Food

California's Unconstitutional 'Bacon Ban'

Proposition 12 may drive up prices nationwide.

|

Before Californians approved Proposition 12 in 2018, the measure's opponents warned that it would effectively ban the sale of bacon in the Golden State.

That was a bit of a stretch. Prop. 12, which was supported by 63 percent of voters, outlawed the sale of pork or chicken products (including eggs) unless they were produced by farms that complied with new minimum space requirements for each animal. The Humane Society of the United States, which backed the initiative, calls it the world's strongest law protecting the welfare of farm animals.

When the new rules took effect on January 1, 2022, bacon was not banned from the state, but Californians had cause for concern. California consumes about 13 percent of the pork eaten in the United States every year but produces only about 0.3 percent of the national supply. When the new rules kicked in, much of the bacon from other states was suddenly illegal in California.

Prop. 12 also raised a constitutional issue. In a lawsuit that could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court later this year, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) argues that the initiative violates the Dormant Commerce Clause. Because the Constitution gives Congress sole authority to regulate interstate commerce, that doctrine says, states are prohibited from imposing rules on businesses beyond their own borders. It certainly seems like Prop. 12 is an attempt to do that.

"The pork industry is a highly integrated interstate market where a pig farmer in North Carolina might sell his stock to a meat packer in Illinois, who then distributes to California," notes Trevor Burrus, a research fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, which filed an amicus brief supporting the NPPC's argument. "It's very difficult to trace a given cut of meat back to its source and verify that the farmer complied with California law." And under the Dormant Commerce Clause,  Burrus says, a farmer in North Carolina should not have to comply with another state's laws.

Prop. 12 also could mean higher prices for consumers, and not just in California. Because so much pork consumed in California is produced elsewhere, farmers across the country may have little choice but to comply with the state's rules. The question for the Supreme Court is whether the rest of the country should have to comply with a policy approved by 7.5 million voters in a single state.

NEXT: Brickbat: You Have to Move

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. The question for the Supreme Court is whether the rest of the country should have to comply with a policy approved by 7.5 million voters in a single state.

    No. Next question?

    1. Say the ussc ready declined to hear the California egg issue, which is akin to this.

      https://ksltv.com/406122/us-supreme-court-declines-involvement-state-egg-law-cases/

      1. That link only says that SCOTUS declined to take the egg case on original jurisdiction.

        SCOTUS almost never takes original jurisdiction cases.

        That doesn't mean that the egg case is dead, it just means that it has to go through the lower federal courts and if it gets that far, SCOTUS may hear the case on appeal.

          1. Except that case was dismissed for standing because it was brought by 6 states (no egg producers or egg producer groups were part of the case) and the states could not show how the states were being affected and not just individual egg producers.

            This pork case is being brought by the National Pork Producers Council - so as they are in fact representing pork producers they will have standing to challenge the law.

            1. [JOIN NOW] I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($200 to $300 / hr.) online from my laptop. qcr Last month I got cheek of nearly 30,000$, this online work is simple and straightforward, don’t have to go office, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this job. I really thanks to my friend who refer me this:-
              ..
              SITE….., http://moneystar33.blogspot.com/

      2. Well that scrambles things a bit. California may end up with egg on its face over this. Time to get cracking on finding some alternatives.

        1. The whole thing is a shell game perpetrated by the whites.

        2. In any case SCOTUS needs to lift the oppressive yolk!

        3. Of all of the things which might push me to start a revolution to overthrow the Californian government, fucking with my bacon supply is pretty high on the list.

        4. I think that you are ovo-reacting.

    2. Once they let states force other states to collect use taxes against citizens of other states, seems like this sort of exchange was inevitable and will probably get met with similar results.

  2. Opens up his pockets-lined trench coat... "Psst! Hey, buddy, wanna buy some BACON?!?!"

    1. Got any pork butts or ribs?

      1. Some of my old girlfriends had pork butts, and I am NOT ribbin' ya!

        1. Did you give her the chop?

          1. Nothing but tripe.

            1. I see you came in on the tail end.

        2. Well I was going to respond but I see you guys already hogged all the puns!

          1. boaring anyway.

            1. *snort* funny!

  3. In response to previous article -Why move?

    I find that progressive policies are encouraging me to move out into the country where I may be independent and able to defend myself from them. What else can you do when they are able and willing to go after your assets ?(Canada fully supported by our government)

    Also not a big bacon fan though I come from a long line of pig farmers.

    1. The old line should be changed to "send lawyers, guns and bitcoin"

      1. I went home with the waitress, the way I always do.

  4. How about .... California can go fuck itself, and we leave it at that? The response to anything and everything California does should be "go fuck yourself."

  5. California has Texas's sense of self-importance, combined with DC's grasp of economics.

    Don't mess with my bacon.

    1. No California has long concidered themselves the most important. The people here are retarded and think the country ends in Vegas

      1. Wait, I thought the NIMBY California progressives think the country, at least the part inhabited by righteous people, ends where they lose sight of the ocean.

      2. And those of us in Nevada think that Clark County is just the City of North Los Angeles.

  6. So the out of state pig farmers grow a pair as well as pigs, and just ignore California. What are the fascists in California going to do to a mid-west farmer, send in the National Guard? The bacon sellers don't know a damn thing about where the bacon comes from.

    1. The issue, unfortunately, is economics. CA is essentially forcing the national meatpacker/distributors to either set up a parallel supply chain (which defeats the economies of scale that put them there in the first place) or forego the entire CA market (which will also weaken their economies of scale and drive up costs). Or they could just force all their suppliers to certify compliance with CA rules and maintain their current market dominance.

      1. Or just stop selling pork in CA, and take a short term loss until the recalls are over. Cheaper in the long run.

        1. And many farms are doing just that. Which is why we are having a shortage.

          Pigs don't take a lot of land to raise, they are not roaming style of animals, and you can feed them garbage. So they're perfect for a small plot of land. You can see this in Iowa as you fly overhead. Acres and acres and endless acres of corn and soybean, but tiny brown lots in the corners. That's were the hogs are. And Iowa is one of the largest pork producers in the nation.

          California has pig farms too. They're also tiny. I've been there. I doubt they comply with the rules either. Pigs aren't like cows that want to wander and roam the open fields, pigs are forest animals. Doesn't mean we have the right to abuse them, but thinking they need broad acreage of pasture is just silly.

          p.s. I do have to agree with a lot of the poultry stuff. Poultry farms are cruel. Poultry is also a locked tight duopoly. But the solution isn't legislation. In fact, legislation is rarely a solution for anything.

        2. That would be my option 2 - "forego the entire CA market".

          You assume that CA will fold and that the disruption will be short-term. I am not so confident. Their legislature has been remarkably immune to public outcry or the negative consequences of their ridiculous actions.

          If, as I fear, these regulations stick, meatpackers who choose to boycott CA will have a 13% smaller market over which to allocate their fixed costs. That means unit costs for the rest of us will go up.

          1. Uber/Lyft did and succeeded. And in the wake of the SF school board recall, I've more faith in the people of CA.

          2. Honestly, as a consumer, I would be willing to eat that extra cost for the principle.

            1. I'll agree with that.

              Similarly, I've started checking country of origin when I buy stuff. Although it doesn't happen often, given the choice between made in the US and elsewhere, I pick the US. And given the choice between elsewhere and the PRC, elsewhere wins. But it's going to take a long time, I'm afraid, for this to catch on.

          3. Won't costs go down for the consumer as there is 13% more pork for the other 49 states who want mor bakun?

            Bernie promised they wouldn't need 17 kinds of deodorant when one will do. Maybe that works for the meats also. Lucky them.

          4. I wonder if CA has a sufficiently high percentage of vegetarians, relative to other states, that they actually have less of a market impact on a meat product than their population might otherwise suggest.

            1. 12% of the population of the US live in CA, and consume 13% of the pork, so it looks like they are pretty much in line with everywhere else

          5. "You assume that CA will fold and that the disruption will be short-term. I am not so confident."

            They won't fold, and here is why: Recalling requires rich silicon valley assholes with a bug up their ass. But the rich sillicon valley types don't give a fuck about this. They can afford a doubling or tripling price for bacon.

            The funniest thing I ever saw was asshole SV types social signaling about the delectable foie gras they had the last time they were in Lake Tahoe. I asked why they didn't help end the prohibition in California but they just explained (with straight faces) that foie gras was best kept in limited quantities. The worst thing ever was when foie gras was "mass produced"- i.e. available to the plebes. It was much better that it was tightly regulated so that geese were not abused.

            These people will still have their $60 braised pork belly, and $80 smoked baby backs. And they like it that way. They aren't against luxuries. They love luxuries. It is mass consumerism that they cannot stand.

          6. You're forgetting that the California demographics very heavily weighted to Asian, Latino and African-Americans, both in the population and in the cuisine.

            Double the price of bacon, and a lot of people complain, but double the price of ALL pork products and ALL chicken products, and you have nearly doubled the costs of all non-European food, and much of that, too ("What do you mean, pepperoni on my pizza is a special fee?!").

        3. It would seem if they stopped sales of pork to Cali, it would increase the supply everywhere else by that 13% which would, as a result of increased supply, cause prices to fall.
          I could see baby back rib prices fall to 1.49/Lb. or pork butts to .99/lb....maybe not that low but the extra supply of pork to the other states would have an effect on prices.

      2. If CA is 13 percent of the pork trade, they might consider that small enough to ignore.

      3. Why is it unfortunate that’s it’s an economic issue? Every matter of commerce is an economic issue. The law sucks, but I don’t see it as a commerce clause issue. California is regulating commerce within the state, not interstate. This is akin to an out-of-state company having to follow California’s minimum wage laws when employing people within California.

      4. CA is essentially forcing the national meatpacker/distributors to either set up a parallel supply chain (which defeats the economies of scale that put them there in the first place) or forego the entire CA market

        You know, Rossami, I don't give a crap.

        All we hear from conservatives is the glories of federalism. Well, here they are. CA wants to make rules for CA. Why is that anyone else's business?

        All the whiners need to just STFU.

        1. You know, bernard, you can eat a fucking bullet and bleed out if you refuse to leave the rest of us alone.

    2. California doesn't come after the farmer. They demand certificated notarized penalty-of-perjury proof from whomever tries to bring bacon into the state. That distributor demands same from his supplier. Trace it back far enough, and any farmer without that proof won't be able to sell.

      1. Sure, just provide the proof. If you don't comply, what is there to be done - you haven't violated CA law since you do not sell there? It's a tort between you and the supplier at worst.

      2. How national are the supply chains? Does a distributer in Georgia really end up shipping that much product to California?

        1. Oh, yeah! MASSIVE amounts of food goes across the country to California. Sit by a railroad track or highway in Arizona or Nevada and count the number of refrigerated units pass you going west. Nearly all of that is food, and most of THAT is beef, pork or chicken.

  7. Reason commenter "American Socia1ist" says California is the best state because, despite its high poverty rate, the weather is nice and rich people have excellent dining options.

    #LibertariansFor50Californias

    1. Sounds like Shrike.

  8. If anyone missed it yesterday, jeff was defending the Ottawa police yesterday because the wrong types of people were protesting.

    1. That's because fatjeff bloviating windbag gets his rocks off on trampling peacefully protesting native elders, like the useful idiot of a totalitarian lefty shill he is.

      1. Oh let me guess, Jesse has a new slander about me.

        1. "let the heart patient die" was a high bar.

        2. Nothing new about you being a fat nazi slob.

        3. It's not slander when you actually did it.

        4. It's not libel* when you actually said the vile things in question.

          1. Jesse has a habit of stuffing words into people's mouths. If you take Jesse's claims at face value that makes you the fool.

            1. It's all over yesterday's thread you lying fuck.

              People can read your comments themselves and see that you're lying right now.

              Here's one example: https://reason.com/2022/02/20/first-world-problems/?comments=true#comment-9366501

              1. Jeff is as predictable as the sunrise.

            2. You have a habit of lying about your past comments that I kindly link to. Same with sarcasmic.

        5. Slander? I can link the thread if you want.

        6. This is now even more hilarious with you defending the police down below in this thread.

    2. Wasn’t he the one that was fooled by the daily show video?

      1. That too lol.

    3. I missed that.

      I always appreciate his #LibertariansForCRTInPublicSchools advocacy so it'll be interesting to see if he continues to incorporate #LibertariansForUsingStateForceAgainstProtesters into his routine.

    4. He also indicated he shoves bananas up his ass.

  9. The lawsuit is going nowhere. For some reason the Supreme Court has held that the commerce clause applies to absolutely everything except for its original purpose. I doubt they are suddenly going to rule that regulating commerce between states is the province of congress not the states. It would throw too many current regulation regimes into chaos.

    1. I should note, if the USC had dealt with this earlier. They could have easily solved this issue before it started, by saying states can regulate manufacturing within their own borders, but can't prevent other states products from being sold.

      1. Nope. Afraid not. The courts ruled the "interstate" commerce clause applied to manufacturers who made a product for sale only within the state. Since a customer might buy one of those products instead of an out of state product, it affected "interstate" trade.
        It may have been influenced by the fact that the product was guns, and the manufacturer was going to ignore federal restrictions.

    2. Doesn't California already have a shitload of laws outlawing things like clothes washers that get clothes clean, toilets that flush on the first try, showers that allow you to rinse your hair...

      1. Yup, and a whole lotta residents that are experienced at discretely getting around the laws.

        1. Those insurrectionists should be shot.

      2. Don't forget that all auto manufacturers have to sell a special variant of their cars just for California. Used cars are exempt, but beware of buying a used car from out of state, it might be a bitch getting it pass the smog test.

      3. More than 50% of the semi tractors have been removed from service in Cali due to the unreasonable emissions rules passed a couple years back.
        So now the problem emerged this past year with massive back ups at the ports of Long Beach and San Pedro. Not enough semi tractors to move the goods out of port.

        1. Not to mention the vast number of drivers who refuse to go into the crime-ridden hellhole cities where the ports are.

          Want ads for drivers in Nevada often say things like "No TWIC needed," which is to say that they won't have to go into the ports. Some companies are offering what drivers call "combat pay" for runs into major California cities.

      4. also coming next year, outlawing generators that generate energy

        1. Gas powered leaf blowers and chain saws.
          Oh, the humanity!
          Just wait until a tree topples over a busy street or home and see how long it takes to remove with battery powered chainsaws.
          Didn't you see the new law...all generators have to be battery powered.

    3. ^ This. The Commerce Clause has been perverted to become literally the opposite of what it was originally intended to be.

    4. From what I remember of my Constitutional Law class in university, the Commerce Clause (in its modern usage) is invoked to expand government authority/regulation—NOT to curtail it.

  10. Hm, let's see... How about, "nope, fuck Commiefornia."

    They can, again, suck the results of their votes good and hard. No reason to export.

  11. We're fortunate here in Spain. Bacon is plentiful and cheap. Because the Spanish people don't eat it, but the Spanish pigs keep producing it.

    1. Why produce the pigs then? Yeah I know Spain is a big producer. But no pork in the diet? Or just no bacon?

      1. Pork the other white meat.

        1. Consuming white meat? CHECK that privilege!!!

      2. Jamon Serrano, Jamon Iberico, etc. Very good cured ham. But bacon is not their thing. To the point that you shouldn't order it at restaurants because it may not even be "bacon" and/or they generally don't know how to cook it even if it is genuine bacon. Usually underdone and soggy.

        1. Yeah, I know the fried fatty strip style bacon is almost solely an American thing, but tossing out the entire pork belly doesn't seen like something an old world European cuisine would do.

    2. Spanish ham is a thing for a reason. so damn good.

  12. We need an Enron episode for bacon.

  13. "It's very difficult to trace a given cut of meat back to its source and verify that the farmer complied with California law."

    Obviously the solution is to mandate bacon be purchased with Bitcoin so blockchain technology can be, um, brought to bear.

