Booze News: Party Bikes in Rhode Island, Hard Seltzer in Utah

Plus: tasting rooms in Alaska and liquor delivery in Alabama


In states across the country, liquor laws are evolving. Though some states are embracing the need to alleviate the crushing regulatory burden faced by producers, sellers, and consumers alike, they're moving too slowly—while others are moving in the wrong direction entirely. 

In Rhode Island, for example, lawmakers are considering legalizing party bikes—those oversized bicycles for a dozen or so pedalers that often feature a bartender or travel from bar to bar. (They're not too dissimilar from Nashville's party buses, which I wrote about last year.) That's great news for a local motel owner in Misquamicut who spent $30,000 on a party bike his town had greenlighted, only to be "thwarted" by the state's motor vehicle department.

"The party bike couldn't use public streets without a license, but they had no license to give it," the Providence Journal reported this week. "It is too large to be considered a bicycle and too slow to qualify as a motor vehicle."

In Alaska, state lawmakers are pursuing "a wholesale rewrite of the state's alcohol laws," local station KTUU reported last month. One key element of the proposed overhaul results from the so-called "bar wars" that have pitted bar owners in the state against brewers and distillers that operate tasting rooms in Alaska.

The bar owners want the state government to protect them from competition from tasting rooms. They're clearly in the wrong. The government shouldn't protect any business from competition. But, wrong as the bar and restaurant lobby is in this case, it's also powerful. Hence, the proposed "wholesale rewrite" as it applies to tasting rooms—which includes underwhelming improvements such as allowing them to stay open until 10 p.m. instead of 8 p.m., and allowing no more than one new tasting room in communities with at least 12,000 residents—would likely come closer to maintaining the status quo than it would to improving the regulatory climate for producers and consumers in the state. That's one reason, no doubt, that supporters of the bill refer to it as a "grand" or "delicate" compromise.

Some other changes to state booze laws are also pedestrian at best. In New York, for example, state liquor regulators are now allowing movie theater patrons to drink beer, wine, and cider in theaters. This week, a pair of upstate theaters became the first in New York to allow the practice.

"Previously, theaters were restricted to consumption inside a café area adjoining the lobby," the Saratogian reported, noting it took a decade of lobbying for the simple change to take effect. "Or, if the theater had a full restaurant kitchen, theater staff were only permitted to bring beverages to a patron at their seat with a fixed table."

To New York's credit, the state is also streamlining some other alcohol rules. For example, recently installed Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) announced this week that bar and restaurant owners will now be able to buy liquor licenses online, which she noted was a long overdue modernization.

Though slight progress appears to have been made in New York, Rhode Island, and Alaska (cue very brief golf clap), these states' modest deregulatory moves seem downright radical when compared to what's happening in some other states. 

In Utah, for example, a bill that's expected to become law will mean the end of many hard seltzer sales in all but liquor stores. The ban targets seltzers that contain ethyl alcohol—a common stabilizer that's used to help flavor many seltzers and also "soda, mustard and teriyaki sauce"—which amounts to about half the hard seltzers currently sold in Utah, including ones marketed by Budweiser, Coors, Truly, and Vizzy. Those seltzers will now be sold only at state liquor stores.

If the Utah story is ridiculous, news out of Alabama may take the cake. That state's private liquor stores are gearing up to sue the state's liquor regulatory agency, which wants to allow state-run liquor stores to deliver alcohol. As explains, the Alabama legislature last year moved to allow private liquor stores to deliver some alcohol. That's good news. But the delivery law covers "licensees," and the private liquor stores note the state-run stores—unlike them—don't require licenses to operate. The state-run stores are also not required to pay local sales or liquor taxes, notes. In other words, the state of Alabama is senselessly in the business of competing with private sellers of the same products, already has an unfair competitive advantage when it comes to such sales, and seems willing to ignore a state law in order to obtain still more of a competitive advantage.

Why do states such as Utah and Alabama continue to sell liquor?

"ABC's more than eight decades of selling liquor has been brought to you in large part by an unholy alliance of lobbyists, government bureaucrats, and religious groups—not to mention the landlords and special interests who collect millions from leasing land and providing other services to support the state's alcohol operation," an op-ed critical of the state's needless involvement in alcohol sales noted last year.

Indeed, the less government involvement in the alcohol market—from production to sales to consumption—the better off consumers and producers are. When it comes to regulating alcohol, kowtowing to special interests—including the state itself—is like putting a Kryptonite Lock on a party bike: no fun.

NEXT: Corruption and Crackdowns in California's Marijuana Market

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fuck Joe Biden

    1. Fuck Joe Biden

      1. Let's go Brandon and Truck Fudeau.

        1. Fuck Castreau

          1. I'm still going with Vladmir Poutine for Trudeau.

            1. Even if none of them havd any thing to do with alcohol policy, Fuck Be Unto Biden,/Brandon, Trudeau/Fudeau, Castro/Castreau, and Putin/Putine! Fuck Be Unto Them all!

              1. [BECOME A MEMBER] I make over $200-$300 an hour for online work. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining I easily made $30k with no online jobs knowledge. qcr Just try it out on the attached page.
                More details.......

                1. You could make more than that if you were Peter Billingsley (Ralphie from A Christmas Story.) 🙂

    2. no, don't FUCK Biden, fuck all democrats. Remember, Dems are the party of racism, high taxes, and general stupidity.

      1. That's anti-racism.

    3. Leave poor Joe alone, he’s having a tough day! It seems he’s confused about the Agenda of the Day and the Menu of the Day. You see, one features Putin, while the other features pudding. You see the source of confusion, right?

      1. Especially if the people talking are wearing masks.

      2. The only thing that keeps Joe striaght on these things is that there's nothing in Putin's name that sounds like Jello. (Joe likes that brand, since Bill Cosby endorsed it.)

        1. So THAT’S why he was bitterly disappointed in that Bach concert he recently attended—he thought he was going to the JELLO Suite #1!

          1. Just curious: How do you make Cyrillic characters like you did in another post?

            I tried cutting and pasting from my translator app, but it didn't work. (Hmmph! So much for Reason being "open borders.")

            I wanted to make the text for:

            "Fuck Be Unto Putin! Let's Go, Poontang!" 🙂

            If you could please help, I sure would appreciate it. I take no offense at "learning to code."

            1. Ah, that. Well, I finally got off my duff and figured out how To add a Russian Cyrillic keyboard to my iPhone since I speak, read and write/type Russian and…well…it’s become rather useful just lately….

              1. Is it a free app?

                1. It's a setting on your keyboard application within your phone itself. When you first installed, it asked you for language and you told is American - English (vs. UK or Australian English).

                  In any event, that setting can be changed while in operations - search google for instructions.

            2. As for how to say precisely THAT… I’m afraid I’m going to have to confine myself to some purely Russian choice phrases:
              1. Хуй на Путина (Not sure how that’s gonna translate , it’s basically Fuck Putin. Funny story: There’s a mountain in Chile whose name, in a local Inca dialect means “Little Volcano” but sounds exactly like what I wrote. A bunch of Russians from Canada climbed it and planted an LGBT flag at the summit. I couldn’t stop laughing for days!

              1. Then there’s Путин иди на хуй! A variation on what the Ukrainian soldiers on snake Island told the Russian warship prior to being captured.

