “We’ll go to their house, I’ll put it that way. We’ll go to their house,” said Dominic, an imposing, muscular man in his 30s. “I don’t want to hurt anybody, but I want those people to stop it. If I have to put Richard Spencer or Nathan Damigo into the hospital critically, and it would have saved Heather Heyer’s life or the next potential Heather Heyer, I would do it without question.”…

        1. I have so many friends and family members who have been fantasizing for years about getting to shoot some dirty hippie who broke into their house. These people either have a death wish or are retarded. You really have to have a death wish to start breaking into occupied homes in this country.

          1. These people either have a death wish or are retarded.

            Or push gun control so they can attack others without risk of getting shot.

            1. That is exactly why they want gun control. Mob violence needs unarmed victims to be effective. It is why fascism never took hold in the US. There were fascist brownshirts in the US during the 30s just like there were in Germany. They just never accomplished anything because their intended victims were armed.

              Imagine a bunch of these assholes showing up in pretty much any small town in this country and trying this shit. They would be nothing left of them but a greasy spot. And they know that. And that is why they hate the 2nd Amendment so much.

              1. Fascism did take hold in the US for a while, complete with the nationalism, eugenics, propaganda, social programs and concentration camps.

                But yeah, I get your point.

                1. You mean FDR, a Democrat, right?

                  1. Of course. He wasn’t as bad of a fascist as Hitler, plus 3 or 4 generations propaganda in media and schools making him out to be a hero, gets him pass.

                    1. I often wonder how it could be that a President in this century who did so many remarkably horrible things is lionized so frequently.

              2. Even if they get their gun control, it won’t work. Not even counting homebrew weapons, and all the guns that won’t be registered: we live in a world where you can mail order 5 machetes for $40 [used to be $19.99, sad]. Even if you take the guns away, the will to defend one’s home will remain.

                1. There are too many guns that are not known to the government. Beyond that, 3d printing is pretty much game over for any hope of ever disarming the public.

                  1. It would be much easier to shut off the supply of ammunition. Yeah, some people can load their own, but very few can make their own propellant.

        2. He sounds bae.

    2. Now, THAT’s an amusing link. Although I find the lack of any recognizable martial arts training in any of the related videos disturbing. Someone in a mask tries to rabbit punch you for walking through their demonstration, that just seems like a custom made situation to try any judo throws you know.

  7. Superintendent Robert Runcie told reporters on Wednesday afternoon that he did not know of any concerns raised about the student. “We received no warnings,”

    *cough* Bull shit *cough* *cough*

  8. Administrators considered him enough of a potential threat that one teacher said a warning was emailed last year against allowing him on the campus with a backpack.

    Troubled loners are going to have a tougher time of it going forward. Or maybe not.

    1. Obviously we need more mass surveillance so that we can identify these threats before they strike!

  9. Over 100 White House officials reportedly lack permanent security clearances.

    What would that be, like 70, 80, 90 percent of all White House officials? Surely the White House can’t be that damn big that there’s much more than 100 officials working there.

    1. Actually not. What counts as a “white house official” includes a lot of people who work next door at the OEOB. And some of this is no doubt their fault. They are just stupid and arrogant and are not filling out the forms. And some of it is OMB’s fault for being backlogged and not conducting the investigations in a timely manner.

      1. Sorry OPM’s fault, not OMB

  10. http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10520

    Duke Students stand up to nasty women who claimed Libertarians were autistic.

    1. History professor Nancy MacLean gave a February 7 public lecture on her controversial book Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America,

      Ah yes, I recall that some discussion about that fraudulence.

      “I struggle to accept that she actually believes libertarianism or conservatism is the result of autism. The question is then why she would say something like this.”

      Sometimes the mask slips?

      1. The one thing that bugs me about that article is all of the claims of what a smart woman she is. I don’t think she is smart at all. Her book wasn’t just a lie, it was a poorly researched and written lie. I doubt this woman is particularly intelligent beyond the ability to completely lack shame and say whatever is necessary to get ahead.

        She said this because she has been rewarded her entire career for saying stupid things that conformed to what those above her wanted to hear. The only difference now is that people outside her leftist bubble are listening.