    1. Please, no more ham fisted attempts at controlling the market.

    2. Bitcoin will just draw in the crypto-fascists (to re-coin that term)

  14. "Because the Constitution gives Congress sole authority to regulate interstate commerce, that doctrine says, states are prohibited from imposing rules on businesses beyond their own borders."

    Lol, yeah sure. That's the rule. States can't regulate businesses. You guys are something else.

    1. So the California government can impose regulations on a company in Georgia? Final answer?

      1. No, but they can impose regulations on activities conducted within California and being a GA resident doesn't mean you get to bring GA law into Cali.

        1. No, but they can impose regulations on activities conducted within California

          The pig raising & slaughter is not conducted in California, which is the whole point.

          California is setting up barriers to interstate commerce. That's purely a Federal domain.

          https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-makes-bacon-expensive-commerce-clause-supreme-court-pork-prices-ballot-12-11640892337

          The Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act, also known as Proposition 12, was backed by the Humane Society and approved by 63% of California voters in 2018. The law establishes minimum space requirements for farm animals and prohibits the sale of meat from animals raised in housing that doesn’t meet its specifications. State regulators will inspect out-of-state farms to ensure they are in compliance.
          ...
          While the Constitution grants states police powers to protect public health and welfare, California conceded when it proposed Proposition 12 regulations in May that they do “not directly impact human health and welfare of California residents” and are not “accepted as standards within the scientific community to reduce food-borne illness.”

          If the Golden State can dictate farm animal welfare in the rest of the country, why couldn’t it require companies that sell goods or services into the state also abide by its labor and climate laws?

          1. I mean, once the California based inspectors are already at your pig farm... hey, pigs'll eat anything...

            "Nope. Haven't seen 'im."

          2. CA is not dictating anything except what can be sold in CA.

            Let the GA pig farmer do what he wants, but he has no right to sell product in CA in violation of CA law.

            Geez, you people really are morons.

            1. That's one way of putting it. There's a reason why it's going to court.

              But these regulations have no effect on local conditions - all the externalities are borne in the producers' states (as the regulation itself admits) so the justification used for CARB, etc shouldn't apply. So this ends up being purely an economic effect driven by local values.

              CA should be able to choose to allow or disallow the sale of pork, but if they choose the former then it is up to Feds to decide if the pork being imported from IA meets the requirements for sale. CA can't say, "MN pork good, IA pork bad" regardless of the reason.

          3. Man, if I'm a hog farmer in Texas, and some Calitard puke inspector came by to check out my place, that would be the last trip to Texas xe'd ever make.

        2. Nor does it mean you get to bring California law into Georgia.

        3. So you ignored the entire "beyond their own borders" thing?

        4. Hahaha, gunning for that top spot again strudel? Don’t bother, shrike will never let it go.

      2. No, they can't. But they can impose regulations on products sold in CA, if a business in GA decides they can't live without selling in CA, that is their call

        1. Of course they can. That's why it was so embarrassing to see LoS ignore "beyond their own borders".

    2. There's no way to get "states can't regulate businesses" from the passage you quoted. Rather than make this comment you should have just stated, "I'm a retarded person that can type words onto the internet."

      1. That's basically Eric's argument. Calif can't regulate economic activity in California if the regulation conflicts with North Carolina's laws.

        1. It's such a short article that I'm amazed that you could misread it so badly:

          California consumes about 13 percent of the pork eaten in the United States every year but produces only about 0.3 percent of the national supply. When the new rules kicked in, much of the bacon from other states was suddenly illegal in California.

          Seriously, nobody is saying that CA can't enforce these rules on the pig farms and slaughterhouses located in California.

          1. But people are saying that California can't regulate what is sold in the state, because pork distributors do not have separate CA-compliant and non-compliant supply chains, and forcing them to establish such separation is an added burden on interstate commerce.

            1. Hmm. Can MS ban vaccines made from research on fetal stem cells?
              Can WV ban blood banks from collecting blood from homosexuals?

      2. LOS loves laws and regulations.

    3. Obviously, states can regulate business however much they want to.

      State's Rights (i.e., racism).

  15. Anybody else signing up for TRUTH Social this morning!

    Make sure you read the ToS. They put this part in ALL CAPS:

    “WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO, IN OUR SOLE DISCRETION AND WITHOUT NOTICE OR LIABILITY, DENY ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE SERVICE (INCLUDING BLOCKING CERTAIN IP ADDRESSES), TO ANY PERSON FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION FOR BREACH OF ANY REPRESENTATION, WARRANTY, OR COVENANT CONTAINED IN THESE TERMS OF SERVICE OR OF ANY APPLICABLE LAW OR REGULATION. WE MAY TERMINATE YOUR USE OR PARTICIPATION IN THE SERVICE OR DELETE [YOUR ACCOUNT AND] ANY CONTENT OR INFORMATION THAT YOU POSTED AT ANY TIME, WITHOUT WARNING, IN OUR SOLE DISCRETION.”

    1. Huh. I installed the app on my iPhone, read the ToS, and tapped the Create Account button — which brings up a red “Something went wrong” alert.

      1. Huh. It's almost like the only people who bring up trump are idiots like yourself.

        1. It's trumps fault that California is banning pork!
          Science!

      2. Well, it probably would work on an Android. Apple is too woke to allow that kind of non-conformity.

        1. In all seriousness, the problems they are having with their sign-up process being broken on their premiere day doesn’t have Apple’s involvement at all.

          1. Hard to believe an operation headed by Devin Nunes is a giant fuckup.

        2. Maybe it's a violation of Apple's Terms of Censorship.

      3. I’ve now gotten all the way to where they are supposed to send a verification text to my phone. It isn’t happening.

        1. I told them about you. Give it up, it’s all HO2 under the bridge

        2. Still not working.

      4. You have an autographed picture of Trump don’t you Mike?

        1. That he masturbates furiously to.

      5. Maybe they know who you are.

      6. Woohoo! I’m waitlisted!

        1. What a loser.

          1. Its obsession is really sad.
            This is what happens when a cancer has no meaning in its miserable existence.

    2. Just saying the quiet part out loud. I do suspect it is to mock Twitter and Facebook as much as anything else.

      1. Sure, tell yourself that. They are totally champions of unrestricted free speech.

        1. The reason I "suspect" is that I have no social media presence, precisely because of terms of service like that. The last thing any of them are is advocates for any speech except advertising speech.

    3. "Make sure you read the ToS"

      Sounds pretty standard to me, shill. Here's Twitter's if you want fucked up:

      Twitter has an evolving set of rules for how ecosystem partners can interact with your Content on the Services.

      We may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services or any features within the Services to you or to users generally. We also retain the right to create limits on use and storage at our sole discretion at any time. We may also remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services, limit distribution or visibility of any Content on the service, suspend or terminate users, and reclaim usernames without liability to you.

      We may suspend or terminate your account or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any or no reason..."

      https://twitter.com/en/tos

    4. WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO, IN OUR SOLE DISCRETION AND WITHOUT NOTICE OR LIABILITY, DENY ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE SERVICE (INCLUDING BLOCKING CERTAIN IP ADDRESSES), TO ANY PERSON FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION FOR BREACH OF ANY REPRESENTATION, WARRANTY, OR COVENANT CONTAINED IN THESE TERMS OF SERVICE OR OF ANY APPLICABLE LAW OR REGULATION.

      THOSE FASCISTS!

      1. No no no, it's not fascism. It's because "the left made them do it".

        It's Rule #1 of Right-Wing Reason:
        IT'S ALWAYS TEAM BLUE'S FAULT

        When Team Blue acts badly, then it's Team Blue's fault.
        When Team Red acts badly, then it's because Team Blue made them, and so it's still Team Blue's fault.

        QED

        1. The logic is difficult to follow on this one.

          So Twitter is "fascist" by cancelling Trump's account?

          But Truth Social or whatever it is called is patriotic by cancelling an account?

          Are there different rules for Trump Cultists?

          1. As you watch Lying Jeffy and the pedophile have this conversation, it’s important to know that they’ve been told repeatedly that the problem is Twitter censoring people at the behest of government. They’re both intentionally leaving that out.

            Why? Because they’re both inherently dishonest.

            1. Why? Because they’re both inherently dishonest.

              And stupid.

          2. Hi Jeff and Shrike! How are you two Nazi fucks this morning?

            Maybe you two chucklefucks can explain to me what's different there from any other social media site?

            Here are excerpts from Twitter's ToS. Maybe explain how it's not far fucking worse than White Mike's little excerpt?

            "Twitter has an evolving set of rules for how ecosystem partners can interact with your Content on the Services...
            We may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services or any features within the Services to you or to users generally. We also retain the right to create limits on use and storage at our sole discretion at any time. We may also remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services, limit distribution or visibility of any Content on the service, suspend or terminate users, and reclaim usernames without liability to you...
            We may suspend or terminate your account or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any or no reason..."

          3. “Are there different rules for Trump Cultists?”

            Abso-damn-lutely!

            1. Yes keep commenting in a thread where you’ve muted everyone pointing out your hypocrisy and ignorance. It’s a great look.

        2. Hahahahaha, and here you are, completely misrepresenting what most people are saying. Again.

          Goddamn man.

        3. Can either of you idiots support one person here supporting their TOS?

        4. Longtobefree says above it is mockery of Facebook and Twitter’s ToS. So, like they are just engaging in parody, I guess.

          1. Have you found one person who supports their TOS yet?

            1. He never will. But like a true piece of shit, he’ll never admit it.

      2. Turn yourself in for child porn.

    5. TDS is forever?

    6. So it’s just like every other social media TOS?

      What’s the gotcha here?

    7. So . . . Just like every other social media company?

  16. The unregulated bacon produced in North Carolina should be cheaper if there's less demand for it.

    1. Not if they produce less of it to make up for loss of economies of scale.

      1. I get it. Less demand means higher prices for consumers. More demand means higher prices consumers. You stepped right into my trap.

        1. ...progressives pounce!

          You could also read his comment fully, along with the article, before making an ass of yourself.

          Demand drops - producers have surplus - prices drop to move surplus - production drops to match demand - prices rise as surplus is eliminated.

          1. prices rise as surplus is eliminated.

            prices return (from the low of the surplus) as surplus is eliminated.

    2. This is a giant windfall for all the other pork consuming states. The pork producing states not so much.

      1. Perhaps for a short time. In the long run , no.

  17. Man you got this shit backwards Eric. You're trying to impose North Carolina's laws on California. It's like arguing "Well, North Carolina let's me drive 80mph on the interstate but California sets the limit at 60mph. I can't drive in California because I refuse to comply."

    1. Not a great analogy, Lord Strazele. Adding a higher standard to a product is not trying to impose regulations for the lower standard. That doesn't make any sense.

      In the printing industry CA has a higher standard for some of the chemical products that are used in the process. Different standards than other parts of the country. It cost more to manufacture those chemicals and thus the products cost more in CA. The products must also meet different regulatory standards. If a manufacturer in the print industry wants to sell their products in CA it will cost more for them to do so. Some do, others produce products with the lower standard and don't bother with CA. California's printing costs, along with a lot of other fun things in CA, are higher than in other parts of the country. Who gets to pay for that higher cost? You, the consumer.

      Happier pigs make more expensive bacon.

      "Well, North Carolina let's me drive 80mph on the interstate but California sets the limit at 60mph. I can't drive in California because I refuse to comply."

      Should be - I choose to not drive in California because I refuse to comply. Simple. Choice.

    2. You're an economically illiterate moron. And you prove it again with each post.

      1. His comment didn’t talk about economics.

        1. Same applies you: just a general purpose ignorant troll.

          1. Oh, well. Time to mute you.

            1. Can he follow you around crying about being muted like you and sarc do ken?

              1. I get it now… he’s a teenaged girl!

        2. - He made more than one comment.

          - What was the subject of the article again?

          - I suppose that you could be making the point that he's so far off-base in his idiocy that his posts are not actually about economics anymore.

          1. So, you chose a comment where he didn’t talk about economics to reply to when insulting him about his lack of knowledge of economics. Perhaps consider you are not being a clear communicator.

            1. Ken? Like how the biggest gaslight leftists here all deny other comments they've made in the past and claim them non relevant.

              1. Stupid phone. Ken? Should just be I

      2. To be fair, a lot of his ignorance is with simple words and concepts. He's just a general purpose moron.

  18. It's getting more difficult for conservatives to run with a good fake scandal these days.

    Not only is the LAMESTREAM MEDIA not believing the Durham scandal - it is saying to shut it down after Durham walked back on it:

    It’s Time for John Durham to Shut Down His Sham Investigation
    His walk-back of an irresponsible statement that launched the Trumpy right into hyperspace could be a sign that he actually has some integrity.
    And now, John Durham is walking it back. The special prosecutor appointed by Trump Attorney General Bill Barr to investigate the “deep state” “conspiracy” “against” “Donald Trump” (yes, all of those phrases deserve ironic quote marks) released a court filing Thursday that included this sentence: “If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the Government’s Motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the Government’s inclusion of this information.”

    https://newrepublic.com/article/165437/john-durham-trump-special-counsel-sham-investigation

    A good fake scandal is really difficult to get the mainstream media interested in.

    WHY DON'T REASON COVER THE DURHAM FAKE SCANDAL WE GINNED UP?

    1. Kill yourself pedo

    2. Turn yourself in for your crimes against children.

    3. Well, that's one way to frame it. Is there another?
      The Misleading Claim That Durham’s Reference to Trump White House Records Was Misleading
      The special counsel is not the one who’s spinning here.

      A final point. Durham was completely clear that the vast majority of the EOP data was from the Obama era. And that’s not just because he saw a need to elucidate the obvious. It is because this fact helps Durham’s case. As Durham’s motion stressed, the complete data going back to 2014 — i.e., the data that Sussmann allegedly did not include in his presentation to the CIA — shows that the Trump traffic that Sussmann couched as suspicious was not suspicious at all.
      ...
      To summarize, Durham was not trying to spark a “spying on the Trump White House” controversy. There is abundant basis to believe a small amount of the EOP data at issue — relating to YotaPhone usage in the vicinity of the White House — is from the early days of the Trump administration. And far from hiding the fact that the vast majority of relevant EOP data was from the Obama years, Durham expressly emphasized this fact because it helps him: It tends to show that Sussmann and his collaborators were deceptively cherry-picking data to create the illusion of a corrupt Trump–Russia connection, when the broader context they withheld would have revealed their data to be unremarkable.

      1. Wow, so there was no spying (or at least the Obama White House was the main target) but the data was "cherry-picked" to support the notion that Trump colluded with Russia. The DNS hits from the YotaPhones were real but Sussmann was "misleading" - which is the only charge that is possible.

        Now it is obvious why longtime H&R commenter Mikey M has abandoned this phony scandal. There ain't nothing there.

        1. The evidence used to show Russian/Trump connections at the WH during the transition period (the period Durham is calling out) is 1% of all the pings from 2014 to 2016 (the portion Durham mentions to show that it was cherrypicked).

          Reading is fundamental Shrike.

          The connections Sussman and others fed to the FBI and CIA were common long before Trump around the white house area. It was a fabricated plot that you continued to believe until even december of last year. LOL.

          1. Your fellow Trump Cultist Mikey M has even given this one up. (You know, the BIGGEST SCANDAL IN HISTORY IS COMING! guy that calls himself a cock ring)

            Don't waste your time.

            1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2
              April.20.2021 at 10:47 pm
              “Ashli Babbitt attacked the USA much like the 9/11 hijackers did.”

              Kiddie porn addict lefty shit turd here seems to fantasize that ‘trespassing’ on public land = flying an airliner full of passengers into a skyscraper.
              There are few more obvious examples of turd’s dishonesty and imbecility than this.
              turd is a TDS addled asshole, a pathological liar, a tafficker in kiddie porn and an ignoramus.

