Reason Roundup

30 Percent of Americans Still Oppose Same-Sex Marriage 

Plus: Research says neuroscience studies are largely unreliable, Elizabeth Warren's new antitrust bill, and more...

|

Support lower among Republicans, black Americans, white evangelicals. After dominating the culture war and state legal battles throughout the aughts and the early 2010s, the issue of same-sex marriage's legality was suddenly put to rest by the Supreme Court in 2015. No longer a politically useful rallying point, it quickly faded from mainstream public view. So it's easy to imagine that beyond some hyper-religious communities, Americans today don't have a problem with same-sex marriage. But a new survey from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) is a sobering reminder that's not so.

Some 30 percent of people surveyed by PRRI still think that gay and lesbian couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. Among Republicans only, this figure jumps to 50 percent. Yikes.

The good news is that 68 percent of those surveyed support same-sex marriage, and this figure has been steadily and quickly rising. In 2014, only 54 percent supported the right of same-sex couples to legally marry. This jumped to 58 percent in 2016, 61 percent in 2017, and 67 percent in 2020. Support among Republicans is up from 35 percent in 2014.

Support among older Americans has also grown, with almost 60 percent of those 65 and up saying same-sex marriage should be legal. Among those aged 50–64, support was at 64 percent, jumping to 72 percent for those aged 30–49 and 76 percent for those aged 18–29.

The figures come from the PRRI's American Values Atlas, a series of annual surveys on public attitudes. The 2021 sample included a total of 22,612 adults.

"Majorities of Americans of almost every major racial and ethnic group support same-sex marriage," notes the PRRI.

Support was lowest among black Americans (59 percent). Sixty-nine percent of white Americans support same-sex marriage.

Majorities of many major religious groups are also supportive. This includes Jewish Americans (83 percent), white Catholics (74 percent) and Catholics of color (80 percent), white mainline Protestants (76 percent), black Protestants (55 percent), Orthodox Christians (58 percent), Hindus (86 percent), Buddhists (81 percent), and Muslims (55 percent).

The only major religious groups without majority support were Latter-day Saints (46 percent), white evangelical Protestants (35 percent), and Jehovah's Witnesses (22 percent).

The PRRI survey also includes findings on anti-discrimination laws pertaining to sexuality and gender and religiously based service refusals. You can find the full results here.

Survey respondents were more likely to support nondiscrimination laws than to support same-sex marriage:

Nearly eight in ten Americans (79%) favor laws that would protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations, and housing, including 41% who strongly support them. One in five Americans (20%) oppose such laws, including just seven percent who strongly oppose them. Support for these protections has increased over the past few years, with around seven in ten Americans favoring nondiscrimination provisions in 2015 (71%), 2017 (70%), 2018 (69%), and 2019 (72%), up to 76% in 2020.

Nearly two-thirds opposed "religiously based refusals to serve gay and lesbian people." The survey did not drill deeper to see if this changed when a refusal was related to a same-sex marriage ceremony (as the cases that have been challenged in court have been) as opposed to just outright refusing to serve LGBTQ customers.


FREE MINDS

Neuroscience studies are largely unreliable, according to new research. "The results of most studies are unreliable because they involved too few participants," reports the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, citing new research published on March 16 in the journal Nature.

Using publicly available data sets – involving a total of nearly 50,000 participants – the researchers analyzed a range of sample sizes and found that brainwide association studies need thousands of individuals to achieve higher reproducibility. Typical brainwide association studies enroll just a couple dozen people.

Such so-called underpowered studies are susceptible to uncovering strong but spurious associations by chance while missing real but weaker associations. Routinely underpowered brainwide association studies result in a glut of astonishingly strong yet irreproducible findings that slow progress toward understanding how the brain works, the researchers said.

The study was spurred by two researchers who couldn't replicate their own relatively large (1,000 kids) study. The median sample size in published neuroscience papers is 25.

"We were interested in finding out how cognitive ability is represented in the brain," said Scott Marek, a psychiatry instructor at Washington University. "We ran our analysis on a sample of 1,000 kids and found a significant correlation and were like, 'Great!' But then we thought, 'Can we reproduce this in another thousand kids?' And it turned out we couldn't. It just blew me away because a sample of a thousand should have been plenty big enough. We were scratching our heads, wondering what was going on."