      2. I think the argument is that autism/Asperger type personalities are drawn to the movement.

        It’s not the first time I’ve seen the argument. It gets at least two things wrong:

        1) Asperger types don’t not care about other people. They care as much as anybody. The issue is that they often don’t perceive other people’s feelings, but because they don’t realize you were upset doesn’t mean they don’t care.

        2) Libertarians care more about people than others.

        We care so much about people and their rights that we’ll stand up for the 8th Amendment rights of terrorists, the First Amendment rights of Scientologists, the Second Amendment rights of rednecks, the Fifth Amendment rights of rapists and arsonists, etc., etc.–so how can anyone say that we don’t care about people?

        Our whole philosophy is centered on the belief that individual people should be free to make choices for themselves.

        1. It is really more of an ugly prejudice against the disabled. Libertarians can defend themselves. The name-calling against libertarians is just stupid and beneath contempt. What is more than stupid and downright evil is the underlying assumption that you point out that mentally disabled people are not fully human or capable of empathy the way the rest of us. That is not just a lie, it is a sick lie.

          Forget what this woman says about Libertarians. The really sick thing about her is that she clearly thinks any mentally disabled person isn’t a real human being. This is the kind of person who would if she had lived in different times, happily sent people to the gas chamber.

        2. Leftists have a hundred years of propagada propping up the idea that they “care” about people – and, curiously, nothing whatsoever to show for it.

          1. They have about a half a billion or more bodies to show for it. They murdered all of those people for the good of mankind. There is that.

        3. I’d be happy if people with aspergers or autism were more apt to be libertarians. What a great weapon that would be. However, there is no proof that such a link exists, and I sincerely doubt it does.

          But, what pisses me off, as others have touched on, is that this woman is trying to conflate only the negative connotations of a mental disorder with an ideology that she is far too stupid to understand. Libertarians can defend their ideology, but people with these disorders should not have to defend a fact of their genetic make-up.

        4. I honestly wouldn’t be shocked to find out that libertarians have a much higher incidence of Autism. Just look at Hihn. Or any stroll through the comments. There’s a lot of sperging out in libertarian circles.

          But this loon of a woman not only asserted higher incidence of autism, but went on to try and color autistic people as being sociopaths in order to tar libertarians. Which is ridiculous. I’d posit that she has no real arguments against libertarians (not that there aren’t any) and so all she can really do is try and attack the character of her opponents.

          1. Hihn is not a libertarian, no matter how much he screams it is so. Guy claimed Canada murdered people because they cut health care subsidies.

            This “autists” and “sperging” stuff is just a meme, you shouldn’t get caught up in it. Hyper focus on a subject that one is currently thinking or speaking about does not prove the obsessive/repetitive behavior traits of those with aspergers.

            1. Yeah, Hihn is a joke. But you have to admit that he seems to have trouble controlling his ’tism.

              And I’m quite aware of the sperg /autist / ’tism meme. My comment was supposed to be half joke. Everyone spergs out on something or other from time to time.

              We probably shouldn’t mention Hihn much more though, or we’ll summon him. I took a lot of risk in doing that with the first post.


              1. Haha, fair enough.

                I’m not sure what is wrong with Hihn. Schizophrenic is most likely, IMO. Delusions of grandeur, disorganized thinking, persecutory delusions, incoherent and frenzied speech, etc.

                1. ^ This. Hihn reminds me of my Grandfather who was a paranoid schizophrenic. Hihn might have been a thinker or rational at one point, but that time is clearly long past. I feel sorry for him and his family, more than anything.

        5. Oh come now Ken. The left actively advocates for those types of people to never be born in the first place. Less obviously these days, but recall the effort to sterilize people because three generations of imbeciles were enough?

          Buck v. Bell, opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and was appointed by…Roosevelt. Founder of the Progressive Party.

          The only ‘shocking’ part is that they’re still at it under softer sounding policies almost 100 years later and people don’t see it for what it is. It’s a morally bankrupt, lying ethos and always has been. Yet we pretend they are not because they’ve found ways to hide their motives and couch their programs in soft ‘feels’ that hide the steel glove just below the surface.