            2. Are you able to reply to what was actually said in the brief and not what was said in the New Republic?

        2. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2
          April.20.2021 at 10:47 pm
          “Ashli Babbitt attacked the USA much like the 9/11 hijackers did.”

          Kiddie porn addict lefty shit turd here seems to fantasize that ‘trespassing’ on public land = flying an airliner full of passengers into a skyscraper.
          There are few more obvious examples of turd’s dishonesty and imbecility than this.
          turd is a TDS addled asshole, a pathological liar, a tafficker in kiddie porn and an ignoramus.

        3. Kill yourself pedo

          1. Which one?
            Damn near all the leftists who post here are.

    4. Did Hillary Clinton write that article for you, Shrike?

      1. Where's our morning links brah? You still running from the mounties? I

        1. Nah. The Mounties and local cops in my city were part of the protesters.

          Outside the Lower Mainland you can count the number of Western Canadian's who voted for Trudeau on one finger. Usually the middle.
          The Liberals are a regional party restricted to the eastern half of the country.

          Even the Ottawa police and OPP aren't going to be "reliable". That's why they flew UN troops in yesterday.

        2. It’s Presidents Day.

          1. Lol, a federal holiday. That makes it even worse. They like big govt on the holidays.

          2. Technically it's Washington's Birthday. The federal holiday name has never been changed. A lot of people just assumed it had. Basically it's Car Dealer's Day. They're the ones who've primarily publicized it as President's Day. A few states changed the name officially, abolishing their Lincoln's Birthday holidays as part of the deal.

            I'd forgotten it was a holiday until I noticed I'd gotten no mail and then put 2 and 2 together with the lack of HyR blog entries. Nice day for a walk here in northern NJ so I took one, first this year I think.

            1. I’m only aware because my kids are off school.

              Glad to hear you could get out for a walk. My son and I were just out walking out mutt.

              1. Nobody cares Dee.

    5. LOL!!! New Republic. Can you get a more biased source next time?

    6. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2
      April.20.2021 at 10:47 pm
      “Ashli Babbitt attacked the USA much like the 9/11 hijackers did.”

      Kiddie porn addict lefty shit turd here seems to fantasize that ‘trespassing’ on public land = flying an airliner full of passengers into a skyscraper.
      There are few more obvious examples of turd’s dishonesty and imbecility than this.
      turd is a TDS addled asshole, a pathological liar, a tafficker in kiddie porn and an ignoramus.

    7. Turn yourself in for child porn.

    8. In other words, based on the quote you provided here, Durham isn't walking anything back.

      1. Shrike’s not too bright, even for a dem shill.

  19. The Constitutional Question may be a valid one, but nothing will come of it. California already has a very long history of applying its rules to producers in other states. Automobiles for example. Every auto manufacturer has to build a special version of their automobiles just for California. Or make all their cars that way and raise prices for all other states.

    No one ever goes Galt Gulch. But wouldn't it be nice if just once a company said "Fuck you Newsom"? What if Ford completely pulled out of California? Yes, Tesla is trying to do something similar, which is one reason by Pork King Elon Musk is being called a conservative reactionary.

    1. Actually, firearms companies have been doing that lately, even going so far as refusing to sell for state government use.

      1. Re: firearms. this is usually because the hoops they have to jump through to get certified on the california gun list are pretty onerous and they offer some previous models that are basically the same. Every single model no matter how slightly different must go throug hthe same full process to be sold in california.

        I don't know the full numbers but I suspect the California gun market isn't as big as the population would suggest either. The California population is heavily urbanite lefty wine-moms and soy-boy mask wearing "men". They dont buy guns.

        1. > The California population is heavily urbanite lefty wine-moms and soy-boy mask wearing "men".

          Not true. Not true at all. That may apply to three or four different counties, but is utterly false outside of them. That those three or four counties have a population sufficient to rule the state doesn't mean the entire state is like that. Just it's politicians.

          Duck hunting is still big in this state, due to the delta. And still quite a lot of other game bird and deer hunting. Even wild boar.

          1. People would be surprised to learn there is duck hunting going on right next door to Google’s fancy new HQ building.

            1. Shoreline Park??

              1. Yes. Well, technically, out in the marshes beyond where Shoreline ends. There’s even a duck hunting club.

          2. yes the heavily populated areas absolutely do dominate the sparely populated areas politically.

            is this your first time learning about how politics works?

        2. There certainly seems to be much more gun sales in the suburban areas north of L.A. where the elites thought they were immune to the crime that infests the cities. So after one of their own was robbed and murdered, they began thinking otherwise.
          Gun sales in some of those wealthy areas have gone up considerably. So have firearm classes.

    2. This.
      California, and other states, have myriad regulations that affect products only when sold in their state.

      IF the rule only applied to california pork producers, or non-california pork producers, then they'd have a case.

    3. Except California is screeching at the continued outflux of enterprise that chips away their tax base YoY, even as they impose a 10-year exit fee for the privilege of doing business there.

      Musk is just the most flamboyant.

    4. When CA introduced the first automobile air pollution regulations over 50 years ago, there was a reason for CA to impose stricter regulations: The Los Angeles basin is geographically an air pollution trap. (I have lived in two other geographical air pollution traps, Denver, CO, and Traverse City, MI, but LA's pollution was much worse and affected many more people.) This probably wasn't the worst place in the USA for air pollution, but it was pretty bad, it affected a huge population, and AFAIK it was the only area heavily polluted mainly by automobile emissions rather than industrial emissions. I guess that's why the courts did not invoke the Dormant Commerce clause even though the regulations affected out-of-state manufacturers - CA was regulating car pollution because it had a special problem with car pollution, which could not be solved just by regulating California businesses.

      IIRC, CA has banned a food, pate de foi gras, because the legislature frowns on how it is made, and the courts allowed this. But they aren't telling out-of-state goose crammers to change how they grow it, only to not ship it to CA.

      Regulating pork farming is different; bacon does not affect Californians any differently than residents of other states, and the regulation does tell farmers how to raise pork rather than just banning it in CA. So the courts have a basis for treating this regulation differently.

      1. Traverse City is still nice but the summers are heavy traffic times, especially during the Cherry Festival. last summer was horrid. I came upon three separate accidents in one afternoon.
        They made a roundabout at the intersection of Four Mile and Hammond Road which caused traffic to back up from Three mile to Four mile on Munson Ave.
        I lived in T.C during the seventies when I attended the local college. I still like that town but downtown has become one huge overpriced gifty shop.
        Cherryland Mall is all but closed. I don't even bother going down town anymore.

  20. In related news, I came across this story, which may be the ultimate example of elitism--activist investors getting in on the woke, progressive, animal rights, activism to cover their asses politically.

    "Carl Icahn has launched a proxy fight for two board seats at McDonald’s Corp. MCD -0.13% , as the activist investor pushes the fast-food chain to require its suppliers to change their treatment of pigs.

    "Mr. Icahn has a very small McDonald’s stake and had been in talks with the company alongside the Humane Society of the United States for several weeks, The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month.

    "After the Journal reported Sunday that Mr. Icahn had nominated two directors, McDonald’s confirmed it in a statement and said the board would evaluate his nominees.

    "At issue is McDonald’s suppliers’ use of so-called gestation crates, which are small cages used to constrain pregnant pigs."

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/icahn-nominates-two-to-mcdonalds-board-sources-say-11645390277?

    "Activist investor" usually refers to something similar to what we used to call "corporate raiders", etc. An activist investor like Icahn targets a poorly managed company, and he engages in a proxy fight to do something that's probably better for the shareholders--after he takes a significant stake in the company. He might nominate his own board members and try to get enough shares or other shareholders to install them on the board--because he wants a poorly run business to fire the CEO and sell their non-core businesses (like the way AT&T is currently spinning off WarnerMedia to concentrate on its wireless business.)

    They're some of the most hated people in modern finance. They're the means by which creative destruction happens. They'll take over a bloated company, load it up with debt, fire all the excess employees, and do other extremely unpopular things that need to be done for an economy to grow. Political cover is a serious issue for them because they make unions, regulators, and others so mad, and Americans love throwing investment/Wall Street people in prison. Just ask Charles Keating, Michael Milken, Jeffrey Skilling, Sam Waksal, Elizabeth Holmes, and a thousand others.

    How do you protect yourself against that threat?

    The traditional way was to buy a left wing news platform. Warren Buffet bought ABC Cap Cities, Bill Gates built himself MSNBC, Bezos bought the Washington Post, Zuckerman bought The Atlantic and U.S. News and World Report, etc.,etc., etc.

    Icahn is using a different route. He's using his "activist investor" tactics to push leftist causes in the board room like animal rights. Why bother buying the news media when you can go straight to the source? If the animal rights people are behind him because he's fighting for animal rights by taking over the corporate governance board of McDonalds, the left is a lot less likely to go after him when's he important to one of their most politically important constituencies.

    1. I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to do this, but this is elitism pure and simple. This isn't McDonalds raising the price of pork because customers are demanding the ethical treatment of pigs. This is animal rights activists using a billionaire investor to inflict their will on customers because they're unwilling to pay more for bacon and sausage.

      From a libertarian and capitalist standpoint, it's hard to argue that he's working against the stockholders' interests if they're the ones who vote in his candidates for the board, but, on the other hand, if I'm a stockholder, I'm voting against Icahn's candidates because he's not looking out for the interests of the shareholders. He's looking out for the interests of animal rights activists and pregnant pigs.

      The libertarian argument against this is that the board members will be turning their back on their fiduciary duty to act in the shareholders' best interests, but there are tough libertarian arguments to make about this up and down the board. Carl Icahn and pigs is just the tip of the melting iceberg.

      Most of McDonalds stock is probably held by index funds. The small investors who own those shares don't vote in proxy battles. And some of the worst examples of elitism are coming from index fund managers. If you've got a trillion dollars in investment funds under management, and you tell companies you won't invest your index's funds in their companies unless they do more to fight global warming, the nation's banks (and everyone else) will cut back on financing for companies that are working with fossil fuels.

      It looks like capitalism, but it's woke central planning by other means. Again, I would argue that the index funds are failing their fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the shareholders in their funds. Otherwise, are employees supposed to insist that their employers change the company that manages their 401k? Freeing people up to get the same benefits as a 401k without their employer's help may be part of the libertarian solution. If the system were less regulated, Americans wouldn't be subject to the political wokeness of index fund managers.

      1. "BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, says that it will now make climate change central to its investment considerations . . . . BlackRock manages approximately $7 trillion on behalf of investors. Its shift could signify a watershed moment for corporate action on climate, particularly among U.S. firms. BlackRock says it will require additional reporting from the companies it invests in, including disclosure of climate-related risks and plans for operating under the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius."

        https://www.npr.org/2020/01/14/796252481/worlds-largest-asset-manager-puts-climate-at-the-center-of-its-investment-strate

        They're all jumping on the bandwagon. If you're in an index fund, your money is probably being used this way.

        1. Expect uber-capitalist Larry Fink of Blackrock to be given the Soros treatment in the coming years.

          FINK IS A COMMIE SATANIST NEW WORLD ORDER PEDO BILDERBERGER!

          With a name like 'Fink' wingnuts are going to go all in.

          Uber-capitalist 'Soros' is Jewey (extra points there) and has a foreign accent.

          Uber-capitalist Bill Gates is into dispensing vaccines all over the world -- so he is implanting chips into everyone.

          Wingnuts do hate our top capitalists. Real big-time billionaires and not chumps like Trump they look down on but don't talk about,

          And Fink is a Democrat - he will be demonized for sure.

          1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2
            April.20.2021 at 10:47 pm
            “Ashli Babbitt attacked the USA much like the 9/11 hijackers did.”

            Kiddie porn addict lefty shit turd here seems to fantasize that ‘trespassing’ on public land = flying an airliner full of passengers into a skyscraper.
            There are few more obvious examples of turd’s dishonesty and imbecility than this.
            turd is a TDS addled asshole, a pathological liar, a tafficker in kiddie porn and an ignoramus.

          2. Pretty brazen bringing up pedophilia after you were banned from this site for posting kiddie porn.

            1. You guys always leave out "Satanist" when you lie about me.

              I feel short-changed.

              1. I have no knowledge of your religious beliefs. It has no relevance to your crimes against children.

              2. Probably because they think you're too gross even for Satan.

              3. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2
                April.20.2021 at 10:47 pm
                “Ashli Babbitt attacked the USA much like the 9/11 hijackers did.”

                Kiddie porn addict lefty shit turd here seems to fantasize that ‘trespassing’ on public land = flying an airliner full of passengers into a skyscraper.
                There are few more obvious examples of turd’s dishonesty and imbecility than this.
                turd is a TDS addled asshole, a pathological liar, a tafficker in kiddie porn and an ignoramus.

              4. You didnt link to the church of Satan website. You linked to child porn.

          3. Soros will undoubtedly die soon enough, and Fink can't help but walk into the role.

            But let's not act like we shouldn't have some concern about the way BlackRock et al are leveraging their privileged position as managers of passive funds. This seems to be a hole in securities regulation that will require patching.

          4. If you’re calling him an Uber-capitalist, chances are he’s just a corporatist motherfucker.

      2. He's looking out for the interests of animal rights activists and pregnant pigs.

        I'm dubious as to the interests of creatures that were put into crates in the first place in order to prevent them from crushing their own offspring.

        1. Sorry, I should be more clear, *accidentally* or *ambivalently* crushing they're own offspring. It's not even like these are tigers sensing that there's too little prey to feed their offspring and eating them rather than starving. We're talking about the interests of animals that literally crush their offspring in their sleep.

    2. The easiest solution is kill all progressives

  21. https://twitter.com/justin_hart/status/1495736218419609601?t=wzYY8Ep3RAZFKn7EVLufUQ&s=19

    Breaking. CDC not publishing data because of “Concern about the misinterpretation of hospitalization data” towards vaccines. Oh really.
    [Link]

    1. "Can't let the little people know facts that might lead to the wrong conclusions."

    2. Scotland also said they would stop publishing data for vax vs unvaxxed since it didn't tell the narrative correctly.

    3. That's basically the definition of "misinformation" as it's being used currently.

      The facts under discussion are accurate but the conclusion is wrong. So it's "misinformation". This is the Joe Rogan issue in a nutshell.

    4. Disgusting, and part of my article today.

        1. You confused Kentucky and Kansas.

          1. My fucking editor sucks almost as bad as Reason's.

    5. Leave it to the experts.

  22. Reason no.1328 of why I call chemjeff a Nazi.

    Yesterday he was insisting that Trudeau's Enabling Act was fine because it was only temporary, and that people were freaking out over nothing.

    Trudeau Government Moves to Make Expanded Surveillance Powers over Financial Transactions ‘Permanent’

    1. Canada has become the poster boy of why we need a Constitution. Even though we don't follow ours, think how much worse it would be if se didn't have one.

      1. Canada has a Constitution and a Charter of Rights which was largely cribbed from the Americans.

        The problem is that Trudeau is brazenly violating it anyway. He's even violating the Emergencies Act he's invoked.

        At this point he's completely lawless, and the only reason I can think for why he doesn't care is that his puppeteers plan to make the situation permanent.

        1. https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1495784033850175490?t=v9qoVqOq5382QVgJ8rRQYg&s=19

          I'm reading The Fourth Industrial Revolution, by World Economic Forum Chairman, Klaus Schwab, and it starts off really encouragingly. He and his want to shepherd us through "nothing less than a transformation of humankind," in the first sentence of the book.

          For those aching for the punchline of The Fourth Industrial Revolution, it lies here: a technological fusion of the "physical, digital, and biological worlds," which is creepy transhumanism under their direction. Schwab repeats this theme over and over in his two subsequent books

          This is the pretext for the existence of the World Economic Forum: the changes coming are inevitable and so fast and so dangerous that we need stewardship of them in the WEF technocrats, who are the only ones who can understand them adequately. This is the power grab.