                1. As Yakov Smirnoff would say: "Yep!" 🙂

                  1. I posted two others, but Reason disappeared them. Let me know if you’re still checking this, and I’ll repost them.

                    1. I'm still here.

                      Very ominous to see Reason "disappearing" things from members for foreign language. Yet they'll allow spam biz-opp junk in Hindi, Arabic, and Parsi.
                      Somebody get OBL on the case of this hypocrisy!

              2. I'd love seeing The Westboro Baptists taking an expedition up there to protest...then sliding down from an avalanche caused by their loud Holy Roller screechings! 🙂

                1. They just disappeared them AGAIN!! ! WTF Reason?!

      3. Say, I don't know if you seen me ask on another thread, but do you know where Chumby is by chance? I miss his puns too.

        1. I don’t and I miss him too. I prefer riding shotgun in the Pun Mobile to being behind the wheel.

          1. You're doing splendid, Pun Wonder!

            Just avoid the wiles of Cat-MollyGodiva, (if you're not "too young for that sirt of thing,) Riddler-Misek, and Joker-Tony!

            Mr. Freeze Hihn appears to be on ice, but still keep a lookout.

            Ras Al-Ghul, despite his Arch-bad-guy name, can have some thought-provoking and helpful links.

            And always keep a light on at the Pun-Cave. Perhaps our Pun-Man will return soon!

  2. The ban targets seltzers that contain ethyl alcohol—a common stabilizer that's used to help flavor many seltzers and also "soda, mustard and teriyaki sauce"—which amounts to about half the hard seltzers currently sold in Utah

    Er, if it doesn't contain ethyl alcohol, it's not hard seltzer, and it's not an alcoholic beverage at all. What was this meant to say?

    1. I was also confused by that line, but am not particularly surprised to hear Utah is doing something like this. The Mommy Brigade there already has them putting up signs explicitly warning that the beverages in the walk-in alcohol refrigerator contain alcohol. If they're too fucking stupid for that to save them from their own inattention, this probably won't either.

    2. If I understand the various news articles I'm reading, it comes down to that if all the ethyl alcohol in the product comes from fermentation, it's legally beer, but if any of it comes from added flavorings that use ethyl alcohol as a stabilizer, it's not legally beer under Utah law.

      This, of course, has no possible actual health or consumer protection reason, but it is not that different from the general lunacy that drives how these "hard seltzers" or the previous "alcopops" are created in the first place.

      As a legal matter, if you make a "ready-to-drink" packaged cocktail by adding liquor (or pure grain alcohol) to other ingredients, you have to go through one set of regulatory processes and tax laws. But if you brew something as beer, filter out everything that gives it beer flavor, and add flavoring to your filtered water-and-alcohol, it's legally beer for regulation and tax purposes, whether you call it "Zima", "Mike's Hard Lemonade", "Smirnoff Ice", or "Bud Light Seltzer".

      Now, the Feds and most states don't care if you add trace amounts of alcohol to your "beer" because you're using ethanol-stabilized flavorings . . . but Utah has decided to care, because fuck you, that's why.

      1. The vodka I bought when I was in park city was distilled from beer. Was it legally beer?

        1. Nope, because it was distilled rather than filtered, which makes it distilled alcohol, regardless of what it was before.

          Seriously, don't try to actually apply logic to the categories. Sure, the rational way to regulate these products (if you were going to regulate them) would all be based on actual contents of the product rather than the specific processing methods. Do not expect the regulations at any level, state or federal, to be rational, they're derived from the weird interactions of laws made cumulatively over a period of almost a century by the jockeying of rival pressure groups.

      2. I'm pretty sure they mean that you can't buy 99.9% food grade ethanol and add it to something. There are vodkas that are made that way too, are they also banned?

        1. There are vodkas that are made that way too, are they also banned?

          All vodkas in in Utah can only be sold in liquor stores. Similarly, under this new rule, the hard seltzers made by adding flavorings that contain ethyl alcohol (but not those made by adding flavorings that use propylene glycol) can only be sold in liquor stores. If that's "banned" in your meaning, then yes, both the vodkas and the seltzers are banned.

  3. "New legislation from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D., Calif.) would put a 50% tax, charged for a barrel, on the price difference between the current cost of a barrel of oil and the average cost for a barrel between 2015 and 2019. It would raise an estimated $45 billion a year at $120-a-barrel oil, according to lawmakers behind the proposal."

    This isn't as stupid as Nardz spreading Kremlin propaganda to justify the invasion of Ukraine, but it's basically using the same tactic the Kremlin is using.

    The Kremlin wants people to believe that NATO was trying to expand into Ukraine (despite NATO rejecting Ukraine's attempt to join NATO in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022) and they want people to believe that helping the Ukrainians secure Soviet era chemical and bio-weapons stockpiles was a threat to Russia--despite reason and a lack of evidence.

    The Democrats, likewise, want to blame the Ukraine--rather than Democrats' spending, environmental regulation, and, yes, indeed, taxes. Putin blames NATO pushing into Ukraine, the but the real reason Putin invaded Ukraine was because the Ukrainian people wanted to join NATO (despite being rejected every year for eight years.

    The one thing the single party Democrat government could do to cut gas prices, without any participation from anyone else in the world, is to cut federal taxes on gasoline. Just like with Kremlin propaganda, however, they insist that the issue is the opposite of what it is. The problem is that taxes on oil aren't high enough and the answer is to tax profits and redistribute wealth AKA socialism.

    Anyone who believes either one of them despite all the logic and facts to the contrary is an idiot for doing so.

    P.S. Nardz is a fucking retard who believes in and spreads Kremlin propaganda.

    1. P.S. Nardz is a fucking retard who believes in and spreads Kremlin propaganda

      People who win arguments don't have to do this. This isn't a good luck Ken.

      1. *look

      2. That observation had nothing to do with Ken's argument.

        Ad hominem attack: Nardz is wrong because he's a fucking retard.
        Not an ad hominem attack: BTW, Nardz is a fucking retard.

        1. +1

          Here's another example:

          Premise: A publicly available and independently verifiable funding application to the NIAID sent money to a scientist in Wuhan to do gain of function research on corona viruses collected from bats.

          Premise: The recipient of those funds published the results of her gain of function research--on corona viruses collected from bats--in a publicly available and independently verifiable scientific publication.

          Conclusion: Therefore, we know that the NIAID was funding gain of function research.

          I can't say for certain that this was the source of Covid-19, but that conclusion flows logically from the statement, and the facts in my argument don't depend on any particular news source. After all, nothing should be believed because of who says it (appeal to authority), and nothing should be rejected because of who said it (ad hominem). The question of which conclusion to believe should be a question of whether the conclusion is justified by 1) the facts themselves and 2) the logic.

          In the case of concluding that the justification for invading Ukraine based on Russian propaganda is the truth, you need to make some errors in fact and logic that rise to the level of "fucking stupid".

          Conclusion: Putin is invading Ukraine because the bioweapons labs there are a threat to Russia.

          Premise: A U.S. official confirmed the existence of biolabs.

          The first thing that's wrong with this is that it starts with a conclusion and then looks for premises to support it. There are only two cases I can think of when that's the right thing to do. One of them is if you're an undergraduate, you have three term papers due at the same time (right before Spring Break), and you need to write three mediocre term papers quickly. Picking a conclusion first and looking for premises to justify it later is the way to college credit, but that's not the way to formulate a valid argument. The second way is if you're a public defender and you've been assigned the task of defending a guilty rapist or something. That isn't about being right. That's about putting the best case forward to defend a guilty man.