So Marek and a team of other researchers from Washington University and the Masonic Institute for the Developing Brain at the University of Minnesota started looking at neuroimaging datasets and attempting to replicate results.

"Our findings reflect a systemic, structural problem with studies that are designed to find correlations between two complex things, such as the brain and behavior," said senior author Nico Dosenbach, an associate professor of neurology at Washington University. "It's not a problem with any individual researcher or study. It's not even unique to neuroimaging. The field of genomics discovered a similar problem about a decade ago with genomic data and took steps to address it."


FREE MARKETS

Democrats seek greater powers for antitrust enforcers and an end to the consumer welfare standard. New legislation from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Rep. Mondaire Jones (D–N.Y.) would let antitrust enforcers with the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice break up companies and block mergers without a court order. The terribly illiberal bill—dubbed the Prohibiting Anticompetitive Mergers Act—would let the DOJ and the FTC retroactively reject mergers that were already approved if they "materially harmed" competition or led to a market share above 50 percent. The bill effectively does away with the prevailing consumer welfare standard for antitrust enforcement, which relies on considering whether business antics actually harm consumers. The nonsensical replacement standard would consider whether activity harms competitors—a.k.a. exactly what business is meant to do.

The Prohibiting Anticompetitive Mergers Act would also automatically block mergers valued at more than $5 billion, those resulting in highly concentrated markets, or those resulting in market shares above a certain threshold.

"The proposal is backed by a coalition of progressives in both chambers, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.), and follows a series of proposals introduced in Congress targeting the market power of tech giants," reports The Hill. But the bill does not yet have any Republican co-sponsors.


QUICK HITS

• In the three weeks since Russia invaded Ukraine, at least 7,000 Russian soldiers have been killed, per a U.S. intelligence estimate.

• The Federal Reserve has approved an interest rate hike—the first in three years—of a quarter percentage point. The Federal Open Market Committee "anticipates that ongoing increases" will be needed, it said in a Wednesday statement.

• Why is the U.S. so slow in processing Afghan refugees?

• Mississippi has passed a ban on critical race theory in education:

NEXT: Time To Close the Car Snitch Loophole

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. Support lower among Republicans, black Americans, white evangelicals.

    White supremacists strike again.

    1. hilariously, they couldnt just pitch this as white supremacy. The pride crowd is going to have a hard time bitching about this though, as the sacred Black americans disapproved the most.

      1. Or, and just hear me out on this, they’ll just lie knowing most of their followers are to stupid to actually look at the survey.

        1. ...you're probably right

          1. Easily work do it for everyone from home in part time and I have received 21K$ in last 4 weeks by easily online work from home. uio I am a full time student and do in part time work from home. I work daily easily 4 hours a day in my spare time.
            .
            Details on this website:>>> http://WorkStar24.blogspot.com/

      2. When California had it's gay marriage initiative, it lost. Everyone blamed the rednecks east of Interstate 5, but then it turned out it was the Blacks that voted against it.

        Any Progressive White Savior should have seen this. The virulence against gays in the Black community is well known. They are getting over it, just like Whites are getting over it, but assuming an entire race is just going to dutifully follow the ideological orders of their White Saviors is arrogance in the extreme.

        1. Arrogance? Or expecting the status quo of 50 years to continue?
          I dunno if it's selective media algorithms, but seems to me a LOT of black people are figuring this scam out. And when their leaders, who have all somehow turned "Advocating for our people!" into very nice suits and very expensive cars, tell them to toe the line...is there a little more pushback?

          Because it seems to me that the black community has been very ill-served by their "leaders" who never produce much more than hot air in the shape of progressive jargon, all seeming designed to perpetuate the positions of those leaders, as opposed to, oh...fixing problems.

          1. That's the other problem Progressives have: Assume self-appointed leaders actually represent the communities they appointed themselves leaders of. Progressives don't understand this because they themselves are self-appointed spokesmen for some group or another. Whatever it takes to butt their way to the front of the line.