          Actually, that was the pretext for the power grab ("it's so complex and dangerous!"). This is the power grab ("we need global coordination, under our expert control, of these changes").

          Their solution is a fusion of the kissing cousins of Communism and fascism, of course, for our "collective future," we need "a comprehensive and globally shared view" that rejects "linear (non-disruptive) thinking." Enter "stakeholders."

          Read this however you want, but this is Schwab's stated objective: to take the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which is already naturally underway, and shape it according to his vision. That vision is elsewhere seen to be fascistic, Communist, transhumanist, and under WEF control.

          Here's how Schwab characterizes the Fourth Industrial Revolution: enhanced cognitive powers, ubiquitous internet and surveillance technology equipped with AI. That's what he wants to control under a global hivemind.

          I'll just put these two things next to one another (first two images), noting that TIME Magazine has been the Great Reset Magazine for a while now (third image).

          Again, this book is designed to warn about the disruptive potential of the technological changes brought about by the internet and to justify the WEF and its stakeholders as the shepherds through this time, toward their global vision (see Canada today for a preview of utopia).

          [Links]

          1. You know which "hivemind" is most destructive to humanity?

            The Christo-Fascist 'Jesus is coming back to pull the guts out of all the non-believers' Dominionist hivemind that wants to infect the world with Fundamentalist Kookery.

            (Islam is worse but in non-Western countries)

            1. We can worry about that when Jesus or Mohammed come back then.
              In the meantime Klaus Schwab and his billionaire Cargo Cult are here right now and destroying shit.

            2. Kill yourself pedo

            3. That was a shit attempt at redirection.

          2. Ted Kaczynski warned us.

          3. Is THAT what happened to Time? I’ve been getting news alert pop ups on my phone from them for a couple of years and just the headline wording is always appalling. Not even a pretense of nonpartisan objectivity. Not the Time magazine I remember from my youth!

        2. Canada has a Constitution and a Charter of Rights which was largely cribbed from the Americans.

          The problem is that Trudeau is brazenly violating it anyway. He's even violating the Emergencies Act he's invoked.

          This has already happened here in the USA over and over and over.

          Ask Korematsu

        3. I don't think Canada's Charter of Rights is as strong as America's Bill of Rights. As I understand it, the Charter list exemptions and what not, while the Bill of Rights has language like "....make no law abridging...." or "....shall not be infringed....".

          Considering how routinely Americans' rights are violated, Canada's protections seem to be a fig leaf at best.

      2. It's not that. Canada does have a constitution, with a charter of rights, but there's a clause that applies to the whole thing that says, "Unless we really, really need to abrogate this or that right and we proclaim that we're doing so." The idea is that it's supposed to be embarrassing for the government to admit they're using this exception.

        Effectively all jurisdictions have the same thing. They can all violate their fundamental charters, and it'll be pointed out that they're doing so. Basically it's, "Everybody knows this is illegal, but we gotta do it, so there. What are you gonna do about it?" It's just as with any criminal who knows there's nothing you can do to stop hir action, and doesn't pretend it's legal.

        1. The USA and its states are no exceptions. There can never be an exception, because the only laws that can't be broken are natural laws. And by natural laws, I mean things like gravity that "decree" that an object has a certain weight. You can overcome gravity with a greater force, but it's impossible to abrogate it, that we know of.

          1. Amd the current administration has openly claimed they will use the slowness of the courts to do unconstitutional things in the United States.

        2. Years ago my home town decided they needed a proper charter. So they wrote on. About ten or twelve pages it was fairly good. Reasonable. Almost libertarian. And then in the very last paragraph it said something to the effect of, "Unless we decide otherwise."

          The authors clearly thought it was a needed clause in case of unforeseen events. But they didn't look forward thirty years to the age of hyper-polarization where such a clause gives the extremists carte blanche to do anything they want, so long as they can get a majority on the council. We are already seeing this in school districts across the nation, regardless of the color of the county.

      3. Once you guys realize that in general brandy has no idea what he is talking about, their posts make more sense.

        1. Brandyshit is still attempting to deflect attention from his raging case of TDS and his pathetic 'both sides' whining.
          If he's older than 15, he doesn't act like it.

    2. While I appreciate the boost to my crypto holdings... :-/

    3. I get the impression that Jeffy can't stand up for himself, except anonymously, and his burning shame fuels his rage at anyone who refuses to queue up and take whatever they are told like he has had to do his entire life. I suspect he was bullied a lot as a kid, because most of his propaganda is fixated on the state imposing 'politeness' on citizens.

      He and sarc and White Mike don't want to hang out where people all agree with them. They don't stand out and get ignored as they do in every other aspect of their lives. They are driven to seek a place where they are reviled by the majority because then when they support each other, it feels like the camaraderie they can't get anywhere else.

      This is most apparent when they call their critics 'mean girls'. As if there is any reason people can't come to the conclusion that they are full of shit completely independently.

      1. At least they don’t worship a discredited con artist. It’s hilarious your racist ass bitches about CRT. Yet you’re friends with a Mormon public school teacher. Hell even if she never said a word to her students about her faith she’s still indoctrinating them that belonging to a bigoted, racist church is OK just by being there. You Mormons are fucking despicable!

        Stupid, racist, homophobic, transphobic, piece of shit! Why are you on a libertarian website? You’re a big govt social conservative!

          1. What would you like me to cite?

            1. Any of the dumbass claims you made.

              1. Chuck worships Joseph Smith. The Book of Abraham in the Pearl of great price is a proven hoax.

                Chuck’s dead pig buddy is married to a public school teacher.

                The Mormon church teaches being gay or trans is wrong. It teaches that Native Americans aren’t white because of sin.

                This info is easily available. It’s not my problem you mormon lovers refuse to find it.

        1. How did I not have this retarded, shit-gargling, fuck nugget muted already?

        2. Oh look. After getting banned for doxxing a dead cop just to be an asshole to Chuck, he's activated a new sock.

      2. I welcome disagreement and civil arguments.

        What I mute is those who disagree with me as a person, not what I say.

        When responses to what I say contain the word "you" in every sentence, the argument is against me, not what I said.

        Why should I bother to respond?

        Now if someone disagrees with what I say without waging personal attacks like a child, then I welcome it. I've got no problem arguing ideas.

        Here is an example of an argument from someone who does not argue ideas, but instead wages personal attacks like a child:

        "He and sarc and White Mike don't want to hang out where people all agree with them. They don't stand out and get ignored as they do in every other aspect of their lives. They are driven to seek a place where they are reviled by the majority because then when they support each other, it feels like the camaraderie they can't get anywhere else."

        1. Cite? I mean your entire post is hypocritical.

          I don't see any actual arguments from you in this entire thread.

        2. Your example is not ad hominem, it is what an actual observation looks like. I would offer your false flight to the Glibs and your comments about jeffy and White Mike being 'true libertarians' as evidence that it has some merit. Jeffy's continual insistence that it is proper that politeness be enforced by police is also evidence. White Mike is the dumbest of the lot and his dishonesty has been categorically proven.

          If you want to know what ad hominem actually looks like simply reference KAR above.

          1. If that's an observation then you're not very observant.

            " I would offer your false flight to the Glibs and your comments about jeffy and White Mike being 'true libertarians' as evidence that it has some merit."

            The Glibs do all their comments in one rush and then that's it. And I never figured out when. Besides that, Reason introduced the mute function at the same time so I don't have to read the lies and attacks from the trolls anymore.
            As far as me saying Mike and jeff are "true libertarians" I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. I did say they're a heck of a lot more libertarian than the conservatives on this board.

            Now if I want to see more ad hominems, I'll unmute JesseAZ.

            I agree jeff has taken a turn to the left. Not sure what's up with that.

            1. LOL!

              My observation is spot on. You call others trolls ^right there^ when at least once a week you post some exclamation mark filled rant in the voice of an imaginary conservative. Then you double down on it when jeffy or White Mike agree. 'Posting deliberately inflammatory comments that you don't agree with in order to derail conversations' is the definition of internet trolling. It is not sarcasm. It is not absurdity. It is trolling.

              And you absolutely posted that chemjeff and White Knight were the only libertarians in the comments. You either used the modifier 'true' or 'real', the difference between those two being negligible. I and dozens of others saw it and have previously referenced it.

              This is classic gaslighting. It borders on evil to deny things that people can see with their own are true. It is an indication of a seriously abusive personality. You need professional help.

              1. When I tell sarc to get therapy it’s not an attack. It’s legitimate advice. He’s a broken man.

              2. Haven't you figured out that when I use lots of exclamation points that I'm using hyperbole?

                1. Weird. Thought you only discussed ideas.

          2. Jeffy's continual insistence that it is proper that politeness be enforced by police

            I never said that. When will you actually learn to read what I actually say? At this point you are no better than Jesse who deliberately stuffs words into people's mouths in order to create a strawman to burn down.

            1. I never said that you said it. And I wouldn't write it if I didn't read what you actually say. It certainly took me a while to identify the specific nature of the authoritarian undercurrent within your limitless passive-aggression, but I think I nailed it. It explains so much about the positions you take and the people you defend.

              It is what allowed you to relate a healthy person walking outside without a mask to driving around town with a bear in the trunk of their car.

              1. Haha, the bear moment was one of the greatest fails in Reason comments history.

                1. I hope someone has a link because I'm upset to have missed that.

              2. Nice comment about jeff as a person while ignoring his words.

                He's right. You're no better than JesseAZ.

                1. MUTE HIS ASS!

                2. You can't forget me can you buddy. You know everything I've said about you is right and are pissed.

                3. He directly addressed what Jeff said! Are we even reading the same comment thread?

              3. I see, so I never said that I want the police to enforce politeness, but your deep powers of psychoanalysis-over-the-Internet have led you to the completely factual conclusion that I really mean that I want the police to enforce politeness. Is that it?

                That's called strawmanning, look it up.

                1. But what if he really can read minds. Wouldn't that be cool?

                  1. Remember a few hours ago when you acknowledged jeffy's left turn?

                    Good times, Mr. Sarcasmic. Good times.

                2. Deny it, asshole. You certainly skirt around it, but you never deny it.

                  1. Why don't you deny that you give blowjobs in back alleys in exchange for crank?
                    Why don't you deny that you charge money for people to watch you fuck monkeys on the Internet?
                    Why don't you deny that you strangle puppies and devour whole their still-beating hearts?

                    This is the kind of shit that Jesse pulls. He makes up outrageous lies about the people he hates, and tries to force them to spend all their time denying these lies. But denying them does no good, he just moves on to the next outrageous lie. The whole point is trolling and humiliation, to make people act like puppets dancing to Jesse's tune, where he calls the shots and forces everyone else to dance, responding to his bullshit. And I am no longer going to give him the satisfaction of being puppetmaster. I'm not going to dignify his humiliation tactics and I'm not going to dignify yours either. So welcome to Jesse-land.

                    1. Hey another dimwit obsessed with using my name while claiming I'm muted.

                      Weird. Two perennial lying dumbasses who get exposed constantly and angry that I decided to keep reminding them of their past comments when they lie about it. With links!

                      Lol.

                    2. You literally said it was a violation of the NAP for a healthy person to go out in public during a pandemic without following community guidelines!

                      Here in the real world, the police are the ones called to enforce your “politeness” standards on people who don’t want to follow unscientific edicts from on high.

      3. One thing I have noticed is that when I have civil conversations about ideas with civilized people who don't wage personal attacks, certain people never contribute. People like you. Why? My guess is because you simply can't argue ideas. Otherwise you wouldn't attack people personally and would instead respond to what they say.

        Funny thing is, conservatives used to be above that. The belief that ad hominems trump ideas was always a hallmark of the left.

        Not anymore.

        1. You talk only to Jeff, Brandy, and Mike at this point. Because you all act in the same manner as victims.

          I mean, you responded twice attacking Chuck while crying about people who use "you" all the time.

          You aren't civil, you've admitted you troll here.

        2. Either you refuse to address or you can't discern that I am engaging with your arguments. I take issue with your tactics. You constantly engage in gaslighting and fallacious reasoning. I have been crystal clear on that point.

          Others do the same and you continue to deflect the criticism with 'ad hominem' and 'mean girls' instead of answering it. Exactly what you are doing here.

          1. What argument are you addressing? All I see is "sarc, jeff and Mike are poopy heads!"

            1. Why are you here in this thread denying comments I witnessed? Arguing without presenting an argument so you can say I am attacking you.

              1. What comments? Be specific.

                1. You are broken. I have mentioned a specific comment multiple times.

                  Deny deny deny deny deny deny deny, is your only reply. In my head that comes along with a catchy tune.

                  1. He actually started crying with jeff a few weeks back about us saving his past comments. Now he demands them again.

                    Loser can't make up his mind.

            2. He clearly and specifically described his complaints and you respond by saying he called you guys a poopy head.

          2. Others do the same and you continue to deflect the criticism with 'ad hominem' and 'mean girls' instead of answering it.

            As I said before, when responses to my posts contain "you" in every sentence, I'm not going to engage. That's rolling in the mud with a pig. I get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

            1. certain people never contribute. People like you.

              Just above you deny that I come here most weekdays and contribute. More gaslighting.

              I only engage you as a side project. It is a good practice for identifying fallacies in arguments I actually care about.

              1. Do you even know what gaslighting means?

                Instead of coming in here and talking shit about me as a person, why don't you reply when I'm gaslighting or engaging in fallacies.

                Try it without a personal attack. You know, instead of "Hey fuck you you mentally ill piece of shit..." try something civilized like "Hey sarc, when you said xyz that's gaslighting because..." or "..that's a fallacy and here's why."

                1. why don't you reply when I'm gaslighting or engaging in fallacies.

                  I just did.

                  https://reason.com/2022/02/21/californias-unconstitutional-bacon-ban/?comments=true#comment-9367476

                  I pointed out incidents of trolling and mentioned a specific incident of gaslighting, and yet here you are pretending I didn't.

                  You are denying things I could link to that you have written while insisting that my recollections of what you wrote are imaginary. That is the very essence of 'gaslighting'.

                  Seriously, get some counseling.

                  1. No no, you just called them all poopy heads! And you also said:

                    "Hey fuck you you mentally ill piece of shit..."

                    I know this is what you said, because sarc even used quotation marks. He wouldn’t ever use quotation marks to lie about what you said!

                  2. No you did not. You dredged up some "it is known" bullshit to cover your ass.

              2. Just above you deny that I come here most weekdays and contribute. More gaslighting.

                Here, let's look at the entire thing.

                "One thing I have noticed is that when I have civil conversations about ideas with civilized people who don't wage personal attacks, certain people never contribute. People like you."

                You are taking that out of context to accuse me of saying you never contribute to any conversation ever, when I was specifically referring to conversation in which I am involved.

                Then you accuse me of gaslighting?

                Seriously?

                1. certain people never contribute. People like you.

                  This is actually kind of funny. Gaslighting, for those who just throw words around without knowing what they mean, means getting someone to doubt things they know to be true.

                  So for example what I know is that I was talking about conversations where I am involved. Chuck selects a piece of what I said to try to convince me I was talking conversations in which he is involved. You know, to try to get me (or less attentive readers) to doubt what I said.

                  Then I am accused of gaslighting.

                  Wow.

                  Just....

                  Wow.

                  1. You. Are. Full. Of. Shit.

                    Am I supposed to concede to your insinuation that I never contribute to 'civil' conversations?

                    You are spiraling now. The same thing happened when you tried to accuse me of threatening your life.

                    1. You're mind reading now.

                  2. Notice sarc hasn't made one substantive post all day. Claimimg others only talk about him but all he has done is do the exact same behavior he commons about. This is common projection of drunks.