          1. You may look at this from an inductive perspective, in which case we'd move Nardz' conclusion to the end. However, then you're dealing with the fundamental problem of uncertainty--you need to leave yourself open to the possibility that your argument is wrong because of data that hasn't become available yet or that you aren't considering because it's outside the scope of your argument.

            Premise: A U.S. official confirmed the existence of biolabs.

            Conclusion: Putin is invading Ukraine because the bioweapons labs there are a threat to Russia.

            Does that premise lead to that conclusion? Are there other explanations for why the U.S. might have been interested in Ukrainian bioweapon munitions left over from the Cold War? Yes, there are! I've linked them in other threads--and both of those links were to publicly available and independently verifiable sources.

            One of the links I gave was to a treaty the U.S. entered into in 2005 to help Ukraine transition its bioweapons stockpiles and scientists into doing medical research. The other link was to Senator Barack Obama touring Ukrainian bioweapons warehouses in 2005--showing that they were unguarded and saying that the only thing stopping Al Qaeda from getting their hands on Ukranian bioweapons (in the wake of the anthrax attack) was a padlock and the personal integrity of Ukrainian bureaucrats (not much).

            I remember discussing this issue with people during war on terror and reading about it in the news, and I'm sure Putin has known about this since 2005 as well. The treaty is on the U.S. State Department's website, and it was all over American news media during the War on Terror. The Russians probably couldn't afford to help Ukraine secure their bioweapons back then, and may have been glad we were helping Ukraine.

            Meanwhile, is there any public available, independently verifiable information showing that the NIAID or the Defense Department or the State Department have funded further weapons research at those labs? That's what we had with Wuhan that we don't seem to have here. Instead of publicly available and independently verifiable facts that show the U.S. was doing anything threatening to Russia in regards to Ukraine's Soviet era stockpiles of bioweapons or bioweapons in general, we have the Kremlin's accusation and a bunch of conjecture.

            In conclusion, I maintain that reasonableness is about being persuaded by facts and logic, and that willfully ignoring both facts and logic to embrace Putin's justification for subjugating 41 million Ukrainians, kill them, or turn them into refugees--without any substantive logic is getting up there to the height of fucking stupid. When you add the fact that the guy is purposely and willfully embracing Kremlin propaganda--because it's from the Kremlin--you have surpassed the criteria necessary to declare someone a fucking clown.

            Meanwhile, our credibility in opposing the U.S. going to war with Russia may depend on distancing ourselves from Putin apologists.

            1. Ken, going to make you aware. You aren't convincing anybody you have the morally superior discussion in your disagreement with Nardz. You have often misrepresented his actual arguments.

              1. "You have often misrepresented his actual arguments."

                Name one.

                1. Ukrainian bio labs. You were completely dishonest trying to claim his link was propaganda when he used it to show russia was right as the media initially denied the story. You then pulled up a 90s news article to pretend everyone already knew that so it wasn't a big deal anyways, despite your argument being russia talking about bio labs was Russian propaganda.

                  You are failing here.

                  1. The Kremlin has, in fact, been pushing that propaganda, specifically, to justify the invasion of Ukraine--stating that the U.S. was working on bioweapons in the Ukraine--which is exactly what Nardz linked to in his post. Nardz linked to exactly that propaganda. Why pretend otherwise? Are we supposed to pretend he didn't?

                    And the fact that we've had an ongoing and public agreement with the Ukraine--going back to the early 1990s--to help Ukraine secure its Soviet era bioweapons stockpiles does nothing to validate Kremlin propaganda claims that they were working on bioweapons or that those labs represented a threat to Russian security any more in 2022 than they did in 1993 or 2005--back when this was also public knowledge to Russia and the rest of the world.

                    The 2005 treaty is on the State Department's website!


                    Go ahead and read Article I for yourself. This is publicly available and independently verifiable information. No news media interpretation required! You're a smart guy, and it's all right there.

                    Meanwhile, once again, Nardz citing "evidence" to support the Kremlin's claims doesn't actually support the Kremlin's claims. What he assumes is nefarious is actually perfectly understandable in light of publicly available and independently verifiable information that you can read for yourself. His attempt to bolster Kremlin propaganda didn't prove anything. It only served to prove that Nardz was supporting Kremlin propaganda based on conjecture.

                    There is no evidence that I'm aware of that the U.S. has been working on bioweapons at Ukrainian labs, and if you can't tell the difference between evidence and the Kremlin's conjecture, that doesn't mean I'm dishonest. It just means you can't tell the difference between evidence and conjecture.

                    Meanwhile, the U.S.' reasons for helping the Ukrainians secure their Soviet era bio-weapons have been matter of public record for a very long time. It's like Nardz discovering through propaganda that the U.S. has deployed hundreds of Pershing II and Cruise nuclear missiles in western Europe--AND THERE'S A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL WHO'S ADMITTED IT!

                    Actually, those deployments were a matter of public record--back in the 1980s--and they don't justify Putin invading Ukraine either. The reasons we deployed those missiles in the 1980s had a lot to do with deterring any chance that the USSR might win a nuclear war with a first strike against the U.S.--since NATO's European based missiles would land in Moscow before their missiles landed in the U.S. mainland. That's part of what drove them to the negotiating table.

                    At least that example of a threat has the benefit of having a factual basis in the public record. You can confirm the U.S. deployment of Pershing II and Cruise missiles in Europe from multiple sources using publicly available information that is also independently verifiable. That isn't so with the Kremlin's conjecture that the U.S. was working on bio-weapons in the Ukraine. This isn't like when we had publicly available and independently verifiable links to show that the NIAID was funding gain of function research in Wuhan. There is no such evidence in the case of the Kremlin's claims about Ukrainian bio-weapons. It's all based on conjecture by the Kremlin.

                  2. Anyway, because Nardz doesn't know something that was publicly available, common knowledge to anyone who was politically aware circa 2005, doesn't mean I was being dishonest. That means he's ignorant. If the Kremlin claimed we were holding terrorists at a secret base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would that be news to Nardz, too? Meanwhile, if Nardz believes anything just because of conjecture put out through Kremlin propaganda, that doesn't mean I was being dishonest either. That means Nardz is an idiot.

                    Maybe try focusing on the following two points--both of which are absolutely true.

                    1) The Kremlin pushed propaganda justifying Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

                    2) Nardz linked to that Kremlin propaganda and then tried to support it with information of his own.

                    Both of those things are true, and it is also true that both claims were based on nothing but conjecture.

                    In terms of the news being wrong, I'm not sure they were wrong about anything they said, but I am sure that this isn't about believing the news media is wrong or right. If the news media has independently verifiable and publicly available information, they should publish it, and if the Kremlin has independently verifiable and publicly available information that shows U.S. research at a Ukrainian biolab was a threat to Russian security sufficient to justify an invasion in 2022, they should share it, too--rather than feed the world conjecture laden propaganda.

                    The news media is wrong about a lot of things. This isn't about trusting the news media. It's about trusting in publicly available and independently verifiable evidence--like we had in the case of Wuhan and gain of function research. That's how we really knew the news media and Dr. Fauci were wrong on the facts. Here's an unrelated example of the exact same thing:

                    Premise: The people of West Virginia were deeply opposed to the Green New Deal portions of Build Back Better, largely owing to the way their economy has been devastated by the collapse of the coal industry.

                    Premise Donald Trump beat Joe Biden 69% to 29% in 2020--among the widest margins of any state in the country.

                    Conclusion: It is unlikely that Joe Manchin will vote for Build Back Better.