            The overwhelming majority of Blacks aren't following the dictates of their "leaders" any more than they are following the dictates of their White Saviors. That they tend to vote Democrat is largely because the for decades the Republicans positioned themselves as the party of Old White People. That was mostly pre-Reagan days, but old habits die hard.

            p.s. The LP can be just as bad. The LP spent most of its time in existence being the party of Crazy White Men. Walk into most any LP meetup and the first topic of conversation is how the Bilderbergers were behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

      3. Not me. A black co-worker of mine once said to me, almost pointedly: "Black people just don't like Homosexuals."

        I replied: " I guess you don't get out of the joint enough to know about RuPaul." And peels of laughter filled the kitchen from my other co-workers. 🙂

        I could have also asked him: "Is there something you wish to tell us about your time on The Rock?" 🙂

    2. I'd like to see it polled among self-described libertarians. I'll tell you one thing, the issue has gotten me to think harder about principles than all but a few issues in many years. When it first came to my attention in the 1990s, my thought was sure, why not? But then in this century when it came to be an important issue of controversy, I thought about it more, did some research on the history of family law, and turned very anti-, which I still am.

      The legal recognition of marriage (and really of the whole field of family law) is an uncomfortable but necessary exception to individual liberty, and its necessity is not because a couple just want to be treated as a unit.

      1. Well, just look at it this way: Everyone has an equal right to The Pursuit of Misery. Government is there to make it public and official.

        1. A lot of people do actually like being married and having a family, unpleasant as it may be at times.

    3. I would guess that a lot of the "acceptance" is related to the futility of resisting a SC decision.

      1. And doubts about whether survey answers are really private.

    4. I still don't understand why the government is involved in marriage at all. Is it just me?

      1. Moon, marriage conveys certain rights and responsibilities on participants, some of them impacting children, so yeah, of course government has to be involved.

        1. Marriage predates any goddamn government.

        2. These issues have already been addressed several times in this thread.

        3. "marriage conveys certain rights and responsibilities on participants"

          Then the law discriminates and should be fixed. The government has no business and adds no value.

          1. Right, right, no reason to worry about humanity going extinct because the government decides to become hostile to people who take on the burden of raising the next generation. It's not like every Western society is dying off, or anything like that. (Everything below 2 is sub-replacement.)

      2. They shouldn't be involved.

    5. 30 Percent of Americans Still Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

      Then they can just not Gay-marry. Problem solved.

    6. 50% opposition among Republicans gets a "Yikes" while 59% opposition among blacks gets no snark at all from ENB. I wonder why?

  2. Some 30 percent of people surveyed by PRRI still think that gay and lesbian couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.

    The new wedge issues aren't cutting it, we need to revive the classics.

    1. And yet, I don’t see them rioting in the streets about it.

      1. We can't afford to riot. Have you checked the price of torches and pitchforks lately?

        1. Only trustafarians with gold pitchforks can afford to riot.

      2. That's peacefully protesting. Keep up with the progressive linguistic swaps.

    2. PRRI survey is BS. Left wing organization skewing results.

      74% of Catholics support gay marriage? Really? Absurd.

      1. Nearly eight in ten Americans (79%) favor laws that would protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations, and housing, including 41% who strongly support them. One in five Americans (20%) oppose such laws, including just seven percent who strongly oppose them.

        You're missing the whole point of this survey. It's not just to give the facts, it's to demand the government pass more laws.

        1. It may also be to demonize Republicans. I think there was a poll last year that showed 56% of Republicans are in favor of legalized gay marriage. Now it's 50% are opposed. A 6% dip seems outside the margin of error of any reasonably conducted polls.

          I'm skeptical anytime I see a claim being made based on a single poll. I would think Reason authors would know better and actually shop around for a bit when it comes to polling.

          1. You assume ENB has any interest in analysing polling data, and not just parroting the talking points.

            1. I usually avoid ripping on the writers here, but ENB let out a little “Yikes”…… right before pointing out that acceptance of gay marriage has climbed steadily (54-68%) in just a few years.

              I guess when you’re conditioned to mine for grievance…..

      2. "74% of Catholics support gay marriage? Really? Absurd."

        Yes, Catholic leaders, including the Pope are trying to negotiate this issue right now. Will there ever be Gay Catholic Marriage, probably not. But few Catholics really object to gay marriage. The majority of those who do are likely to be American Catholic bishops and they are so far behind the curve they may never catch up.

        1. What complete and utter bullshit.
          Religious beliefs aren't based on political fashion.

          1. Exactly. Which is why the progs have engaged in a very long campaign to chip away at religious life.

            1. Religion does a fine enough job chipping away at itself.

          2. Sometimes they are. Have you talked to many mainline protestants or Anglicans lately?

            1. That's Wokeianity masquerading as Christianity. Throwing 2000 years of doctrine and theology in the garbage for the latest fads around buggering, probably means you don't really ascribe to that doctrine.