          3. I will happily respond to "Hey sarc, you're wrong and this is why."

            I will not respond to "Hey sarc, you're an alcoholic child molester who voted for Biden."

            1. "Hey sarc, you're an alcoholic child molester who voted for Biden."

              I have now seen you bring that up more than anyone else. Usually because you are losing an argument and want to deflect. Like right now.

              1. He lied about me saying shit about him molesting his daughter and I’ve never said anything about it. The only time I commented about his daughter was when he brought up, out of nowhere, her keying someone’s car and I mocked him for that.

              2. I'm losing an argument? What argument? All I see is you saying things about me as a person based upon comments that you're not referencing.

            2. Sarcasmic's actually a homeless alcoholic molester who voted for Biden.

              sarcasmic
              January.17.2022 at 10:11 am
              I was homeless for a half a year.

              https://reason.com/2022/01/17/you-cant-solve-homelessness-by-making-it-a-crime/?comments=true#comment-9308808

            3. I did that plenty and you decided to mute me after I made a joke about not making the cut to be on your list.

      4. Hey, Chucky, I've noticed something about you. I've noticed that you must be a wife-beating meth addict who is a great disappointment to your parents. They had such high hopes for you, and yet you chose instead to sell your ass on the street for a bag of crank. And if your wife hadn't gotten a restraining order against you, who knows what might have happened. These statements must be true based on my observations that i have made about you over the years at the Reason comment board. No, I am not a trained psychiatrist, but I am absolutely qualified to make these types of character judgments about you based on my interactions with you here. So, now let's have an "argument" about why you are such a wife-beating methhead, and why you continue to pollute these comment boards with your drug-fueled ramblings. Now, don't you dare get angry at my completely factual characterization of you, that just shows you are deflecting and can't argue against the clearly perfect logical argument I have formulated. Which means it must be true. So, Chucky, why are you such an asshole?

        1. So, Chucky, why are you such an asshole?

          It comes from being right. One of the many things I have learned over my lifetime is that enlightening someone with a truth they don't want revealed always gets you called an asshole.

          And the fact that you think some not particularly creative shit that you just made up is going to phase a person who actually has some self-esteem speaks to your own lack of it. Which only reinforces my assertion that you conflate assertiveness with aggressiveness.

          1. What a bitter clown Jeff is. He couldn't even address your criticism so he had to pretend it was just ad hominem.

          2. Please, Chuck. Enlighten us with some of this truth. If what you call truth is "here's some unwanted psychoanalysis to explain why you disagree with me, because mental illness is the only explanation" you are being an asshole.
            So please, what are some examples of enlightening. Without being an asshole.

            1. Being an asshole is in the eye of the beholder. I can't not be one when what you choose to deny is up to you.

              1. So you got nuthin.

          3. I see. So your slander masquerading as psychoanalysis is correct, but my slander masquerading as psychoanalysis is beyond the pale.

            1. Mine is based on 3-4 years of conversations with you. Yours is a racist stereotype.

              I win!

              1. Yours is based on a fictional stereotype that exists only in your head, that you are too arrogant to admit is not actually the same as reality.

                1. Dozens of people tell collectivistjeff the same things they've noticed, but obviously it can't collectivistjeff who's responsible for these consistent impressions

            2. First, it’s libel. Jesus Christ.

              Second, you didn’t psychoanalyst him, you accused him of a bunch of heinous crimes and then asked him why he’s such an asshole.

        2. Sarc probably got so wet from Jeff defending him.

    4. And this is why I opposed his proposal for more parliamentary governance here.

      The executive and the legislative branches are the same; so no surprise, they converge toward growing the power of the state.

  23. So we get a replay of Binion's noxious 'both sides worship the POTUS' and something from the upcoming print issue while the staff takes a day off for, uh, 'the presidents'?
    Pretty sure that's a holiday for those who don't actually have a job.

    1. Federally it's still called Washington's Birthday. Or "Washington's Birthday Uniform Holiday".

      1. It’s Presidents Day here in California. I’m at work (swing shift) but get holiday pay. Interestingly our Santa Clara County public transit is running on normal schedule, not holiday (glad I checked)

  24. "Race Excluded as WH Rolls Out Climate Justice Screening Tool"
    [...]
    "“This was a political decision,” said Sacoby Wilson, associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Health. “This was not a scientific decision or a data-driven decision.”..."
    https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-02-18/race-excluded-as-wh-rolls-out-climate-justice-screening-tool

    Mr/Ms Wilson is seemingly too stupid to understand that the *concept* of "climate justice" is a political issue to begin with.

    1. Sounds like everyone involved in this is a tool!

  25. "Breed crafting plan to push more downtown office workers to return in March"
    [...]
    "Mayor London Breed is working with business leaders to push San Francisco employers to start bringing more workers back to downtown offices at some point in March.
    Breed revealed the plans during a Friday morning appearance with Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf at the Hyatt Regency. Sitting before hundreds of business leaders and others at an economic forecast event hosted by the San Francisco Business Times, Breed said she was developing a strategy with the Chamber of Commerce and other groups to help turn around the city’s once-bustling commercial core. San Francisco’s downtown has been hit hard as most employees have stayed home during the pandemic...'
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sf-mayor-london-breed-is-crafting-a-plan-to-push-more-downtown-office-workers-to-return-in-march/ar-AAU2URF

    Perhaps one of those business leaders might mention to the tin-pot-dictator wannabe that planned economies don't work, and that while it's easy to put businesses out of business, bringing them back takes more than the wishes of some econ-ignoramus like Breed.

    1. I was wondering why more businesses weren't just shutting down their offices and saving money more permanently now that we've worked out the kinks over two years. This article explains why. City counsels are petty, if a business isn't completely pulling up stakes they better be prepared for harsh consequences for not going back to the office.

      1. I read the linked article and didn't see any such threat, other than your general rule that city councils are petty. It does seem that businesses would by now have gotten cost savings out of having fewer man-hours on site, and fewer man-hours period, and could downsize while maintaining profits.

        1. That and sparing us the nightmare Bay Area commuter traffic (oh yeah—and saving Mother Earth by cutting down on greenhouse something or other, always forget that one)

    2. As long as homeless drug addicts and street thugs can steal $950 worth of goods, I don't see why any one would want to relocate any business anywhere in San Fran.
      Just ask the CEO of Walgreens.
      Neither Breed nor her government should be taken seriously. They created the mess and it won't be cleaned up over night nor until the people decide to pull their collective heads out of their asses and vote with some intelligence. Elect people who will actually be beneficial to the city and the people living there.
      Stop handing out needles, move all the homeless out ,add more police and prosecute theft, open drug dealing and above all stop bullshitting everyone.

      1. All large scale retailers should go Costco if they want to stay in business.

        You don't get in without a paid membership card.

        Progressives would claim discrimination - but fuck them since they do anyway.

        1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2
          April.20.2021 at 10:47 pm
          “Ashli Babbitt attacked the USA much like the 9/11 hijackers did.”

          Kiddie porn addict lefty shit turd here seems to fantasize that ‘trespassing’ on public land = flying an airliner full of passengers into a skyscraper.
          There are few more obvious examples of turd’s dishonesty and imbecility than this.
          turd is a TDS addled asshole, a pathological liar, a tafficker in kiddie porn and an ignoramus.

        2. Kill yourself pedo

      2. She isn't even capable of producing the train-wreck we have; that grease-ball Newsom had to give her some real assistance.

  26. The worst part of this sort of California regulation is that you can't even really avoid it by not living in California; As noted, California consumes enough pork that pork producers will likely comply, and everybody gets stuck paying California prices for pork.

    1. That's it in a nutshell. After all when Cal decided to regulate emissions from vehicles, the car companies had to comply or lose business and sales. Then the rest of the states joined in following Cal's lead.
      It's one of the reasons why your new car costs so much.

    2. "everybody gets stuck paying California prices for pork."

      Everyone except Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Vegans, Sikhs, Vegetarians and anyone else who chooses not to buy or consume pork.

      1. The most accurate way to say that is just “vegetarians and vegans”.

        1. The most accurate way to say that is "incorrect".

          If pork prices in CA rise and cause prices in NV to rise, the argument that they won't cause the price of the turkey sandwich at the other end of the counter from the ham sandwich or the prices at the salad bar place next to the butcher's shop won't go up is a bit spurious.

          I'd bet $100 that I can find cheaper hummus in a place that serves pork than a place that doesn't.

          1. "the argument that they won't cause the price of the turkey sandwich"

            That's the choice of the turkey sandwich seller. S/he sets the price. The decision whether or not you want to pay that price is entirely yours. Nobody is forcing you.

            "I'd bet $100 that I can find cheaper hummus "

            It's really not hard to make hummus. Chick peas, lemon, garlic, olive oil, cumin and salt. It's cheaper still than the hummus available at your favorite pork shop.

            1. That's the choice of the turkey sandwich seller. S/he sets the price. The decision whether or not you want to pay that price is entirely yours. Nobody is forcing you.

              Sure. The same way it's the choice of the pork producer in Iowa to set his prices. The laws in CA shouldn't affect his bottom line one way or the other. Unless, the price of pork in CA marginally influences the price of pork in IA the way the price of a ham sandwich marginally influences the price of a turkey sandwich...

              It's really not hard to make hummus. Chick peas, lemon, garlic, olive oil, cumin and salt. It's cheaper still than the hummus available at your favorite pork shop.

              And cheaper still than the hummus at your favorite Kosher, halal, vegan, or organic shop. It's really not that hard to be stupid, but some people work really hard at being stupid for free.

              1. There's nothing stupid about wanting the cheapest hummus. That would be the home made variety. Anywhere else will definitely be more expensive.

                "The laws in CA shouldn't affect his bottom line one way or the other."

                They will and they do. California is the nation's largest state by population, and by extension, the largest market. The producers will charge what the market will bear, same like it ever was. If you don't want to pay their prices, don't. Nobody is forcing you. I'm told you can thrive on a pork-free diet. Millions do.

                1. OTOH, there is a correlation between not eating pork and mental illness manifesting either as homicidal (and sometimes suicidal) mania or a suicidal avoidance of self-defense.

                  1. If paying a little extra for your pork will prevent you from becoming a homicidal maniac, I say it's money well spent.

        2. Vegetarians and vegans don't eat pork. Presumably they don't buy it, either. Same goes with Jews, Muslims, and the rest of them. Nobody is forcing you to eat pork. Nobody is forcing you to buy it. The choice is all yours.

          1. Same goes with Jews, Muslims, and the rest of them

            So absolutely 100% compliance from all of “them”?

            1. "So absolutely 100% compliance from all of “them”?"

              Yes. When it comes to buying pork. 92% when it comes to eating. Some 8% of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Vegans, Sikhs, Vegetarians, Jains etc can't resist those free samples of pork delicacies on offer at high class food retailers.

              1. Hindus have no taboo against pork - either they don't eat meat at all (but may eat dairy products and fish), or they eat any meat but beef to whatever extent their finances allow. And some manage to rationalize eating beef as long as it wasn't from the wrong cow.

                1. "Hindus have no taboo against pork - either they don't eat meat at all"

                  Pork is meat.

            2. Compliance matters not per my point. If CA *will* influencing market prices because of their 13% share of the pork market, the 97% of American households that eat pork are going to influence the other 3% that don't. Even if only by accident.

              1. "the 97% of American households that eat pork are going to influence the other 3% that don't"

                I doubt this influence extends to influencing Jews to give up kosher and start eating pork, especially if pork prices rise as you predict. They may be inclined to try the free samples offered at the high class food retailers that Jews are known to patronize, so there's that.

      2. Not all Sikhs are vegetarian.

        1. Not all people who eschew pork are vegetarian.

    3. The question is whether it costs more to comply with the regs or to cut CA off.

      I'd pay 1/8th more to make up for CA not being part of the market any more. It'd piss me off a lot to pay *more* than 1/8th more just to make CA assholes happy.

      But I've *always* thought the answer was to call California's bluff.

      If everyone in whatever year had just stopped selling any new cars in CA at all, period, I bet CA would have repealed CARB real fucking fast.

      Same thing for firearms and no sales to CA PDs.

      So, just stop selling any outside pork to CA at all, until they fix it.

      1. People risk jail time buying and selling weed in California.

        "If everyone in whatever year had just stopped selling any new cars in CA at all, period, I bet CA would have repealed CARB real fucking fast."

        Everyone didn't stop selling cars and CARB wasn't repealed. So much for your pork plan. If people want pork and are willing to pay for it, someone somewhere will sell it. Just like weed.

      2. If everyone in whatever year had just stopped selling any new cars in CA at all, period, I bet CA would have repealed CARB real fucking fast.

        Remember, Galt's Gulch was 'Phase I' of Galt's 'plan', the respite for the early adopters. It wasn't until the end of the book, after people are literally prosecuted for innovating and just slightly before government-run shit was exploding that the broader audience learns where everybody went.

        Every producer/manufacturer who doesn't pull an Ellis Wyatt is one less speed bump on CA's path to the precipice. The point at which every car manufacturer, housing developer, pork producer, gas appliance maker, etc., etc., etc. says 'Fuck it.' all at approximately the same time. At which point, I suppose, China will put all the prop 65 warnings you want on your lead-glazed dishes.

        1. "Remember, Galt's Gulch "

          That's fiction. In reality people continued buying and selling cars in California and CARB was never repealed.

  27. https://twitter.com/charlesbrew/status/1495560895476510723?t=_5DTalNq91I7vYKli-CSRA&s=19

    The CDC says the average adult gets a cold 2 to 3 times per year. If we tested everyone for colds, and counted every death within 30 days of a positive cold test as a "cold death", then we'd have about 600,000 cold deaths per year.
    [Link]

    1. The replies from the triggered covidiots are comedy.

    1. Arguing against getting involved in a war is now treason.

      The US Cultural Revolution is well under way

      1. "Cultural Revolution" is a little strong. It's more like the neocons returning to the Democratic Party have dusted off "If you're not with Bush, you're with Saddam and Osama" and applied it to Biden and Putin. And progressives seem to agree.

        #LibertariansForEmbracingNeocons

    2. Isn't Ukraine not technically our ally? Isn't the prevention of that status one of Putin's main aims here?

      1. It’s the financial ally of SleepyJoe and family.

    3. VISUALIZE WHIRLED PEAS (or something) is now an alt right dog whistle! Scrape that old bumper sticker off your Beetle THIS…VERY….INSTANCE!!!!

  28. So, protestors come to a city, block streets, harass residents, and otherwise make it very difficult, if not impossible, for residents and businesses in the affected area to go about their daily lives. When is it "tyranny" to remove the protestors by force, and when is it not? It shouldn't matter if it's BLM protestors in Portland or Seattle, or Freedom Convoy protestors in Ottawa, right?

    What is the principled take here?

    1. "are buildings on fire?"

      1. So what is the normative, general principle at work here?

        The police may remove protestors by force, only if the protestors set buildings on fire? Otherwise, even if they are blocking traffic and harassing the residents, it would be "tyranny" to remove the protestors by force? Is that it?

        1. Geez, you are really dumb.

          Go watch more daily show videos.

        2. Here Jeff is attempting Reductio ad absurdum.
          Now that his sweeping generalization has been rejected he tries the opposite tactic.

          Notice how he skips right over the fact that protesters executing their constitutionally protected right to picket, shouldn't be removed at all if they are peaceful and orderly.

        3. "Harassment" is too loose to be useful, especially with the way the word's use has evolved over the past decade or so (read: disagreement is violence and other nonsense). At a certain level harassment is the whole point of a protest.

          The blocking of traffic is a problem: those are the city's streets. At the same time, it's improper for the state to besiege the area and then use the fallout from that action as pretext for ejecting the assembly, as is arguably happening here.

          Other than that, Dillinger's right. The area around Zuccotti Park was pretty much inaccessible for two months in 2011, and if they stayed there longer it wouldn't have bothered me a lick. Well, aside from the smell, which was awful.