    2. Maybe the new “woke” sorting of political leaning is that Libertarians are autistic, Progressives are Down’s Syndrome, and the great middle is uniformly distributed uniformly along the neurotic, “don’t bother me, I am trying to make a living so I don’t have time for safe spaces for snow flakes” continuum?

    3. Conservative and libertarian students are asking Duke University to issue a statement condemning a professor’s recent remark suggesting that libertarians are “on the autism spectrum.”


      This is the same ridiculousness that some of us on the right mocked the left for in the 2016 election. If the University didn’t say or do anything in support of what she said then they have no need to condemn it.

      Instead, the conservatives and libertarians should be mocking this woman publicly in every way possible.

  11. So, the guy’s mother died a few months ago, leaving him homeless, he moves into a trailer park with a friend, but he was apparently on some kind of psychiatric medication, and he was expelled from school for something that meant everyone knew he shouldn’t be allowed on school property with a backpack . . . and he still passed a background check to buy an AR-15.

    Think I got all of that right.

    At first glance, my primary concern might not be the threat such shootings present to our Second Amendment rights. The bigger concern may be to our Fourth Amendment rights.

    There may be equal weight for and against gun control, but people on both sides are asking how all this information could be true–and he was able to pass a background check. It’s as if people on both sides think being depressed, upset, on medication, etc. should be public knowledge, entered into a database, and used by the government to deny people the exercise of their other rights. We’ve seen this in California, where they want to use accusations made by spouses during divorce proceedings to try to force people to surrender their right to own a gun.

    1. It’s disturbing when the center of the debate becomes about why we don’t use the information we have about people to deny them their rights, especially when between Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, your bank, your health insurer, Microsoft, and the NSA, there is little information about us that can’t be made available to exploit in this way.

      Even the NRA seems to want to blame privacy for these kinds of shootings, and I have no faith in the Facebook generation to stand up for their own Fourth Amendment rights, much less those of other people who want to own firearms, etc.

      1. With my morning news bubbleheads it never gets past “when are we going to do something!” where “do something” is so obviously meant to indicate “ban guns” it doesn’t even bear mentioning. I can’t imagine them making an argument around background checks.

        1. You posted something yourself below that’s exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about.

          You said they’re saying that people think he should have been prevented from buying a gun because of what he said on YouTube?

          That’s the kind of all pervasive background check I’m talking about.

          Yes, they want to disqualify you from owning a gun because of what you did on social media.

          That’s exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about.

        2. “Mobilization” infiltrators were doing the same thing in the 80s, shrieking that fusion bombs would cause global freezing and such. “Do something” back then meant surrender unconditionally to a totalitarian dictatorship that, by the way, bans everything *except* guns for goons.

        3. They also constantly say something about the NRA, which means what exactly?

      2. Everyone always thinks bad legislation just affects others and not their selves.

    2. Just add a question to the form.

      “Have you been expelled from school because of violent tendencies?”

      That should fix it.

    3. “”It’s as if people on both sides think being depressed, upset, on medication, etc. should be public knowledge, entered into a database, and used by the government to deny people the exercise of their other rights.””

      Mental health professionals have spent years trying to remove the stigma that your mental health will be held against you. All it will lead to is more people not seeking help.

  12. a warning was emailed last year against allowing him on the campus with a backpack.

    No word on how this would stop him from coming on to campus with a gun.

    1. I think the pertinent implication is that it was supposed to prevent him from passing a background check to buy an AR-15.

      As I recall, even the NRA, in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, went after the the failure of the background check system to account for these kinds of things.

      1. This is just another example of how gun control makes more victims. The teachers and students at the school knew there was someone who was clearly disturbed and possibly dangerous who meant them harm. Thanks to gun control and schools being a “gun free zone”, they had no option but to sit there and hope for the best and get shot if something did happen. If one or more of the teachers at that school had been armed, I bet the death toll would have been much lower and maybe none at all except the shooter.

        1. He pulled the fire alarm to draw the kids outside to make it easier to pick more of them off. He might have done more damage with some training and a shotgun, but I’m not sure having someone with a firearm on campus could have prevented this.

          Meanwhile, the background check system might have prevented him from buying an AR-15.

          Please note, I am not advocating the following; I’m just pointing to what I think the reality is–and, hence, where I think this is going. I’m not talking about the way things should be–but the way they are.