                    The facts in those premises are based on publicly available and independently verifiable information. You can go look it all up yourself! The media spent half of 2021 reporting that Joe Manchin would probably cave. That may have been plausible before the infrastructure bill passed--because the unions that support Joe Manchin in West Virginia really wanted that infrastructure bill. The infrastructure bill spent a lot of money that Joe Manchin wanted, and it might have been enough to make him vote for BBB in order to get the infrastructure bill. However, once the infrastructure bill passed without Build Back Better, the idea that Joe Manchin would vote to support Build Back Better was based on nothing but conjecture.

                    The news media wanted the American people to believe that the Green New Deal portion of Build Back Better and the expansion and creation of entitlements in Build Back Better was so popular, that it would pass Congress and become enacted in law. They were just like the Kremlin using propaganda trying to convince the Russian people that invading the Ukraine was justified based on conjecture about U.S. involvement with securing Ukrainian bio-weapon stockpiles. That U.S. involvement goes back 30 years and, for some reason, wasn't a security threat--right up until Putin wanted to invade the Ukraine in 2022.

                    In other words, facts and logic using publicly available and independently verifiable information isn't just the defense against the conjecture of Russian propaganda. It's also the only defense against the conjecture of the American news media. Nardz is still basing his beliefs on who's giving him the information--which is stupid.

                    Not believing something because of who says it is ad hominem stupid, and believing something because of who said it is appeal to authority stupid. Do you think there is no other way to figure out what's happening and why? There is! There's facts and logic. If the news doesn't pass the logic test, it's shit. If Russian propaganda is based on conjecture rather than publicly available and independently verifiable information, it's shit. Why are we talking about whether the American media was wrong about something? If they had mimicked Russian propaganda in every way, they'd still be wrong--and so would the Kremlin.

                    And I wasn't being dishonest about anything. I was being extremely honest about what was happening and why. If I had been wrong about any of this, that would be one thing--but the fact is that Nardz was pushing Kremlin propaganda on a libertarian website that was trying to justify the invasion of Ukraine based on nothing but conjecture, and he tried to support it by adding conjecture of his own. If the U.S. were trying to justify a foreign invasion using the same bullshit, I'd call them out for it, too. Libertarian capitalists calling out bullshit for failing logic tests and being based on conjecture is what we're all about, and I am most certainly a libertarian capitalist--and although I'm by no means perfect, I'd rather be wrong than dishonest.

                    1. Hey look, a vapid wall of text that's just neokeNN saying "any information or opinion outside of my shallow, mass media/government programmed narrative is Kremlin propaganda" over and over and over again.

              2. Honestly, I think you got freaked, initially, by my claim that Nardz was spreading Kremlin propaganda on the site, and that freaked out feeling never left--not even after you realized that Nardz really was spreading Kremlin propaganda.

                That fact is true.

                Nardz was spreading Kremlin propaganda on a libertarian website, and there is nothing wrong with pointing out the truth.

                And he isn't the only one. His "GG" buddy was stupidly claiming that the reason Putin was shelling Ukrainian cities from a distance was to minimize civilian casualties. He followed that stupid supposition up by regurgitating Kremlin propaganda about how the Ukrainians and the Russians are all one people, too.

                There's nothing wrong with pointing our people who are saying stupid shit because of the Kremlin propaganda they're reading. In fact, that's the libertarian way. We don't censor. We don't have the government step in and shut down "misinformation". When we see stupid shit, we put a spotlight on it, and we call it out for what it is. And that's all I'm doing here.

                I think your problem is with the claim that Nardz is a fucking moron, but stupid is as stupid does.

                Morons are people who believe stupid things for stupid reasons, and Nards is displaying those characteristics in flashing lights. Look at me! I'm Nardz--a total fucking moron!

                P.S. Have you ever seen Nardz claim to be a libertarian or even a capitalist?

                1. And now you're just absolutely full of shit. You've gone full sarcasmic. You can admit you were wrong. Half a dozen people are pointing it out and you refuse to acknowledge it.

                  1. "You can admit you were wrong."

                    Nardz was spreading Kremlin propaganda, and supporting it with conjecture of his own.

                    You saw it with your own eyes.

                2. I mean can you even fucking admit propaganda is on both sides?

                  You sound like a yellow cake truther pre Iraq War at this point.

                  1. ^This.

      3. "People who win arguments don't have to do this. This isn't a good luck Ken."

        It's a statement of fact. Nardz linked directly to Kremlin propaganda--because he believes it. Looks like Twitter has suspended the account he linked to for originating from the Kremlin, or spreading "misinformation", whatever, which is too bad. This is one of the reasons why I oppose censoring stupid and awful speech--because you want to be able to smear it all over the faces of the people who said it, believed it, and spread it.

        The Westboro Baptist Church wouldn't be total objects of derision by everyone if someone had stopped them from walking around with their awful signs saying stupid things. The libertarian way to combat stupid and awful speech is to put a spotlight on it, and that's what I'm doing here. Libertarians should just embarrass and humiliate people for saying awful and stupid things, and that's what should be done to Nardz here.

        Anyway, you can read where Nardz quoted it--and then tried to support it by citing facts (that actually didn't work to support the Russian propaganda). See it for yourself here. The story blocked from the Twitter Post was originally in Russian, and I linked it so plenty of other people could see it before it was deleted.

        I maintain that Nardz purposely linked to Kremlin propaganda to justify the invasion of Ukraine--because he believed it--and is a fucking idiot for doing so. Since Nardz is, in fact, spreading Kremlin propaganda on a libertarian website, 1) Why should I pretend otherwise and 2) Why should I pretend he isn't a freakin' moron for believing it? The appeal to authority fallacy is irrational anyway, and purposely quoting Kremlin propaganda as authoritative is (stupidity)^2.

        1. LOL

          NeokeNN trying to get them State Department checks

    2. It’s notable you list lies Nardz, Democrats, and Russians want us to believe, but you make no mention of lies Republicans want us to believe.

      And there have been a LOT of those lies in the past four years or so.

      1. Cry more.

      2. "but you make no mention of lies Republicans want us to believe"

        Like the 2016 election was stolen by Russian fraud but 2020 was the fairest in human history and we'll purge the military and deplatform you if you question it?
        Or like CRT is just about history and totally isn't warmed over Nazi race theory?
        How about the idea that there isn't any actual inflation occurring (except in smokeless tobacco)?
        Or there's 97 genders and you're a hatemonger if you think there's only two?
        Or Biden never banned drilling on public lands and the Keystone pipeline and it's the greedy oil companies faults that 9000 leases aren't being used?
        Or “Hands up, don’t shoot"?
        Or Judge Kavanaugh ran a secret gang rape cartel?
        Or the evil Covington kids assaulted a vet?
        Or that Trump said neo-Nazis were "fine people"?
        Or that MAGA madmen lynched Jussie Smollet?
        Or that Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress?
        Or that NASCAR has a noose problem?

        1. The rise in oil/gas prices is worldwide and has nothing to do with a 5% completed pipeline that was years away from full completion.

          Worldwide reopening inflation where the US is 68th highest. Hard to blame that on Biden especially since Trump asked oil producers to scale back production to keep prices up.

          1. Turn yourself in for your crimes against children.

          2. "The rise in oil/gas prices is worldwide and has nothing to do with a 5% completed pipeline that was years away from full completion."