          1. The blocking of traffic is a problem: those are the city's streets.

            I agree. Would it be "tyranny" to use force to clear the streets?

          2. "Harassment" is too loose to be useful

            There *is* legitimate harassment. Such as the constant horn honking of all of those truck horns continually in the middle of the city. A judge granted an injunction to stop the protestors from honking their horns. Was that injunction "tyranny"?

            1. Honking is bad. Looting, arson and murder are totally cool though.

            2. The tyranny is the assumption of wartime rule-by-decree and attendant suppression of those with unapproved politics, including of those that have provided token financial support. This is a group of people noisily and sometimes sloppily airing a grievance and Trudeau's government is treating them like Al-Qaeda in the middle of a bombing spree.

              If the City of Ottawa had simply cleared the streets and told the Convoy to sue them over it then that would be much less tyrannical than what is actually occurring; they couldn't, because the people they rely upon to do such things mostly support the aims of the protesters. The government could have offered some manner of compromise, but apparently Trudeau's citizens' civil liberties are a small price to pay in order to save face.

            3. The truckers are protesting outside Canada's Parliament buildings.

              The neighborhood around Parliament is mostly government buildings and cafes, as well as expensive apartments for the politicians, political aides, lobbyists and bureaucrats who work in the House.
              Remember when you read that people were complaining about the noise, this is who is complaining. This is who Jeff is pretending are poor, ordinary folk bothered by noise.

              1. The progressives denounced anyone who advocated bringing in the National Guard to put down arsonists and looters as racists.

                Progressives defending arresting peaceful protesters for disrupting traffic is laughable. It just goes to show that progressives are some of America's most horrible people.

                1. Progressives defending arresting peaceful protesters for disrupting traffic is laughable.

                  You're right, of course. The proper solution to protestors disrupting traffic is to run them over. Just ask Instapundit Glenn Reynolds.

                  https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/09/22/instapundit-glenn-reynolds-defends-run-them-down-tweet-during-charlotte-unrest/

                  1. Does the false equivalence ever end with you? There is a difference between protesters blocking a street and protesters surrounding a vehicle and banging on it specifically to scare the shit out the occupants.

                    Reason's buddy Garrett Foster got ventilated for doing so while pointing his AK at such a driver here in Austin. Daniel Perry is now being prosecuted for murder. Meanwhile, Austin 'racial justice' protesters who refused orders to disperse are being awarded $10 million. They were blocking I-35 which is the main transportation corridor for the 10 million people in South and Central Texas.

                    1. There is a difference between protesters blocking a street and protesters surrounding a vehicle and banging on it specifically to scare the shit out the occupants.

                      He knows and doesn't care. When I call him a Nazi I'm being sincere. It's not hyperbole.

                    2. They were blocking I-35 which is the main transportation corridor for the 10 million people in South and Central Texas.

                      And as we have all learned from the past week, removing those protestors on I-35 by force is a clear-cut case of tyranny and fascism, right?

                    3. Keep ignoring all the other actions the Canadian government is doing Lying Jeffy.

                    4. "as we have all learned from the past week, removing those protestors on I-35 by force is a clear-cut case of tyranny and fascism, right?"

                      Did they freeze their bank accounts, cancel their credit cards, go after anyone who helped them and harass their families, Jeff?

                      The fact that you're always downplaying and handwaving real fascism is part of the reason why I know you're a Nazi.

            4. Notice here how Jeff ignores them going after banks of those protesting. How he ignores them going after GiveSendGo funds. He ignores Canada sending legal documents to bitcoin wallets to identify owners. How their police said they were recording people to go after them later even if they cleared out peacefully.

              Notice what Jeff ignores and what he points out... Yet last year spent day after day crying about unnamed officers fighting against rioters burning down buildings. The RMCP also does not have their names on their uniforms and Jeff has no problem with it.

              1. He ignores the fact that Trudeau declared martial law.
                Jeff ignored the fact that the Emergencies Act is intended for times of war. Not people peacefully and legally protesting.

    2. Ignore the seizing of assets and everything else that doesn’t fit your narrative Lying Jeffy.

    3. "PROTESTING OUTSIDE THE PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS IN THEIR NATIONS CAPITAL???!! HOW DARE THEY!!!!!" - t. chemjeff

      Look at this phony and sudden Law&Order weasel pretend the protesters are just picking on random neighborhoods.

      1. For those that don't know, the truckers are protesting outside Canada's Parliament buildings.

        In the neighborhood are mostly government buildings and cafes, as well as expensive apartments full of politicians, political aides, lobbyists and bureaucrats.
        Remember when you read that people were complaining about the noise, this is who is complaining. This is who Jeff is pretending are poor, ordinary folk.

        Jeff knows this, but he's a fifty-center paid to shill and lie.

      2. THEY CROSSED STATE LINES!

        1. Wrong, Canada doesn't have states, they have provinces 😉

      3. He will accuse us all of slander when we bring this up again tomorrow and his defense of trampling indigenous women in mobility scooters.

        1. I bet he busted a nut to that.

          1. I'll take that bet!

            Everyone knows he doesn't have nuts to bust.

      4. Well to be fair, the truckers ARE prowling around residential neighborhoods in the middle of the night and shining flashlights into peoples bedrooms in order to intimidate…..Oh wait… (CHANNELING EMILY LATELA) …Never mind!

    4. When they start having daily riots, setting buildings on fire and murdering people.

    5. So, protestors come to a city, block streets, harass residents, and otherwise make it very difficult, if not impossible, for residents and businesses in the affected area to go about their daily lives

      This never happened Jeff. They impeded most traffic, not all traffic. And it was just a few city blocks. People were free to still go to their jobs. There was no violence. There was food trucks and bouncy castles. The literal opposite of everything you defending during the BLM riots.

    6. The principled take is that the government should be consistent despite the politics of the protest. The law should not be arbitrary. When it is, there is tyranny.

      You don't seem to give a fuck about principle.

      1. I agree, the law should not be arbitrary, the standard should be uniform.

        By any measure, clearing the streets from protestors who have been blocking the streets for weeks and weeks, is not applying an arbitrary standard. It's not tyranny.

        1. It is if they didn't clear the streets during previous demonstrations.

        2. Jeff, you have openly stated people can be shot for trespassing by cops. So please, let's be consistent here. Are you advocating they all be shot?

        3. Also you are ignoring how they've gone after their banks, threatened to arrest them long after even if they peacefully leave, have been trampled, etc.

          You are such a liar Jeff.

          1. He’s gonna ignore that hard.

  29. Two issues coming to a head later today:

    1) Parliament will vote on whether to ratify Trudeau's emergency powers.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-debate-sunday-1.6358810

    Each and ever one of the authoritarian progressives will need to go on the record.

    2) Putin said he will decide on whether to formally recognize the two pro-Russian breakaway provinces in the Ukraine.

    Short term, if he decides to formally recognize the breakaway provinces, that probably means he'll send in troops to secure them.

    Long term, that's how you end up with a North Korea and a South Korea.

    The important thing is that Biden doesn't make a deal with Putin about Ukraine's future without representation, input, or the consent of the Ukraine's elected leadership. If the Ukrainian people would rather go to war than give Putin a veto over the Ukraine's' parliament, a la Minsk-2, we should respect that. Biden making choices on behalf of the Ukrainian people is how we become responsible for the Ukraine's security. If we don't want to be responsible for the Ukraine, Biden shouldn't be making their choices for them.

    1. "Each and ever one of the authoritarian progressives will need to go on the record."
      I have the feeling there are certain people that will be proud to go on the record supporting Trudeau's actions and hope to expand it past just the truckers and their supporters.

    2. On what we were talking about before on the NDP's Jagmeet Singh.
      I was tooling around the World Economic Forum website last night and I noticed he was one of their WEF Fellows. He went through and completed their Global Leadership Fellows Programme.

      This explains why he's stuck with Trudeau.

      New Brunswick premier Blaine Higgs who made the convoy illegal in his province weeks ago is also listed as a WEF Fellow (but not a grad).
      As are the heads of three of Canada's major banks, which explains the Toronto Dominion banks seizing of accounts before the Act was enacted.

      1. We'll see how that stands up when the pandemic ends before the emergency powers expire--and Canadian opinion turns hard against the coalition when Trudeau has emergency powers to fight a pandemic that isn't there anymore. I don't think anybody is willing to commit political suicide because of Davos.

        There was a time when Canadians were afraid of terrorism more than anything else, too. It's hard to imagine MPs voting to send Canadian troops back into Afghanistan at this point because the people of Canada aren't worried about terrorism like they used to be--no matter what WEF wants them to do.

        The pandemic is the new terrorism, and supporters of the emergency powers will start looking like the warmongers of 2003 just as soon as more Canadians stop fearing the pandemic. And it will be hard to continue fearing the pandemic once the pandemic has burned itself out.

      2. I'm looking at the vote.

        https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/44/1/32

        One of the Greens voted against the emergency measures. There's someone on the left either with some principles or the fear of not being reelected for supporting emergency powers. If Trudeau comes back in 30 days, he probably won't have as much support.

    3. Incidentally, we should expect our "old Europe" NATO allies to make Biden look like an idiot just as soon as Putin invades the Ukraine.

      Biden promised that there would be no Nord 2 if Putin invades the Ukraine, a little more than a week ago, but that threat wasn't echoed by the German Chancellor. It was just made in front of the German Chancellor at the same press conference. That doesn't mean the Germans are on board with killing Nord 2--or that they will be when their economy depends on it. Meanwhile, the Italian prime minister said that any sanctions against Russia in retaliation for invading Ukraine should only be restricted to areas outside of energy.

      https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/any-eu-sanctions-russia-should-not-hit-energy-draghi-2022-02-18/

      I hope Biden's threats weren't as empty as Obama's red line in Syria because I care about our country and our security, but it looks like Biden's threats may fall apart before they ever have a chance to get started. Since provoking all of this with his stupid Nord Stream 2 decision, Biden has been pretty good so far--in not capitulating to Putin's demands for veto power over Ukraine's parliament--but he's feeble. If he couldn't stand firmly enough against Nord Stream 2 back when tensions were low, why would he stand firm on American interests when the France, Germany, and Italy are all opposing us as if their economies depended on it?

    4. “The important thing is that Biden doesn't make a deal with Putin about Ukraine's future without representation, input, or the consent of the Ukraine's elected leadership. “
      You know who else made a deal with western democracies which carved up a smaller country with no representation from that country’s leaders?

      1. Was it Thomas Jefferson?

  30. How's that reeeform goin'? Gotta get us some o'that reform, pappy!

    The case comes as legislative efforts to overhaul the state’s troubled pretrial release program have all but stalled despite strong momentum for change in January when the session began. That was fueled partly by Albuquerque marking a year of record homicides and growing frustration among families who had lost loved ones to violent crime.

    Lauren Rodriguez, a spokeswoman for District Attorney Raúl Torrez, said the Gutierrez case marks the second time in a week that the court’s public safety assessment framework has recommended release for what prosecutors consider a dangerous person.

    lol

    ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Prosecutors are seeking to keep in custody a homeless man suspected of stabbing 11 people in a matter of hours as he rode a bicycle around Albuquerque on Sunday, saying no conditions of release could reasonably ensure the safety of the community.

    Tobias Gutierrez, who has a lengthy criminal history, appeared in court virtually Tuesday on charges of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.

    A public safety assessment tool used by judges in New Mexico’s largest city to determine whether a defendant can be released pending trial under certain conditions recommends that Gutierrez be released based on factors that include his age, previous history and the current charges.

    The current charges are... stabbing 11 people in a matter of hours as he rode a bicycle around Albuquerque on Sunday. Yet, according to them reeeeformers, he should be released.

    Fuck... off.

    1. I’ve seen reports that this guy has been arrested an incredible 33 times. What I haven’t been able to find out yet is whether he’s an American citizen or an illegal.

      In either case, he’s clearly a fucking menace to society and needs to be locked up, probably for life. The alternative I guess is he keeps on terrorizing the people of Albuquerque until one of them finally decided to put him down like the feral animal that he is.

    2. I think their public safety assessment tool might still have a few software bugs in it.

      Man, I've written some code I thought was pretty important at the time, but I've never had the possibility of a misplaced decimal point releasing a homicidal maniac.

  31. Trump's Truthsocial social media app just went live.

    https://apps.apple.com/us/app/truth-social/id1586018825

    If Trump supporters don't use it to organize trucker like protests, I'll be surprised.

    If the progressives don't shut it down like Parler, I'll be surprised.

    1. If it doesn't get hacked by a pink-haired antifa twink, I'll be surprised.

      1. Don’t think it’s necessary. They seem to be botching things just fine on their own.

        1. This is making you really mad, huh? A platform you guys can't control and shut down.

    2. Even if Trump doesn't run in 2024, what he's doing here is extremely valuable to our national dialogue on free speech. It's each to censor people on FB, Twatter and YouTube and memory-hole that activity. This launch is going to force many/all political animals to lay their cards on the table.

      Republican platform in 2024:

      1. Dems don't respect your right to participate in public school decisions.
      2. Dems don't respect the first amendment

      1. And what happens when Trump censors left-wing trolls on TRUTH Social?

        1. Jeffy is totally not a lefty.

        2. If by left-wing trolls, we're talking about The New York Times, that will be an interesting discussion.

        3. It's not censorship when Trump does it. Duh.

          1. Explain the difference between banning "left-wing trolls" (Jeff's words), and the British Medical Journal, sarcasmic.

          2. Ideas!

            Seriously, who here has once defended the ToS on this new app? You all keep ignorantly using that strawman.

        4. Sure, let's pretend something that hasn't happened yet has happened.

          But before we do, maybe explain to us how banning "left-wing trolling" is the exact same thing as banning Oxford and Stanford virologists and censoring the motherfucking British Medical Journal itself because they didn't match the Democratic Party narrative.

          You're such a retarded clown.

          1. Too harsh, man. Too harsh.

            Retarded clowns have feelings too.

            And they have life hard enough as it is. There's no call to be comparing them to Jeff.

        5. And what happens when Trump censors left-wing trolls on TRUTH Social?

          Do tell. What does happen when something that hasn't happened and may or may not happen happens?

          I think the biggest fear from the left is that Trump allows content like the Hunter Biden expose and Joe Rogan's actual podcast to be posted for ALL to see. Then the real fun begins.

          1. Well, I think the probability that trolls will sign up for TRUTH Social attempting to disrupt conversations there is approaching 100%.

            1. So Sqrlsy, sarcasmic and Shrike have a new target?

              1. Mike is openly trying to claim he is doing so above.

                1. Leftists can't allow others to have their own space or do their own thing.
                  "You do you" aka "live and let live" is anathema to their existence. They have a pathological need to turn everything in the world to shit.
                  Of course they will send teams of trolls to shit up social media that isn't under their control.
                  Just look at Andy Ngo's tweets for example to see how they operate.

                  1. To clarify, look at the threads attached to Ngo's tweets, the replies.

                  2. Leftists can't allow others to have their own space or do their own thing.

                    Says the guy who perpetually threatens to murder everyone who disagrees with him.

                    1. Live and let live, vs, kill or be killed.
                      You faggots chose the latter, thus denying us our preference for the former.
                      You leftists are totalitarian cancer, an imminent threat, who won't stop unless you are stopped by external force.

          2. I'll tell you this much--if TRUTH.social blocks users and posts, it won't be because Biden's White House is flagging accounts and posts for Facebook to block. It won't be because the comments contradict government agencies like the CDC, Dr. Fauci, or the NIH. It won't be because Biden's chair of the FTC, Lina Khan, is suing to break up Facebook over its tolerance for "misinformation". If TRUTH.social blocks users and posts, it really will be because the private owners of that app are exercising their property rights free from government interference.

            1. ??? WTF?