          When you convince people that the background check system doesn’t work, it doesn’t make them want to get rid of the background check system. It makes them want to inflict gun control on everybody. The pro-gun rights lobby knows this, so they’re going to keep pointing the finger at the background check system as the problem. They’re going to claim that he shouldn’t have passed a background check–and that making the background check more rigorous and the list of disqualifications longer is the solution to the problem.

          The pressure over the long term will be to make the background check system as all encompassing as possible–and we’ll need to depend on the Facebook generation’s mercy to defend our privacy. They’re going to want to know what websites you go to. I’ve already seen people wonder aloud how this kid could have had a gun when the messages on his social media accounts were so disturbing.

          1. I’m not as worried about our gun rights, yet, not as much as I’m concerned about the likely implications to our privacy rights.

          2. I’ve already seen people wonder aloud how this kid could have had a gun when the messages on his social media accounts were so disturbing.

            I keep wondering why his family / friends didn’t get him some serious therapy. Or where the therapy failed.

            I’ve got a cousin that went full bore lefty wing-nut (calling for violence against Trump voters, Republicans, right wingers etc) after the 2016 election, and a lot of family members sat him down to talk about getting help, and how we can be there to support him in getting his mental state to where it should be. There are family members who check in on him on the regular.

            1. Psychiatric therapy is extremely expensive. Most families simply can’t afford effective therapy for serious mental illnesses. Insurance coverage for mental illness is usually very limited compared to the cost of effective long-term treatment, and very little care is available through government programs, especially for adults. “Serious therapy” is an option only for the very well off.

              1. This is true. The price of therapy is out of reach of a lot of people. And even if your insurance will help you have to ask if you want to use it in the case the gun grabbers get their way and permanently bar you from ever owning a gun since you were depressed and suicidal back when you were 19.

                We’re pretty tight nit as a family, and if anyone knew that someone needed that kind of help, most of us would pitch in together on a fund to cover it. But that’s a rarity these days I guess, and probably is the greater complaint I have. As with most problems, the best and most effective solution is not the state, but strong families that look out for each other.

          3. If you’re a CCW trying to protect the kids and you have a gun, you go toward the shots.

            The strength of concealed carry is anyone could be carrying an you don’t know.

            If I was a teacher and could carry my pistol, a shooter would be down in one shot if they attacked near my classroom.

            This kid knew that nobody had a gun on campus. Gun grabbers are really the scum of the earth.

            1. If I was a teacher and could carry my pistol, a shooter would be down in one shot if they attacked near my classroom.

              You hope. And we all hope. But at least if you are carrying you’ve got a lot better odds of engaging him than you do without it

    2. Now I’m seeing he boasted on youtube about wanting to do this, and they snitched to the FBI about it. And supposedly THAT was supposed to be enough to prevent this. Yeah, right.

      1. Yeah, why wasn’t that information included in his background check?

        1. Why wasn’t he arrested and disarmed as a result of making a direct threat?

        2. Because the background check only gets information that is in The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database such as, felony convictions, dishonorable discharges, court ordered psychiatric commitals etc. It does not include things like being under investigation or school disciplinary records or any other things that are not part of the public records. Also, the (NICS) database is only as good as the agencies (state and federal law enforcement, the military and the courts) who are required to report these things are.

          1. Well, why was this man not prosecuted for his YouTube comments?

            1. Because his YouTube comments were presumably being investigated to see if 1) he had actually broken any law by making them and 2) No one had actually determined if he meant to actually do anyone any harm or if as Rhywun notes below if it was anything but “juvenile bluster”.

              Also, see “Ken Shultz|2.15.18 @ 1:43PM”

            2. The other answer is, of course, that there is some question if he did, in fact, break any laws with his YouTube comments.

              As I note, entries in the (NICS) database must be certain definite events that are part of the public record and have been reported to the (NICS) by the appropriate reporting authority.

              If you want the (NICS) database to contain other information like “X is a poopyhead who should not own a gun” you need a lot more legislation than is currently on the books (which is exactly what the gun grabbers want).