            1. Shutting down North American production impacts oil prices worldwide.

            2. The Keystone Pipeline System was commissioned in 2010. In 2015, President Barack Obama stopped the pipeline, causing TC Energy to instigate a US $15 billion lawsuit under NAFTA.
            On January 24, 2017, President Donald Trump took action intended to permit the pipeline's completion, whereupon TC Energy suspended their NAFTA Chapter 11 action.
            On January 18, 2018, TC Energy announced they had secured commitments to start shipping 500,000 barrels per day for 20 years.
            On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden revoked the permit for the pipeline on his first day in office.
            On June 9, 2021, On June 9, 2021, the Keystone XL project was abandoned by its developer. At the time of the project's cancellation, approximately 8% of the pipeline had been constructed. It would have been completed in 2016 if not for the Obama/Biden administration.

            All you ever do here is lie.

      3. This is meant for everybody:

        This is an excellent example of the kind of "logic" Nardz was engaging in--without addressing how wrong the facts are by themselves.

        Conclusion: Donald Trump won the 2016 election because the Russians bought a log of advertising on Facebook.

        Premise: Facebook has admitted that the Russians bought advertising during the 2016 presidential campaign.

        Premise: Hillary Clinton was leading in the polls, and Trump won unexpectedly.

        There are two problems with the logic.

        1) You don't pick a conclusion first and then try to find premises to support it. You look at the premises, and then you draw conclusions from them.

        The logic should take the form:

        Premise: The Russians bought advertising on Facebook during the 2016 presidential campaign.

        Premise: Hillary Clinton, unexpectedly, lost to Donald Trump.

        Conclusion: Therefore, Donald Trump won because the Russians bought advertising on Facebook.

        2) Even when you fix the order, however, the logic is wrong because it's a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

        Just because one thing happened before another thing doesn't mean the first thing that happened caused the second thing to happen.

        Donald Trump didn't win because Putin bought some ads. Donald Trump won in 2016 because swing voters in the rust belt swing states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin voted for him. You might believe they did that because of advertising they saw on Facebook, but I've seen Harley Davidson ads so many times, it's amazing--and I've never bought a Harley Davidson. People can and do resist the power of advertising on Facebook.

        Meanwhile, those swing voters may have been influenced by the last minute investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails. An even better explanation is that those swing voters in rust belt swing states reacted favorably to Donald Trump's promise to renegotiate NAFTA and his promise to start a trade war with China. In fact, if the ads the Russians bought were effective at all in persuading swing voters in those four rust belt states, it's probably because those ads were pushing those issues.

        The point is, you can't nail down causality with that argument. It's a logical fallacy.

        1. Notice, no one is denying that Putin bought advertising during the 2016 election--just like no one is denying the presence of the CIA in Ukraine in 2014.

          Premise: The CIA was in the Ukraine in 2014.

          Premise: The Ukrainians forced their Putin puppet to flee in 2014.

          Conclusion: Therefore, the Ukrainians overthrew their government because of the CIA.

          It's the same stupid Post hoc ergo propter hoc argument as the one that says Hillary lost because of the KGB (or whatever they're calling themselves these days).

          The reason the students protested in Kyiv for three weeks was because the corrupt Putin puppet tore up the European Union - Ukrainian Association Agreement--and those students wanted Ukraine to be part of the EU for various reasons. The reason 500,000 average Ukrainians flooded Kyiv to demand the resignation of the Putin puppet was because the Putin puppet fired on unarmed student protesters--and killed more than 100 of them. Average Ukrainians filled government buildings all over the country in protest.

          Neither the basic facts nor the criticism of a logical fallacy depends on listening to one news source or another. I've linked to the video on YouTube over and over again over the last two weeks. You can see what appears to be 500,000 Ukrainian protesters flooding Kyiv and demanding that Putin's puppet in Ukraine resign with your own lying eyes. No one disputes that Putin's puppet tore up the EU - Ukraine Association Agreement or that he didn't try to clear the protesters out by firing on them and killing them.

          Yes, the CIA was there, and that's as insignificant to the conclusion as Putin's intelligence services buying Facebook ads in 2016. Maybe your house flooded when you were out of town because the pipes were old and one of them burst, but it's hard to see past the fact that your house flooded during hurricane Katrina and every house in five mile radius was also flooded at the same time.

          Because someone commits a logical fallacy, of course, doesn't mean they're a fucking idiot. I'm often wrong. However, when you willfully deny the facts and the logic and willfully choose to believe Kremlin propaganda instead--because it has the authority of being Kremlin propaganda not subject to American bias? And when you do so in defense of the rationalizations of a brutal dictator who is ultimately trying to subjugate a people because they rejected his crony and want to join NATO, I think you should expect to be called a fucking idiot on a libertarian website.

        2. I didn’t say a single word about alleged Russian influencing of the 2016 election. I wasn’t even referring to that at all when I said there are lots of Republican lies.

          1. Whaaaa.

    3. Youre better than the attacks when he isnt even in the thread Ken.

      1. ^This.

        It's really disappointing.

        1. Not just disappointing but extremely odd.

      2. I'm traveling, and these aren't attacks so much as they're facts.

        1. It’s a fact that Nardz is retarded?

          1. I don't think anybody was taking that literally.

            "Where can I read about the Russian side of the war? The telegram channel I follow has been cut off. Everything I’m reading is distorted and only showcasing the Ukrainian side. Some of it is obviously false. We need to hear both sides to get to the truth."



            If I wrote, "BOFF SIDZ!!!" under that comment, you wouldn't think I was literally quoting Nardz saying, "BOFF SIDZ!!!", would you?

            And, yes, I maintain that taking "both sides" into consideration is fucking idiotic--when one of the sides he wants us to take seriously is Kremlin propaganda that justifies the invasion of Ukraine.

            It's idiotic to take both sides seriously when we're talking about holocaust denial. The neo-Nazi skinhead side of that argument is simply not worthy of serious consideration.

            1. NeokeNN, while calling someone else "retarded", still doesn't understand consistent formatting that indicates direct copy-paste quotes...


            2. "If I wrote, "BOFF SIDZ!!!" under that comment, you wouldn't think I was literally quoting Nardz"

              NeokeNN literally just quoted a tweet I quoted and attributed it to me as the original speaker (again).

              1. Don't rub it in. I wish you two could agree to disagree.

                This isn't a Shrike, Mike or Jeff situation. Right or wrong you both arrived at your positions, in my opinion, good faith.

                1. No one can willfully believe anything in good faith--because it's Kremlin propaganda--without being extremely stupid.

                  1. You've been gulping down Davos propaganda on the issue, so I'll yield to your expertise.

                    1. I'm citing undeniable facts.

                    2. No, youre retreating in arguments just like jeff does. You did it badly with the bio labs issue.

                    3. And Ken, based on the logic you've used on Nardz, you're. Xi apologist as you don't believe in mild tariffs against their rampant theft and security breaches while asking for full sanctions on Russia for theirs. Youre a hypocrite and you dont realize it.

                  2. Being an absolutist is just annoying. Both sides have propagated a shit ton of lies including saying their were no bio labs in Ukraine initially. Rubio was shocked by Nulands answer.

                    1. "No one can willfully believe anything in good faith--because it's Kremlin propaganda--without being extremely stupid."

                      Is the statement true or false?

                      There's this things called the appeal to authority fallacy, and committing willingly makes you wrong. Linking to Kremlin propaganda enthusiastically because the Kremlin is your authority is more than wrong. It's stupid.

                      And doing it on a libertarian website is woefully stupid.