              1. I’m sorry you’re too stupid to know that all of those things have actually gotten people banned from other social media companies.

                Maybe educate yourself?

            2. I see.
              So if TRUTH Social censors someone, it is them duly exercising their property rights.
              But if Twitter censors someone, it is only due to the corrupt actions of a government pressuring them to do so in order to skirt the First Amendment. Not merely an exercise of property rights, though.

              Do I have that right?

              1. This has been explained to you repeatedly you disingenuous shit.

              2. Look at the weasel pretend there's no difference between getting banned for trolling, and scientists getting banned for contradicting the DNC party narrative.

        6. If they decide to censor posts that aren’t illegal and just go against the Republican narrative? Fuck them.

          If they censor posts of some left leaning troll for some obscure bullshit but leave up some conservative posts that ostensibly violate the same terms? Then double fuck them.

          If they censor posts for “misinformation”because the government threatens to fuck with them? Well fuck Joe Biden.

          1. I think it's mostly a vehicle for Trump's 2024 election campaign. This will probably be a new things going forward. TRUTHsocial is built on Mastodon, and every candidate may start their own social media platform in the future based on Mastodon. Why subject yourself to someone else's terms of service when you can launch your own social media app? And Mastodon is FOSS.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software

          2. Then we agree.

            1. You drive me crazy a lot of the time, and I’m sure I drive you crazy too, but I’ll take common cause where I can find it.

              1. Difficulty. Jeff screams private company whenever Twitter enforces their rules and contracts subjectively. See Twitter not taking down hacked material from GiveSendGo

              2. Except collectivistjeff isn't making common cause, it's preemptively attacking a platform not controlled by the left.
                Collectivistjeff did not object at all to posts about covid possibly being leaked from a lab, Hunter Biden's laptop story,, election irregularities, vaccine ineffectiveness or danger, or any of the other now proven truthful topics deemed "misinformation" being taken down and the posters suspended or banned. It celebrated Jones being deplatformed, Berenson being banned, Lindell being de-banked.

      2. If they come after his social media app, in spite of it being privately owned, they'll expose themselves as the enemies of the First Amendment, and I don't think they can resist the temptation--because they really are enemies of the First Amendment.

        1. I don't think they'll even care anymore if people label them as such.

        2. You just wrote above in support of the new platform "Truth" censoring posts. WTF is wrong with you?

          1. Meant for Ken

            1. You are wrong.

              As usual.

            2. It’s not that complicated dipshit.

              1. Another progressive doesn't understand simple and obvious things?

      3. Or the second or third.... Actually the only one they care about is the abortion ammendment

    3. They’d have to have a working sign-up process first.

      1. You need to get on there Mike, Maybe daddy Trump will finally notice you!

    4. Here's Time magazine embracing the narrative around Trump's TOS

      https://time.com/6109038/donald-trump-truth-social/

      1. Could it be that the real target of Truth Social's censorship is SQRLSY?

        Maybe most notably, the site’s list of prohibited activities includes the “excessive use of capital letters,” an idiosyncrasy that Trump became known for on Twitter and that no other major social network specifically bans. TRUTH Social’s terms also contain some sections written in all-caps.

        1. Woah! But all-caps is cruise control for cool in Sqrlsy's world.

        2. All caps is a DOG WHISTLE!

          1. WhAt AbOuT dOiNg ThIs? PeRsOnAlLy I fInD iT MoRe AnNoYiNg!

      2. It's oozing with menace.

        "Having been permanently banned from Twitter and suspended from Facebook for at least two years following the deadly January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, reports have swirled for months that Trump intended to start his own social network."

        Trump just can't wait to start another "deadly" insurrection!!!

        If they want to avoid deadly protests, I have a suggestion. They don't need to ban social media apps. How 'bout not shooting unarmed protesters--is that too much to ask?

        1. How do you know they are unarmed when they leap through a broken door into a space filled with elected leaders, and has uncounted buddies behind them expressing murderous intent?

          1. Are you saying they should have shot everyone?

          2. She didn’t leap through the door. And there were armed officers on her side of the door.

        2. Or not beating them to death (then trying to cover it up by calling it an OD)...

    5. > If the progressives don't shut it down like Parler, I'll be surprised.

      I'm a little shocked Apple even let it on the App Store to begin with.

      1. They're between a rock and a hard place.

        On the one hand, the progressives want to break the company up for antitrust reasons for anti-competitive behavior on their app store. And every time they arbitrarily deny letting someone use their app store, they're building their own gallows.

        On the other hand, they're supposed to deny right wing apps arbitrarily because if they don't, the progressives will come after them for tolerating "misinformation" on their platform. Being in such a bind isn't unusual when you're dealing with progressives.

        Living under progressive rule is about taking their lies and making them true somehow.

      2. Well, it's not like they can disrupt things by kicking it out of the App Store at a critical point, if they don't let it in in the first place. Lucy can't yank the football away if she doesn't hold it out in the first place.

  32. So I heard the New York Times accidentally stumbled across some real journalism recently.

    1. Coincidence.

    2. To quote the nyt while they were in court and under oath "no reasonable person would conciders the nyt to be a news source

      1. Never happened Rev, but surely you know that.

  33. I've proposed this in the past, but the best way to solve California strangling the rest of the country is to extend the Rio Grande to the Pacific.

    It would solve many problems in one go.

    1. From... it's headwaters in Colorado?

      I honestly have no idea what shape you're trying to draw on the map here. But I'm kinda curious, being something like 300 feet from the Rio Grande right now...

      1. It's simple, we take the river that forms the Texas/Mexico border and drag it to the pacific.

        In one fell swoop, California can't hold the majority of ports on that coast anymore.

  34. Just eat more beef. Duh!

  35. >whether the rest of the country should have to comply with a policy approved by 7.5 million voters in a single state

    You mean, like we have a Dementia Joe "presidency" because of 40000 dead voters in Chicago?

      1. you missed the Geraldo interview with 40000 dead Chicagoans?

  36. Is today an extremely slow news day?

    1. Oh, wait, it's President's day... my bad. I'm in the private sector so I kind of missed that.

      1. Reason's been a government agency for a few years now.

    2. Other than some real estate deal in eastern Europe, not much going on.

      1. Heard there's now an incipient fascist state now north of the border, but I don't know if that's really a libertarian issue.

        I guess we'll know if Sullum writes 136 articles in three months like he did with Trump's court challenge attempts.

        1. All is back to normal. The two fascist leaders of the insurrection have been arrested, and Trudeau can now return to simpering for Toronto Star Reporters without having to answer difficult questions.

          Male gazes are averting, the alt-right is on the run.

          1. Didn't you hear, it's still happening. That's why the Deputy PM says they need to make the Emergency Measures permanent.

      2. Biden probably thinks it’s HIS holiday. Good day for an invasion actually…

  37. 'It's a very ill omen and a very dark sign': Boris condemns Putin's decision to officially recognise independence of two rebel-held territories in eastern Ukraine that paves way for Russian invasion - as PM brands move a 'breach of international law'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10534495/Ukraine-crisis-Tens-thousands-casualties-days-invasion-warns.html

    Great. So Putin is going to rebuild the USSR by acquiring countries state by state. Clever. And really fucking scary.

    1. Wasn't he supposed to have invaded last week?

      1. Yesterday's news said he was going to make a decision yesterday. Apparently he made his decision by recognizing two Ukrainian states as separatist, and he's going to move his troops in to "defend" them.

        1. Maybe NATO shouldn't have created a precedent with Kosovo, because they don't have a legitimate argument now.

          1. Not sure what that means. I wasn't paying attention to the news at that time. Can you cure me of my ignorance? What precedent, and how does it apply to Ukraine?

            1. Look up Kosovo. They seceded from Serbia about 20 years ago. There was a war and everything.
              NATO intervened and bombed the shit out of Serbia (also managed to piss off the Chinese by hitting a consulate there, resulting in the deaths of 3 Chinese nationals).
              The neoconlib world order immediately recognized Kosovo's autonomy, then independence in 2008 despite not being able to get the UN to ratify it due to Russia's security council veto power.
              It's relevant to Ukraine, because the Luhansk People's Republic, like Crimea, declared independence, as Kosovo had done before.
              NATO and anglosphere governments established the precedent of not just recognizing secession, but militarily intervening, then administering/occupying the territory to aid in winning its independence.
              The only difference between what NATO did in Serbia and what Russia is doing in Ukraine is who the international press and neoconlib oligarchic cabal is simping for. Oh, and Russia hasn't hit Kiev with any airstrikes, at least not yet.
              As always with progressives: "it's only okay when we do it"

    2. Keep banging those war drums, sarcasmic.

      1. Biden needs a boost in the polls.

    3. Yeah, this crackpot:

      “If Russia doesn’t invade Ukraine, then we will be relieved that Russia changed course,’’ Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said at the United Nations.

      Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken told the United Nations that the United States believes that Russia plans to attack Ukraine “in the coming days.”

      1. No, global-warming-ey predictions were supposed to happen in 2021. And 2020. And 2019. 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998... yeah

    4. scary why?

      1. Because the last thing we need right now is Russia becoming a superpower.

        1. According to the Media and idiots like Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, they already are a superpower and the biggest threat to the US.

          I’m not so sure about that, but it probably depends on whether China actually has the capabilities they purport to have.

    5. Wait, are you agreeing with Ken in regards to Ukraine?

      1. Of course.
        Russia's border and dispute with Ukraine = huge threat.
        Totalitarianism, and the complete rejection of individual rights, at home = no biggie.
        At least Ken acknowledges the latter.

  38. California politicians and pork? Any puns to be made here would be a barrel of laughs!

    1. I kinda can't believe it took this far into the comments to find this sentiment!

  39. "Russian President Vladimir Putin said he would recognize the independence of two Russian-led breakaway regions of Ukraine, a move that threatened to scuttle negotiations with the West over the future security of Eastern Europe and that could be used to justify an incursion into the territories.

    “The situation in Donbas is becoming critical,” Mr. Putin said in a live televised address before launching into a lengthy examination of the relationship between the two countries and the Donbas region, where the two breakaway regions are located. “Ukraine is not just a neighbor. It is an inherent part of our own history, culture and spiritual space,” he said.

    Mr. Putin said the Russian government will draft and sign the documents recognizing the independence of the two breakaway states in the near future, and said Russia would sign mutual assistance treaties with them.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-alleges-ukrainian-incursion-kyiv-says-moscow-makes-up-fake-incidents-11645453512?

    I don't think Putin can walk that back--now that he's gone on live TV. There isn't anything Putin would rather do less than appear like he backed down in front of his own people. What's the point of a strongman that backs down?

    Biden has been tracking the Carter administration, in all sorts of ways, from inflation on down, and if and when the Europeans balk at actually implementing Biden's promised sanctions on Russian energy, Biden may start tracking Carter's decent into public ridicule, too. Biden's approval rating is around 40% now, but Carter's approval rating went all the way down to 28%.

    Carter wasn't just dealing with inflation. He was seen as weak for doing nothing about the hostages in Iran, and when he sent Delta Force to rescue them, the helicopters crashed in the desert. His public response to the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the 1980 summer Olympics in Moscow. His foreign policy seemed a mirror image of his domestic policy--feckless.

    Abbott and DeSantis should be studying every speech Reagan made between 1976 and 1980. The Biden presidential library should be installed in a clown college. Reagan won 44 out of 50 states in 1980, including Massachusetts and New York. I wasn't sure that could ever happen again, but if 70% of the voters in San Francisco will vote to throw out progressives, I suppose anything is possible. We may just need Biden to keep doing what he's doing.

    1. "His public response to the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the 1980 summer Olympics in Moscow."

      I've always felt this was one of the worst things Carter did . Single-handedly ruined the olympics going forward.

      1. It was just such a feckless thing to do. They upset the balance of power in central Asia--and we were still dealing with the aftermath as of August of 2021. And Carter's response was to boycott an athletics competition, which seemed like sending them a strongly worded letter.

        Behind the scenes, of course, Carter was doing more in Afghanistan than most people realized at the time, but as far as the general public was concerned, his nice guy persona seemed to be the problem. He couldn't be a tough guy even when we needed one.

        The public perception of Biden, right now, is that he's asleep at the wheel. He pushes a radical left agenda that fails miserably, and he doesn't seem to realize that few people outside of the radical left care. He dropped sanctions on Nord Stream 2--over the objections of the Democrats in Congress--without any apparent realization of the negative consequences. He fell asleep at the wheel.

        If Russia invades and annexes the Ukraine, and our old school NATO allies refuse to follow through on Biden's threats, that's just gonna play into the Sleepy Joe image. And if China starts making similar moves towards Taiwan? Whatever other qualifications there are for a president, people also want him to be awake.

        1. We're not sure Sleepy Joe can stay awake.

          1. Y'know, Jimmy Carter is still alive.

            It might not be too late to trade Biden for him back.

            He can't possibly do any worse! 😀

            1. LOL

              https://twitter.com/NicholsUprising/status/1495815920438099975?t=FkL_fsfhPyeebMnN2TH6Ag&s=19

              Happy #PresidentsDay to Jimmy Carter, a president the United States can remember with pride.
              [Shitty meme]

          2. He was awake enough to eat Trump's dinner in both debates and I have no doubt would eat yours in a debate with you.

            Most telling is what you consider the main point of the Ukrainian crisis, which of course has nothing to do with anything other than MAGA talking points

            1. Funny stuff.

            2. Hahahahahahaha. Damn that was a good one Joe.

            3. Was it a raspberry dinner, Joe?

              The debate was hilarious. No policy ideas but we sure knew what Biden's favorite color and ice cream were, and how tough he was out back of the shed in his heyday. Haha.

              What a maroon.

          3. Does staying woke count?

    2. Biden may start tracking Carter's decent into public ridicule, too

      That ship has sailed.

      1. He needs to get down below 30% approval.

        He may yet get there. If Ukraine happens, he might.

        It's at least partially the result of his stupid decision on Nord Stream 2.

        1. Biden is an idiot.

          People died.

    3. Ken, you really should stop commenting on foreign policy.
      It's just embarrassing at this point, and anyone can just read WaPo for your talking points.

      1. No one can read WaPo, because they have it blocked nine ways to Sunday, unless you support their insanity by buying a subscription. And while I quite like Ken's analysis, and for that matter quite like your news links, I don't see you providing any in depth analysis of foreign policy, yourself.

        1. You can believe the mass media talking points of Putin wants to reconquer the USSR and Russia is the aggressor in its relationship with NATO, because I'm sure they're telling the truth this time, or you can apply some logic.
          I've responded to Ken's neoconning before, but since you asked nicely I'll break it down again.

          There is no strategic motive for Russia to try to take over a bunch of economic shitholes that will only drain resources and create headaches. Between Belarus and the Baltic Sea, Russia has plenty of routes to ship oil/gas. Open conflict with Ukraine jeopardizes the pipelines which run through Ukraine, not secure them.
          When the USSR dissolved, one of the points negotiated for Russia to inherit USSR obligations was that NATO would not expand to former Warsaw Pact nations. NATO did just that starting in early 2000s.
          Putin has, multiple times, proposed Russia itself join NATO. First Clinton, then Bush 2 declined without legitimate reason.
          In Ukraine specifically, NATO/US orchestrated a coup in 2013-2014 (see: McCain-Nuland emails). Yanukovych was pro-Russian, and was unconstitutionally deposed. Proshenko, pro-EU, was installed. Both were corrupt, but Poroshenko turned out to be worse.
          Ukraine's government was immediately recognized by the globalist order, that same globalist order waging war upon its own people and dedicated to seizing totalitarian power, and the first thing it did is start passing anti-Russian laws.
          The whole situation provoked discontent in the ethnically Russian east, who justifiably feared they were going to be targeted, persecuted, and exploited. So rebellion formed in the east and was given limited aid by Russia.
          Russia moved quickly to secure Crimea, which was supposed to be autonomous, because it was majority Russian and had their only warm water port. Crimea then voted overwhelmingly via referendum to join Russia. The globalist order still hasn't recognized either Crimea's independence or annexation.
          The globalist world order is being hypocritical, as is characteristic, since they recognized and intervened in Kosovo's secession from Serbia.
          Russian autocrats going back to the 1600s have considered it their responsibility to protect Russian and Orthodox populations abroad, though this was interrupted by Soviet rule. Kiev has been attacking Russians in Eastern Ukraine for almost a decade now. Putin, and Russians, see protecting those people as Russia's responsibility, thus they will recognize secession since Kiev would not agree to or abide by humane treatment.