          2. It was a rhetorical question . . . a continuation of a discussion from above.

            I was pointing out that people wanting the government to disqualify people from exercising their constitutional rights because of what they do on social media is highly problematic.

            1. Just because it was a rhetorical question doesn’t mean that one cannot give an answer.

        3. Maybe they thought it was juvenile bluster.

        4. You say this ironically, but the topic in my office today has been that anyone who is tipped off to the FBI as saying something bad, or ever in their life received mental health treatment (including depression) should forever be barred from gun ownership.

  13. http://www.yahoo.com/news/cali…..22943.html

    Me too advocate accused of sexually harassing employees. Liberals have forever been claiming that any conservative who objects to sexual immorality must really be covering up how they are a secret pervert or anyone who objects to homosexuality must really be gay. And in some cases that is true. Overcompensation is real and does happen, though not as often as liberals think. It never seems to occur to them that the same could be true of people on their side. Maybe someone makes a big deal about sexual harassment or rape is doing so as a way to compensate, justify and cover up what they do?

    1. I don’t think this is an accurate comparison.

      Someone who advocates against immorality or homosexuality doesn’t get extra access to prostitutes or gay men.

      These #metoo male feminists get more access and trust by being part of the movement. So, sure, they get some over-compensaters, but the real issue is the predators that are attracted to such movements.

      1. That is a good point.

        1. The biggest tell is that they are against masculinity, rejecting the notion that men should protect the women in their lives, replacing men with incompetent and slow government. Meanwhile, also advocating against guns, the great equalizer for women.

          A real man, and a decent human being, wants the women in his life able to defend themselves, and is ready to rain fury from all angles on anyone who harms them.

          1. The protector role is fundamental to a lot of men’s sense of identity. I find it a noble and honorable quality (but, I am one).

            If a lady dislikes men with strong protector characteristics, she’s free to marry a weak coward. Whatever you need to feel empowered, sugar.

  14. ^^I miss the good old days when John was actually compr?hensible and worried about ISIS on twitter.

    John|12.2.15 @ 10:19AM|#

    George Washington University researchers say they’ve found approximately 300 American ISIS sympathizers on Twitter.

    Both Twiiter and facebook have often fucked with Americans with conservative or out of the mainstream political views. But apparently promoting ISIS is just a okay.

    1. You spend God knows how many hours obsessing and stalking me and that is all you come up with? Some post about the woke idiots at Twitter banning conservatives but doing nothing about ISIS.

      I guess attracting a stalker is better than not. As Oscar Wilde once said, “the only thing worse than people talking about you is people not talking about you”. But would it be too much to ask if I could attract one of a bit better quality? This is just pathetic son. Really.

    2. How is John criticizing Twitter for their biased censorship relevant to anything in this thread?

      1. It’s relevant if you hate John and all that he represents.

        1. “All that I represent”. That is funny. You are right but it still is funny.

  15. few friends and an obsessive interest in weapons

    *scans the commentariat cautiously, makes note of the exits*

    1. Don’t forget to pick who to use as a human shield.

      1. Tony is always a good choice. Might be too skinny though and socialists tend to be.

  16. Has anyone seen that 5pointz case/decision. I can’t get over it.

    1. Why somebody doesn’t go create a work of public art on the side of Gracie Mansion is beyond me.

    2. Now I have. Enh, “property rights” was always a quaint notion, anyway.

      One of the staff should write about this.

    3. As a CRE Developer, this is good to know. Lovely.

    4. Surely this will be appealed.

  17. Ashbrook’s “sorry, not sorry” is fucking hilarious.

  18. So, any relation to Lyin’ Ted? Those beady eyes sure look familiar…

  19. South African President Jacob Zuma has resigned.

    It was corruption allegations and the water crisis that brought this on. Not this:

    cowards are scared
    shoot shoot, shoot shoot
    cowards are scared
    shoot shoot, shoot shoot
    shoot the Boer, shoot shoot
    shoot the Boer, shoot shoot
    shoot the Boer, shoot shoot
    shoot the Boer, shoot shoot

    (Boer is white man)

    Or this:
    ‘So, we are saying black people, all of us must unite so that we can change the constitution so that we can expropriate land without compensation (He was specifically talking about amending the Constitution to expropriate white lands)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.