              1. It's still religious beliefs, whatever you want to label it with. I have a lot of contact with such people. Many of them are sincere and have actual religious faith. (Many also don't).

              2. You say that like it's a bad thing. 🙂

        2. There's no negotiation on this issue within the Catholic church. There will never be gay Catholic marriage, because Catholics believe the purpose of sex is for procreation, and any sex that is not "oriented toward life" is a sin. Gay sex cannot be oriented toward life. Marriage is between one man and one woman, for the purpose of procreation, and since gays can't procreate, they can't partake of the sacrament of marriage.

          As far as civil, non-sacramental marriage, the Catholic church takes the position that all civil marriages that are "proper in form" (ie, between one man and one woman, not coerced, not entered into under false pretenses, neither party is married to someone else already, etc) are considered to be valid Catholic marriages in the eyes of God. Since gay marriages cannot be proper in form, they cannot be recognized as valid marriages.

          The American conference of bishops is not behind the curve. They are adhering to Catholic doctrine, which- like civil rights- isn't decided by popular opinion.

          1. Many American Catholic Bishops appear to have their own doctrine which is not necessarily in agreement with Catholic doctrine.

            1. Like what? Objecting to gay marriage on the grounds that biblically and according to Catholic doctrine, marriage is between a one man and one woman? Refusing communion to politicians who are publicly supportive of abortion?

          2. That's the way I think about it too, except substitute "marriage" for "sex" and get rid of the "sin" bit. Traditionally infertility was grounds to annul a marriage, but today in law that would be too great an intrusion into privacy of a couple, so I'd allow infertile male-female couples to marry even if that's against the spirit of family law.

            1. Maybe reserve marriage (as a legal concept) for fertile couples. Your marriage is probationary until you produce offspring. Gays are welcome to try, but probably won't have much luck.

              I'm not being very serious. But I'm also not being completely unserious.

            2. You'd "allow?" If any word is a "trigger word" for a Libertarian, that one has to be it...Only Libertarians get there "four boxes" ready instead of curling jn a fetal position or running for a "safe space."

            3. Traditionally, infertility permitted annulment, but didn't mandate it. You were, after all, doing the right thing, even if it wasn't working.

          3. Funny, the Catholic Church runs interference for child-molesting Clergy and that is decidedly anti-life for the victims and their loved ones.

            Well, since Catholic doctrine is unchanging, all I can do is go to the Vatican auction and say: 'Bye, Felicia!' as they sell off their artifacts to make settlements.

            By the way, I got dibs on bidding on that aspect of the Cistene Chapel with Plato, Aristotle, Averroes, and Avicenna the "honorary Pagans." 🙂

        3. What propaganda are you reading? Pope has already said outright "no" to gay marriage.

      3. Spain, France, Portugal, Ireland, Argentina, Brazil, Malta are all predominantly Catholic, and all legalized same-sex marriage through legislation or popular referendum. Why do you think American Catholic opinion would be so different?

      4. Yeah, the devil is in the methodology, usually.
        "74% of Catholics support gay marriage!" but the question was "Would you personally murder your neighbors if you found they were a gay married couple?"

        I think among that 30% are a lot of people who think reproduction is a valid concern of society.

        1. Well, that 30 percent can still reproduce (physiology permitting) and there are plenty of fertility options if they can't (including In-Vitro Fertilization--IVF-- which the Roman Catholic Church started 15 minutes of huckle-buck about during the Seventies, then, in the end, said that there were to be no ill consequences for the IVF parents or children born by this method. Evidently, a lot of Roman Catholic Clergy like to hear themselves yammer multisyllabically.

      5. The Laity are obviously more enlightened and accepting of LGBTQ+ people than the Clergy.

    3. What percent of those people don't give a shit if the government recognizes any religious ceremony and would rather they stick to allowing and honoring contracts? I fall firmly into the category of no 'marriage' laws at all.

      Everyone would be better served if the contract rights under a civil union were required to be spelled out in plain language rather than meted out by judges.

      1. Obviously you give a shit. You give 10% of your income to a church that spent millions on CA Prop 8.

        To this day your church opposes same sex marriage.

        I believe marriage is a sacred bond between two non-Mormons. You have to respect my beliefs!

        If you actually believed what you posted you’d put your money where your mouth is and stop funding and recruiting for your church.