                      P.S. Nardz has been full of idiotic behavior for a very long time. I once spent time explaining specialization and exchange to him. He remained skeptical. I know six-day creationists who aren't so stupid that they reject specialization and exchange, and evolution is based on the same concept.

                      And it's not like thinking it's stupid to link to Kremlin propaganda as an authoritative source is counterintuitive. Remember that guy at the end of Reservoir Dogs, who's unwittingly defending the very mole that got everybody killed? I question neither your intentions nor your intelligence. I think your good intentions are getting the better of you. That guy you're defending is a fucking idiot who spreads Kremlin propaganda on a libertarian website and argues in favor of it because he's stupid.

              2. "This isn't as stupid as Nardz spreading Kremlin propaganda to justify the invasion of Ukraine . . . "

                ----Ken Shultz

                Accusing Nardz of spreading Kremlin propaganda--because he links to propaganda the Kremlin is using to justify the invasion of Ukraine--is perfectly accurate.

                Pointing out the stupidity of someone doing that is also perfectly appropriate on a libertarian website.

                Meanwhile, Nardz posted something in "support" of the Kremlin's propaganda (a U.S. official confirming the labs' existence)--and that's because he was supporting the Kremlin's bullshit rationalization for invading Ukraine.

                This strongly suggests that in addition to being stupid, Nardz is dishonest in trying to dodge his support for Kremlin propaganda.

                Nardz wouldn't have posted something to support the Kremlin's propaganda justification for invading Ukraine if he didn't support the Kremlin's propaganda justification for invading Ukraine. I've certainly never seen him do anything like that before.

                Check it yourself at the link below.

                  1. This links to neokeNN claiming biolabs in Ukraine is Russian propaganda... hours after Victoria Nuland confirmed under oath the existence of biolabs in Ukraine that she was concerned would fall into Russian control.

                    This is an amazing melt down, ken.

                  2. I don't see why anyone would have a hard time believing that the US funded biological weapons-applicable research on the Ukraine, even though the Russians were the ones who said it. After all, the fact that the US funded biological weapons-applicable research on Wuhan is nearly an accepted fact - and the Ukraine was a more is friendly partner than communist China. Sure, the Russians may have made it into propaganda by throwing in anthrax and etc., But the basic premise, that the US was funding bio-weapons research, is all too believable.

                    1. The NIAID funded gain of function research on corona viruses collected from bats at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Although (from additional evidence) it appears that this study probably led to the pandemic, that is by no means certain from the available evidence.

                      It is also true that the State Department has said that the Wuhan Institute of Virology has done work for the Chinese military in the past. but there is no evidence that the NIAID money went to weapons research. That's conjecture on your part.

                      "Definition of conjecture

                      a: inference formed without proof or sufficient evidence

                      b: a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork

                      c: a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved


                      Assuming that the NIAID money went to biological weapons research (for the Chinese) is based on nothing but conjecture, and even IF IF IF you had any real evidence of that happening in Wuhan, it would be conjecture to assume we did the same thing in the Ukraine that they were doing in Wuhan.

                      You don't get to just make shit up to believe because it's plausible! If the only evidence you have that something happened is conjecture and the unfounded claims of Kremlin propaganda, then you have no good for anyone to seriously consider you claim.

                      All sorts of plausible but unsupported beliefs can be arrived at by conjecture, but that doesn't mean they're true or likely to be true or are even worthy of serious consideration. For goodness' sake, haven't you ever watched Ancient Aliens? That's all conjecture.

                      The reason we have ties to Ukrainian labs going back to the 1990s are independently verifiable and publicly available.


      When asked if Russia is concerned about the weapons it's dumping in Ukraine being used to shoot down civilian airliners, a senior Russian defense official said: "frankly, that's a risk we're willing to take"

      Just kidding, a US government official at the Pentagon said that

      Sorry folks, this is the price of uh, democracy (a CIA approved regime in Europe)

      I've got family and friends in Europe, but if anything happens to them now that Ukraine is importing Syrian al-Qaeda fighters to own the Russians who might get bored and shoot down an airliner, I'll comfort myself with the knowledge that at least the State Department got its way

      Westerners are so brainwashed and hysterical that although the Pentagon has said "we're ready to see civilian aircraft get blown up with our weapons," rogue Ukrainian militants or terrorists could do it and we would still blame Russia and use it as a reason to invade


  4. "The bar owners want the state government to protect them from competition from tasting rooms. They're clearly in the wrong. The government shouldn't protect any business from competition."

    But crony capitalism is the best capitalism. Why else have a big government, and provide funding for political campaigns?

    1. Does joining one of these businesse associations offer any benefits to an individual proprietor besides pushing for crony capitalism via regulations against competitors?

    1. To be fair John McCain or Bob Dole could also probably beat Biden in 2024.

      1. None of those would even get out of a primary. There would be zero voter enthusiasm on the right which means the activists on the left would win.

        1. You might have missed the joke.

          1. No, I know you referenced dead people, but it was possible you were doing so to say middle of the old candidates from the past could beat him. Which isn't true.

    2. Robbie's presidential candidate picking skills rival his tire changing skills.

      1. How the hell can an adult not know how to change a tire?
        This is something most people learn when they start driving, if not before.

        1. Hipsters don’t drive to the proper cocktail parties, they Uber.

        2. I have a feeling that most people just call roadside assistance now.

          1. For a tire?

            1. Everyone is gay now.

              1. Or a pussy.

            2. Depending on where I get a flat, I might call AAA. Changing a tire by the side of a busy road is dangerous. If it's a quiet city street or rural road, I'll do it myself.

              1. I did once because I was on the side of an interstate many miles from a city, late at night, and my jack broke.

            3. Yes. Most of the kids I know also think a car is undrivable once the TPMS lights comes on, apparently not knowing about the decades we survived before such stems were even invented.

              1. Maybe someday I'll own a car that doesn't have a piece of tape over the Check Engine light.

                1. If you were smart, you'd take care of that. Open the dash and disconnect the wires to the light.

                  1. I'll admit I do go around with my "Check Tire Sensor" Light on because those sensors break too easily and really are superfluous to anyone who can eyeball a tire.

    1. Duh, any POC that defies progressive doctrine must be stripped of his skin tone. Diversity!

      1. "You ain't Black if you don't vote for Joe!"

  5. Jen Psaki claimed this week on tik tok Russians hacked the 2016 election.

    Charlie Spiering
    Jen Psaki tells the Tik-Tok influencers in her briefing that Russia "of course hacked our election here" in 2016.

    Full Psaki quote from
    audio: "If you look back at 2014, and frankly even 2016, when Russia invaded Ukraine and then in 2016, when they, you know, of course, hacked our election here, we did not do that, we did not declassify information."

    1. Golly, I wonder if they'll deplatform her from the internet, cancel her credit cards, harass her relatives bosses to fire them, freeze her bank accounts, imprison her indefinitely without charges and cancel her Gofundme for that?

      1. Psanctions will not psilence her pshrill pshreeking!

        1. Of course the pstaff at a restaurant could refuse her pservice….

  6. Reminder about "noble lies"

    For all the ppl who said this wasn't happening:

    "From March 2020 to March 2021, DPH counted the death of any person who had previously tested positive for COVID-19 as a COVID-related death, regardless of how much time elapsed between those two events..."

    "Even if someone contracted the virus in March and died in a car crash in July, they were added to the ongoing tally of pandemic deaths for that first year."

    This needs to happen in every single state.


    Add this to the list of completely unsatisfying things to have been right about.