          Neither NATO nor the US has a legitimate reason to interfere with Ukrainian politics. They have been doing it and driving conflict since 2013.
          Antagonism with Russia doesn't help the American people, it hurts and puts us at risk. Russia, under Putin, should be a US ally. Russia is strategically located between Europe, China, and Iran. Plus, an alliance would put 90%+ of the world's nuclear weapons into alignment instead of opposition. But American leadership and the globalist world order don't have their people's interests at heart; they are at war with us.
          Putin and Russia are the biggest impediment to globalist tyranny because they're staunchly nationalist, he's smarter than them, and they have all those nukes. Immediately after the USSR fell, Bush/Clinton sent a bunch of economists to Yeltsin to loot the country and permanently destroy their economic potential. Putin stopped that, so he's been boogeyman #1 ever since. I realized how to read news stories a decade ago because the stories on Russia were so illogical. The Who, Where, and When rarely added up to the What, and never fit the Why.
          There's a reason they picked Russia, instead of China or Saudi Arabia or Israel, for the Russiagate hoax.

          Ken is an insightful and very meticulous poster, but also very rigid in adhering to his universal models. This is why it took 2 years for him to finally concede the strike on Suleimani wasn't a mistake. He'd conceived of a model that recommended against it, and couldn't incorporate some basic factors or fundamental formula. Ken's biggest weakness is failing to see anything outside his universal model. This works for physics, and often economics, and sometimes politics. But his psychological insight is lacking, and he tends to ignore cultural differences that influence formulas. This throws his foreign policy analysis off pretty consistently.
          With Russia and Putin, he's stuck in a boomer model which sees no distinction between Russia and the USSR, and takes the media narrative as gospel. I will give him credit for taking the narrative from other angles, but accepting that narrative still leads to a miss.

          With everything, and especially Putin/Russia, you have to stick to hard facts and do your own math on what they add up to if you want to get an accurate picture.

          1. Thanks for that cut and paste from RT Nardz, but Ken doesn't care about any of that. He's not interested in Russia, the Ukraine, or their people. He's only interested in how the current crisis might aid his political fantasies.

            1. Oooo, kitty thinks he has some claws.

    4. Thanks for your patriotic, responsible, and moral response to Putin's action today Ken.

      What we've come to expect from you.

    5. Also grain embargo and re-instituting draft registration.

  40. https://twitter.com/BluDiChina/status/1495860703441440773?t=px5mOnZGXEO6VryawtyBbw&s=19

    This is the official video of a NATO meeting, June 14, 2021. The voiceover has been added, but the ceremony looks to me like that of a prehistoric pagan ritual...
    [Video]

    1. Cripes!

      1. Globohomo really is a cult.

  41. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1495849119847489538?t=cEGq7XMgMEVnBiB1-Pa3qw&s=19

    This is the moment when US journalists really get to shine. They put on their toughest war rhetoric. Tell Americans about the virtues of sacrifice. And summon the courage to all unite to denounce Putin and assure everyone all the blame lies with him and him alone. It's inspiring.

  42. Leftists are liars

    https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1495481727321624576?t=28TaW7mUMVcAWGb3DW-eSQ&s=19

    SEN. WARREN: "You know how much [Elon Musk] paid in taxes, one of the richest people in the world? Zero! And he's not the only one. Jeff Bezos, another one of the richest people in the world, he pays less in taxes than a public school teacher or a firefighter."
    [Video]

    1. Sounds like dangerous misinformation!

  43. "Moscow Orders Troops to Ukraine’s Breakaway Regions"

    "President Vladimir V. Putin signed a decree that allowed for troops to enter the two regions for “peacekeeping.” The U.S. and E.U. said they would begin imposing limited sanctions."

    ----The New York Times

    https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/21/world/ukraine-russia-putin-biden

    The shit's starting.

      1. Oh, and the reason they hid the data is because they were afraid the public would interpret the data correctly. Literally.

        1. Just sit back and leave it to the experts.

        2. Your link is to some youtubers "interpreting" the NY Times article. Why not actually read the article?

          https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/health/covid-cdc-data.html

          The article doesn't say anything about withholding data for fear "the public would interpret the data correctly". This is what it says:

          Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the C.D.C., said the agency has been slow to release the different streams of data “because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.” She said the agency’s “priority when gathering any data is to ensure that it’s accurate and actionable.”

          Another reason is fear that the information might be misinterpreted, Ms. Nordlund said.

          Now you can cynically interpret "misinterpreted" as "correctly interpreted", I suppose, but that's not what the article says.

          Again and again you reject mainstream news in favor of "news" sources that are even more biased and even less honest than the sources that you are fleeing. Why?

          1. Cry more.

          2. “Another reason is fear that the information might be misinterpreted, Ms. Nordlund said.”

            If the data supports their hypothesis, how is the public going to misinterpret it? Logically, they’re not worried about people misinterpreting it and going “huh, if I understand this data correctly, we really are all gonna die, better try and get my booster!”.

            The only way to “misinterpret” their data would be for the public to go “these motherfuckers lied to us about the efficacy of the shots!”, while the data showed otherwise. But based on their history of lying and past failures, the logical conclusion is that the data does show the lousy efficacy of the boosters and they’re worried people will take that information and say “fuck you”.

            I’m disappointed that you continue to take the governments word at face value while snidely deriding anyone who says the governments word is worth shit.

            1. how is the public going to misinterpret it?

              Wait wait, you have never heard of lying with statistics?

              I don't think they should have withheld the data, but I also don't think their concerns are invalid.

              1. If the CDC is the one putting the statistics out there, they would be the ones “lying with statistics”. You know, because anyone in the world can just go to their website to look at the numbers. So if Fox “misrepresents” their numbers you or I could fact check them.

                But nice of your to completely ignore the logical conclusions of their withholding the numbers for a huge swath of the population.

  44. If it's more cost effective to just convert them all to California standards, how much more expensive could it possibly make them? If it's too expensive to raise pigs with minimum space, they can convert a few factories for sale to California and keep the rest of them normal. The fact that they are even considering making all bacon up to California standards indicates it isn't a big deal.

    You might argue that it's the principle of the thing, that Californians don't have a right to impose their will on the rest of the country, even super-indirectly. But it's generally acknowledged that it's okay to impose your will on others in order to stop them from causing severe harm to others. Raising pigs in really crowded conditions certainly seems to severely harm them. Protesting that people don't have a right to force farmers to stop hurting pigs is like a mugger being angry at the police for "imposing their will" on him by preventing him from committing a mugging.

    1. I remember the good ol days when the left used to say 'don't legislate morality'

      now that's all they do

      And If it were such a no brainer, those states would adopt CA laws, not CA trying to pass laws for other states

    2. It doesn't. Talk to any farmer. This is progtard extremists that want to lower the quality of life

  45. Putin orders 'peacekeeping forces' into two pro-Russian regions in eastern Ukraine after Biden hit them with sanctions: US orders ALL State Department staff to leave and condemns Moscow's 'blatant breach of international law'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10536311/Biden-phones-Zelensky-gathers-National-Security-team-Putin-speech.html

    He said America was 'pumping' in weapons to Ukraine and said accused Kiev of creating 'weapons of mass destruction'.

    Know who else used "creating 'weapons of mass destruction'" as a false pretext for invasion?

    1. The neocon “Republicans” who backed Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden?

  46. https://twitter.com/anthonyfurey/status/1495804147731423233?t=8ymK6UkFC5P6St7InpiT5A&s=19

    The Trudeau government says the Emergencies Act needs to stay in place for now because of potential “future blockades”.

    Trudeau goes on to characterize any MP who votes against the Emergencies Act later today as someone who is against democracy.

    1. Can't be. Just yesterday Jeff swore it was only temporary.

      1. https://twitter.com/JordanSchachtel/status/1495936088023650306?t=cXaDc_P4Ook1LGuGNaxM0w&s=19

        The Canadian Parliament just approved the Emergencies Act by a vote of 185 to 151.

        Senate needs to approve. Canadian news reports say they will likely vote end of the week.

        1. Good old parliament there to bail us out of mob rule.

          They're so enlightened and credentialed.

          1. Adults in charge.

    1. Thank goodness Mr. Meantweets isn't around to start WW3 anymore, right Jeff? Don't worry, the smartest people in the room are in power now so I'm sure that they'll fix it.

    2. Did you know Putin is terrified of Biden? Must be because of Biden's razor-sharp mind and history of foreign policy success.

      Vladimir Putin doesn’t want me to be President. He doesn’t want me to be our nominee. If you’re wondering why — it’s because I’m the only person in this field who’s ever gone toe-to-toe with him.

      #LibertariansForBiden
      #LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussia

      1. Sounds convincing!

        — Reason

  47. https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1495460828270714880

    Edward Snowden @Snowden

    Governments claiming the authority to *freeze people's bank accounts* because they want to crush a protest movement is tyrannical and obscene. If you would oppose China or Russia doing it, you must oppose Canada doing it.

    Very glad @CanCivLib exists.

  48. https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1495853598118658049?t=H748KCpPTqcB4L23y-rXIg&s=19

    "What Rufo has been cleverly doing is cherry-picking the worst examples that he can find of lessons in classrooms or training materials for teachers and saying, 'that is CRT' ... And the thing is—it fucking worked."

    Even my enemies can't help but give me the W.

    John Oliver spent 28 minutes hyperventilating about the anti-CRT movement, repeating the dumbest tropes, like "CRT is graduate-level legal theory" and never taught in K-12 schools. But he's doing us an unintentional favor: the more the public learns about CRT, the more we win.

    According to Democratic Party pollsters, 61 percent of swing district voters agree with the statement: "Democrats are teaching kids as young as five Critical Race Theory, which teaches that America is a racist country and that white people are racist."

    The reality is that my voice is much more powerful than John Oliver's. The NYT, WaPo, CNN, and MSNBC have been lying about CRT for the past year—and the public doesn't believe them.

    We have the truth on our side and we will win.

    P.S. The reason John Oliver and Trevor Noah aren't funny is because, traditionally, the court jester is supposed to mock the nobility; Oliver and Noah, by contrast, sneer at the population "below" them.

    They're not a challenge to power; they're a mouthpiece for power.

    The delight of political comedy comes from the assumption of risk. The jester, if he errs, might get beheaded by the king. He goes right up to that line and, consequently, has the audience in rapt attention.

    Oliver and Noah risk nothing: they are bland propaganda for the regime.

    This is also the reason they hate Joe Rogan. Rogan is rich and famous, but he has a vox populi-style appeal and chooses to hang out with déclassé lunatics like Alex Jones. He's constantly pushing the boundaries of elite opinion, assuming real risks. And he's funny.

    1. All Chris Rufo proved is that demagoguery works.

      1. Hahahahahahabahahahaha

      2. Rufo is a complete GOP hack with some pretense to being serious.

        Problem is, he's not.

      3. "Oliver. Noah. The problem is with your technique. You aren't kicking the ball into your own goal hard enough. Here, let me show you." - chemjeff

      4. I knew you wouldn't give up your "anti-anti-CRT" advocacy. 😉

        #RadicalIndividualistsForRacialCollectivism

        1. Finger kiss “Perfecto”.

    2. And Rogan is outclassing every other MSM mouthpiece and shill by a hundred fold. He has literally become a phenomenon. It wasn't intentional either.....it simply happened. People are tired of the b.s. spewed daily by the MSM. They know it and everybody else knows it.
      But this also makes Rogan dangerous and threatening to the elites.
      At this point it would be a safe assumption the elites are planning the take down of Joe Rogan.

  49. https://twitter.com/tishray/status/1495938074257281027?t=kUv_KFnmWBDuXGAp_3_qfA&s=19

    The reason WEF is so comfortable talking about the Great Reset publicly is because they know that there are people stupid enough to not question what is happening right in front of their eyes.

    The reason people in power will always get away with stuff like this is because stupid people think it’s temporary, it doesn’t threaten people who follow rules, and that it’s for their benefit.

    1. So, Nardz sees a brown shirts coup transpiring in Canada, while Putin - the guy who murders political opponents in Russia, out side of Russia, he doesn't care - as a legitimate and well intentioned leader of a country we should be aligning with.

      No, really, that's what he thinks.

  50. The other side as well. The measure of a comedian among comedians is how you handle hecklers. It demonstrates to the audience that there are no class divisions and everyone is just having fun as the result of the performance. If you you can't take hecklers, you can't take a joke, it's not comedy, it's personal. For Oliver and Noah, it's worse as it's both personal and political. They practically project which jokes they won't take.

    1. Whoops, meant in reply to Nardz above.

      1. Collectivistjeff's response:

        chemjeff radical individualist
        February.21.2022 at 9:39 pm
        Flag Comment Mute User
        All Chris Rufo proved is that demagoguery works.

        1. Beyond parody

    2. Oh come on now, next you’re going to say Wanda Sykes isn’t funny!

  51. https://twitter.com/missesnoodles/status/1495915320443297798?t=O3vrrlFPuPce8pzD5pWqeA&s=19

    Sick of people who don't live in downtown Ottawa telling me I'm now free from some kind of occupation, when now I can't get past police barricades to bring my dog to his favorite park. Truckers never asked me for my papers just to cross the street.

  52. https://twitter.com/APhilosophae/status/1495925536983506951?t=Vk00Mciw0GfreM-iCb3Pyg&s=19

    Threads
    If you've just started to hear about The Great Reset, here are a host of threads that cover that topic. The WEF, Blackrock, Davos, Wall Street, CBDC's, Movement Passports, Digital Identities, and more.
    [Links]

  53. https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1495901816990621696?t=S3q-5TaPJdKRQ6whjEsQjg&s=19

    Canada strongly condemns Russia’s recognition of so-called “independent states” in Ukraine. This is a blatant violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and international law. Canada stands strong in its support for Ukraine – and we will impose economic sanctions for these actions.

    Further, we reject and condemn Russian decrees ordering military forces into Ukraine. We remain steadfast in our support for Ukrainian sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence. Canada, and our allies, will defend democracy and the will of the Ukrainian people.

  54. https://twitter.com/SallyMayweather/status/1495928778169724928?t=9qjGxnfhrO7EG01EkQOoCA&s=19

    Lunatic Canadian MP says “Honk Honk is an acronym for Heil Hitler”
    [Video]

    1. Overplaying his hand. He really should've waited for 'Klaxxoner klaxxoner klaxxoner' in Quebec to really give him the full house.

  55. https://twitter.com/911policeottawa/status/1495788757584384007?t=O5PON-rjjVD20eyPHeK41Q&s=19

    How many officers will we use to make you safe? It depends, this time it was four.

    [Video]

  56. https://twitter.com/ADFLegal/status/1495912470673858560?t=fKZDVpD0kCz6EwGyI2-92Q&s=19

    Pause and think about the implications of a Western government telling its citizens the only way their bank accounts will be unfrozen is if they stop protesting the government.
    [Link]

    1. *Pause* Violent opposition it is then.

  57. dnase i footprinting service
    Profacgen provides DNase I footprinting assay service for the detection of DNA-protein interaction and identification of the exact binding sites of DNA-binding proteins. https://www.profacgen.com/dnase-i-footprinting-assay-service.htm

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.