        1. You pretend to know my thoughts. You don't. You wish to control my thoughts. You can't. You want my respect. I refuse. Unlike you, I understand that freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom of religion all flow from the same natural right to freedom of thought.

          And I think you are a noisy prejudiced little pants-shitter. I don't care if anyone else agrees. Your childish attempts to undermine anything I post with distracting fallacious nonsense puts your dishonesty on full display. You are not worthy of engagement.

          1. Hey todays comment was sort on topic.

            And I’ll have you know I haven’t shit my pants since high school! So I’m no longer a pants shitter!

      2. I'll agree with that. Chuck P.

      3. It's not just about honoring contracts. It's about many cases of 3rd parties having to recognize a person's or couple's marriage, and of couples having to be treated legally as a unit for certain legal purposes.

        1. It's about many cases of 3rd parties having to recognize a person's or couple's marriage, and of couples having to be treated legally as a unit for certain legal purposes.

          Concepts that are already very well established in the law.

    4. Gays have just as much of a right to divorce as everyone else.

      1. Hear hear! Why do straight people get to have all the fun?

    5. I'm astonished that court mandates instead of votes tend to limit acceptance of things. Who would have guessed?

  3. New Iran Agreement Would Let Russia Cash in on $10 Billion Contract To Build Nuclear Sites
    Biden admin will waive sanctions so Russia can build contested nuclear plant
    https://freebeacon.com/national-security/new-iran-agreement-would-let-russia-cash-in-on-10-billion-contract-to-build-nuclear-sites/

    "We, of course, would not sanction Russian participation in nuclear projects that are part of resuming full implementation of the JCPOA," State Department spokesman Ned Price confirmed on Tuesday, referring to the original 2015 nuclear accord. Russia’s foreign ministry made a similar statement on Tuesday, saying that "additions were made to the text of the future agreement on JCPOA restoration to ensure that all the JCPOA-related projects, [especially] with Russian participation, as well as Bushehr [nuclear power plant], are protected from negative impact of anti-Russian restrictions" by the United States and European Union.

    The removal of these sanctions will provide Moscow’s Rosatom company with a critical source of revenue as American and European sanctions crush Russia’s economy in response to its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. The concessions to Moscow have generated frustration on Capitol Hill, with top Republican leaders accusing the Biden administration of weakening penalties on Russia to secure an agreement with Iran. Moscow has served as the United States' top interlocutor in talks, even as the country’s war machine rolls across Ukraine. The Free Beacon first reported on Tuesday that a policy document circulating among lawmakers exposes how the new nuclear agreement will create a "sanctions evasion hub" for Russian president Vladimir Putin.

    A State Department spokesman, speaking on background, told the Free Beacon the administration continues "to engage with Russia on a return to full implementation of the JCPOA. As Secretary Blinken said last week, ‘Russia continues to be engaged in those efforts, and it has its own interests in ensuring that Iran is not able to acquire a nuclear weapon.'"

    1. Biden may remove Iran's Revolutionary Guard from terrorist list
      https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/03/17/biden-may-remove-irans-revolutionary-guard-from-terrorist-list-n455942

      Democrat President Joe Biden’s administration is reportedly considering lifting the Foreign Terrorist Organization designation on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in exchange for a public commitment from Iran that they will play nice in the region.

      The move comes as Biden desperately tries to get Iran to reenter a nuclear deal. Russian diplomat Mikhail Ulyanov praised Iranian negotiators earlier this month, saying that Iran “got much more than it could expect.”

      “An agreement to restore the 2015 nuclear deal is nearly complete, but Iran’s demand that President Biden reverse Donald Trump’s decision to designate the IRGC as a Foreign Terrorist Organization is a key remaining sticking point,” Axios reported.

      1. SleepyJoe is going to get us all killed.

        1. "Biden can ask Sting to come out of retirement and sing his snarky song about the Russians loving their kids and everything will get better. It worked last time." - Proggie logic

          1. It is VITAL we remember that we finally do not have "Putin's boy" in office. We need to remember this because Biden's behavior certainly does not reflect this.

            Also, odd that Romney is not referring to THIS as treasonous.

            1. Romney can get bent. And then retire.

            2. Romney clearly has no respect for the meaning of words. He covets power. When things go to shit, I hope that for his part in it he gets beaten to death by the people who elected him. He does have one of those oh, so punchable smug faces.