    The damage is done, most people still won't admit they were wrong, and there's no indication that those who bought it the first time won't turn around and do the exact same thing all over again.

    And before anyone says, “But they were undercounted! People died at home before we had testing!!!” — Maybe some did. But you can’t make that argument without blowing up the denominator and tanking the IFR that was used to justify all of this hysteria in the first place.

      1. Even if someone contracted the virus in March and died in a car crash in July, they were added to the ongoing tally of pandemic deaths for that first year.

        "This strategy worked well at the beginning of the pandemic, and in fact, a paper was published last summer in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which lauded our efforts here in Massachusetts in counting deaths that occurred during the first wave of the pandemic as opposed to several other jurisdictions,"

        Of course they can change it now, they already learned how far they can push us. But at the time it “worked well” for it’s purpose.

          1. Still amazing they admitted that part.

            1. Honestly, when they admit stuff it almost makes me more nervous.
              It's like they want everyone to know their power is untouchable.

              1. Might as well be giving us the finger.

    1. Heh, if our government can't lie and cheat in order to manipulate public perception and behavior, why even have one?


    BREAKING: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says Ukrainian and Russian negotiating teams have started discussing concrete topics rather than exchanging ultimatums - @SkyNewsBreak

    1. Did you see that Russia asked biden to undo sanctions as a condition of the revamped Iran deal?

      1. It's clown world, we're just subject to it

    2. They figured if Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association could come to terms, maybe there was a chance for them.

      1. With a DH in the NL even!

        1. Shut your whore mouth. Don't break the sanctity if the NL.

            1. Well I've been watching less and less the last few years. Have never been able to watch the AL. Guess I'll fully stop.

              1. Eh, grew up in Michigan, so always watched with a dh. It’s my least favorite of the four major sports, and mostly just have it on tv or radio in the background as I do shit around the house. Went to one game a year before Covid.


    Interesting. Doesn’t bereavement imply something was lost? Like . . . a child?

    1. “Clump of cells” bereavement.


    .@JussieSmollett is one of the kindest, most gentle human beings I know. I’m praying for his quick recovery.

    This was an attempted modern day lynching. No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate.

    1. I hope he survives,

      1. Poor bastard knew he was condemned from the moment it started


    To borrow a phrase... when America sends its people, they're not sending their best.

    1. An animated corpse and an actual retard all because of mean tweets.
      How did she even get a law degree? Did she fuck her way through the bar exam too?

    2. According to the DOE the average price of diesel fuel rose by .741 cents per gallon for the week of 3/08/22. The largest increase since they've been keeping records. Trucking has been taking it on the chin but fuel surcharges are going to go up to unprecedented levels next week. Of course consumers will pay every penny eventually. And the fun is just starting.

      1. Rv industry will collapse in 3 weeks max.
        They have always been the canary in the coal mine.

  11. "The right side of history"
    Former US ambassador:

    One difference between Putin and Hitler is that Hitler didn't kill ethnic Germans, German-speaking people.
    Putin slaughters the very people he said he has come to liberate.


    Now even Joe Biden is a despicable Putin-emboldener, according to Democrats' anti-Trump impeachment hero and venerated foreign policy pundit

    Mr President, you’re inviting disaster & emboldening Putin. This declaration invites Putin to pursue EVERY means to subdue Ukraine.

    Of course the American people don’t want a war with Russia, but they also don’t want to watch Ukrainians slaughtered. We must do more."

    1. WEF mouthpiece. Scary as hell.


    Wow, this is pretty bad.... IF IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

    Using deliberately fake propaganda from a verified Ukrainian media source should let you know that there is something smelly in Kiev. (Yes I pronounced it the Russian way)


  14. You want to talk about booziness? Ok, I got ya:

    Twitter: DRM Military

    The chief spokesman for #Russia's Defense Ministry, Major General Igor Konashenkov, said the #US had a plan to use migratory birds to spread biological pathogens from #Ukraine to #Russia.

    This is extremely concerning. And the fact that Biden’s crypto-fascist military apparatus hasn’t issued a denial is probably all the proof this Black and gay man in the GOP will need to know that it’s true.

    I predict a tweet from Glenn Greenwald in 3…2…1.

    1. Wow! So on top of it Glem.

      Twitter: Glenn Greenwald

      For the weekly @GetCallin podcast I co-host with @qaomene (today at 4:30 pm ET), we'll discuss ongoing events in Ukraine, the bio lab controversy, the growing censorship regime in the West, and welcome @mtracey from Poland. Join us live: iPhone or Android

      1. If you're wondering why Shrike here hates Glenn Greenwald with the force of 10,000 red hot suns, it's because apostacy is far worse than mere paganism to a true believer.

        1. Weird, Samsung corrects "apostasy" to "apostacy".

        2. Meh, the thing with Greenwald is that he was always basically a fan of Russia/Putin. He sucks up to whatever side Russia is favoring currently.

          I mean, seriously, he attacks Bolosnero in Brazil (where he lives) yet loves Trump. Bolsonero is like the Brazilian Trump.

          1. No he hasn't. Where did you pick up that idea from? Our fifty-centers have been pushing the "Everyone that disagrees with the Democrats is a Russian sympathizer" mantra lately. I hope you haven't been falling for that.

            Also, there's some key differences between Bolsonero and Trump outside their personal style, but it's also a question of alternatives. The Democrats and the deep state their policies made Trump look pretty good by comparison.

    2. Stop. This new bit just isn't working.

      Bring back "American Socia1ist." You were so much more entertaining with that character. I mean, calling yourself a socialist while bragging about how rich you are? And pointing to high-poverty California as the perfect state? That was clever!

      This "Ali Akbar" shtick can't compare.

      1. Can I sign your petition?


    glad it wasn’t just me that spotted this

    "Whenever I defuse a missile or bomb, I always cover up the identification markings on the exterior with a cloth

  16. Meanwhile in Missouri, Alcohol-Libertopia of the USA, the things we currently / still have banned:

    1. Drunk Driving
    2. Drive-Through Liquor stores.

    We're working on #2.

    Everything else is pretty much legal. Or at least, not illegal.

    You can set up a still in your backyard if you want to make moonshine. You can drive with an open container as long as the driver isn't drunk. The passengers can be, no problem. You can walk down the sidewalk with a keg on a cart if you want to. They sell absinthe at the grocery stores now.

    1. “You can drive with an open container as long as the driver isn't drunk.”

      This really should be legal everywhere.

      1. In Illinois driving with an open carton of beer is an open container violation even if all of the bottles are still sealed. I kid you not.

  17. And Face Coverings no longer mandatory in my county.

    Oh, and after two years of forcing you to to quit your job if you were non-essential, stay home, stay masked, stay social distanced, Democrats want you to go back to the office and visit their blue-city downtown area.

    1. Meanwhile, Amazon is pulling their workers out of downtown because people keep getting killed. is temporarily removing workers from a downtown Seattle office so employees don’t have to travel to an area that’s seen a spate of shootings, carjackings and other violent crimes.

      “Given recent incidents near Third and Pine, we’re providing employees currently at that location with alternative office space elsewhere,” an Amazon spokesman said in an emailed statement. “We are hopeful that conditions will improve and that we will be able to bring employees back to this location when it is safe to do so.”

      1. “We are hopeful that conditions will improve..."

        It will get worse. Much worse.


    “What about 6 yr old kids that are LGBT??”

    If a 6 yr old kid knows they’re sexually attracted to someone, they’ve probably been sexually abused.

  19. ‘Don’t kill me’: Carjacked Amazon drivers want destination before taking gig

    George Hunt took two bullets in a botched carjacking while delivering packages for in Chicago. Now he’s pushing the e-commerce giant to notify contract drivers in advance about the neighborhoods they’ll be traveling to so they can decide if $30 an hour is worth the risk

    1. "And, yes, I maintain that taking "both sides" into consideration is fucking idiotic"
      -Ken Schultz


    2. "How does anyone support this?"

      Isn't Twitter where you get all your news, you moron?

      1. Versus what these days? CNN and Fox?


    This @McFaul tweet shows an insidious prong of US propaganda. No matter what the US does - even sending a massive military to the other side of the world to attack a smaller country with "Shock and Awe" - it's just a "mistake": a well-intentioned whoopsie. Never immoral/criminal.

    This matters so much -- even now -- because this framework completely warps our understanding of the world, the US role in it, and the conduct of designated adversaries/enemies. No matter how unjustified Russia's invasion is, clarity is still vital:

    Watch this segment from @AymanM, who works within very significant constraints at NBC/MSNBC yet tries hard to inject truth where he can, on how US propaganda about various wars -- ours and theirs -- warps public perceptions on purpose:


    1. The fact that MSNBC tweeted out the clip specifically of mcfail is amazing. He is a supposed "expert."

      1. He was the fucking ambassador to Russia in Obama's first term when Clinton was SoS

  21. Oops

    Kamala thinks Ukraine is part of NATO.
    Just when you thought you knew how unqualified she is, she lowers the bar even further.

    1. She’s hopeless.

    2. Didn't someone high up in the Ukraine government recently tweet something like 'god help us if this woman becomes president'?

      I'll have to look for it.

      1. Sounds like someone didn't get a BJ.


    It’s time. It’s Hilarious Meme Thread time.

    You know the rules. There are no rules. Do your worst.

    Go: [memes]

  23. Interesting menu today, Reason. Booze….Pot….But doesn’t mixing those two produce sexual paranoia? Oh wait…

    1. Only if it's paranoia about losing an erection or waking up next to an ugly partner.

      1. Shit happens when you mix booze and drugs on an empty stomach. That’s why Reason usually provides some chow on Saturdays.


    BREAKING: President Biden authorized $200 million in new military aid for Ukraine…

    14 Billion last week wasn’t enough.

  25. Oil Nations, Prodded by Trump, Reach Deal to Slash Production
    The deal will reduce output by 9.7 million barrels a day. While significant, the cut falls far short of what is needed to bring oil production in line with demand.


    So Trump is to blame for the lack of US oil production. Directly.

    1. Your commitment to #DefendBidenAtAllCosts is truly inspiring.

      Got a rig count update, BTW?


      1. Biden has done enough stupid things without pinning worldwide inflation on him.

        Oil prices are rising due to a supply/demand shock.

        1. Back in 2003 - 2008, when your anger about the Iraq War was at its most intense, did you ever imagine you'd end up on the same side as people like Bill Kristol? I swear, practically everything the #NeverTrump neocons say these days sounds like it could have come from you.

          From Paul Manafort in 2016 to Tucker Carlson in 2022, with Trump as a constant throughout, and for reasons both financial and ideological, important parts of the Republican Party and the conservative movement have been pro-Putin. How can this not have emboldened him to act?

          High gas prices under Biden? Drumpf's fault!
          Russia attacks Ukraine one year into Biden's term? Drumpf's fault!


        2. Oil prices are rising due to a supply/demand shock.

          SleepyJoe single-handedly attempting to kill the oil industry was a kind of shock to the system.

        3. "Oil prices are rising due to a supply/demand shock"

          Nothing to do with Biden banning drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico and issuing an executive order last month banning new wells on public land. Nope, shutting down North American oilfield production wouldn't do that at all.

    2. Are you deliberately fucking up your cites in the hopes that we won't actually read them?

      I searched your quote and didn't get an exact match on Brave.


    More arguments for why Hitler, whatever his faults, wasn't as bad as Putin.

    I guess it's the logical conclusion to the neo-Nazi apologia we've been subjected to for weeks: celebrating actual neo-Nazi milita members (@IAPonomarenko), arming those militias, FB allowing praise.

    This Facebook "exemption" from their normal rules about not allowing praise for Nazism is even more amazing than their announced decision to make an exception to their ban on advocating violence: as long as it's against Russians.

    "Piling up the arguments, Putin appears far worse than Hitler"

    From affection for Azov Battalion to the conversion of brother-in-arm @IAPonomarenko into a celebrity, I don't recall a whitewashing of Nazism this explicit or mainstream in my life.

    For the truly enthused, get your Azov Battalion merch here. Try to catch @IAPonomarenko in between Guardian columns and Fox hits to get some advice on what looks best:

    Everyone in the US with a MAGA hat is deemed a "literal Nazi" who you're supposed to punch and/or imprison, but liberals see actual, real-life Nazis in Ukraine and either swoon with admiration, arm them, or call you a Kremlin agent for wondering if this might work out poorly.


  27. Speaking of reforming antiquarian rules…Anyone else as thrilled as I am about losing an hour and messing with our sleep cycles for no valid reason?

    1. I absolutely hate it.

    2. There's no lost hour and no one forces you to change your clocks.
      All of the "smart" devices have taken it upon themselves to change though.

      1. But Gummint does it and pRiVaTe cOmPaNiEs do it, so why isn't there more complaining about it?

    3. Yes, it is a damn drudgery, though on the bright side, since it happens 2 A.M Sunday Morning, it may throw Christian Right and Christian Left activists off of their "A"-for Authoritarian game. It would be interesting to see a study on the effect of clock changes on Church attendance.


    A US consulate was bombed hours ago and there’s nothing but deafening silence from the White House

    Jen Psaki hasn’t even tweeted in 2 days

    1. rUsSiaN pr0paGAndA

      1. According to FoxNews coverage at least, Russia bombing a military training and supply center in the western part of the country where US troops have trained Ukrainian army in the past is way, way more important than Iran bombing actual Americans at American facilities.

    2. Her psilence is pshocking—pseak up already!


    The US consulate in Erbil, Iraq has been hit with multiple missiles, which has been attributed to Iran in early, yet unconfirmed reports. Sky News Arabia reports that the consulate, located in Kurdistan, was hit. No casualties have been reported, a US official told Reuters.

    According to BBC journalist Shabnam Shabani, "The governor of Erbil, Omed Khoshnaw, stated that multiple missiles fell in the area, saying it was unclear whether the target was the US consulate or the airport in the city. According to INA, five explosions were heard in the attack."

  30. So organic...

    PRO-WAR PROTEST: Marchers in in Los Angeles demand a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

    President Biden has said taking this step would trigger World War Three.


  31. Guess who matters?
    Not Americans.

    UPDATE: The State Department says there was "no sign the attack was directed at the United States."

    In reality, the missiles struck the only city in Iraq outside of Baghdad where the U.S. has a diplomatic mission.


  32. Because what city wouldn't want to be more like Nashville, with drunken revelers partying every day?

  33. Getting back on topic:

    In Rhode Island, for example, lawmakers are considering legalizing party bikes—those oversized bicycles for a dozen or so pedalers that often feature a bartender or travel from bar to bar.

    Are party bikes where Critical Mass thugs go to get drunken courage before they go out on a rampage against the evil automobilers with bike locks and chains?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.