              1. I don't get why Utah, as conservative state as is out there, keeps electing squishes like Romney and their useless governor.

                Does Mormonism really absolve all flaws?

                1. No, but you actually have to be paying attention to catch them lying. Why anybody thinks voting should be easy is beyond me.

          2. I recently read somewhere that Sting is touring and he has indeed broken this song back out.

            1. Maybe if he threatened to remove his music from Spotify if the Russians don't stop the invasion?

            2. Does that make him a Putin apologist?

      2. In the absence of Senate ratification, the agreement is nothing more than a 'Gentleman's Agreement'. Elect a Team R POTUS and the agreement will be ripped up.

        1. You think we’re ever gonna have a R potus again?

          1. They'll let a Romney, Cheney or Bush. Another anti-establishment candidate? Never.

            1. They have almost made the full transition to neocon as it is, and had a standing ovation for dick cheney among dem congress critters.

              But their pre-emptive war on desantis is telling of what they plan on doing if its someone even a little off the reservation

      3. Remember when Biden criticized Trump for "cozying up to dictators?" I do, but I very much doubt Biden does.

      4. I suggest you wait for further confirmation as both these articles are from dubious and highly partisan sources which do not even hint at there's, except to quote other publications which do not give them they weight they do. Additionally, neither points out the fact that Iran was in compliance with the Nuclear deal as attested to - by the agreement itself - by US intelligence as well as Israeli intelligence and the IAEA which of course had full time inspectors on the ground and that since Trump stupidly pulled us out, for which we got nothing, Iran has gone for about 1 year of work to make a bomb - after they were able to proceed again - to less than 2 months now. Way to go Fatso!

        1. "...highly partisan sources which do not even hint at THEIRS.."

      5. Fuck Be Unto Biden!

    2. Dictators have to stick together.

    3. Didn't see your post so will be a double below.

    4. This is why I think the Ukraine thing is all a ruse and both the Biden regime and the Putin regime are in on it.

  4. Survey respondents were more likely to support nondiscrimination laws than to support same-sex marriage...

    They're just fucking with you at this point.

  5. Adam Carolla Says Reason Why Kids Have Been Forced To Mask In Schools Is Much Worse Than COVID
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/adam-carolla-says-reason-why-kids-have-been-forced-to-mask-in-schools-is-much-worse-than-covid

    “Well, just remember this phrase Megyn: ‘crate training’,” he added. “You can not train a dog when it’s middle aged. You got to get them when they’re puppies. And get them trained up and into that crate. And that’s what we’re doing with kids. Because this will not be the last emergency. And it will not be the last time the government and the governor and the mayor need to exact their power.”

    “And so, ‘let’s get the kids into the crate,'” Carolla continued. “‘Let’s get them coached up. And then they’ll be ours. We can do whatever we want with them after that, they’ll listen to anything. They’ll be good subjects.'”

    1. I’ve also noticed lately that there have been protests where high school kids are DEMANDING to be made to wear masks. So not only will they accept the crates, they will beg to go in there. Good little subjects indeed.

      1. Which is very odd as they are free to wear masks.

        1. It's not odd at all. They're being pushed by some parents and teachers. It isn't that they want to wear masks, they want to force everybody else to wear them as well.

          1. Yep. That's the key.

            Forcing their will onto others.

      2. That is the most depressing thing I've ever heard.

    2. Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.

      Vladimir Lenin

  6. "In the three weeks since Russia invaded Ukraine, at least 7,000 Russian soldiers have been killed, per a U.S. intelligence estimate."

    Not good enough. The United States needs to formally declare war on Russia. Or at least, establish a no-fly zone that will hopefully pull us into a fullscale conventional war.

    #LibertariansForWarWithRussia

    1. BTW has anybody noticed the same #TrumpRussia denialist phony progressives (Glenn Greenwald, Michael Tracey, etc.) are now leading the online campaign against direct US military conflict with Russia? That proves they've been on Putin's payroll all along.

      #IfYoureNotWithBidenYoureWithPutin

      1. Doesn't your brain cramp up sometimes, trying to keep track of those bizzaro thought processes?

    2. Looking forward to the Walter Cronkite style body counts every night.

      1. First thing I thought of too. We are back in the Vietnam cycle.

  7. Government should not be involved in marriage outside of contract enforcement. Instead they create a vague set of contractual terms at the whim of dissolution of the contract at the whims of a family court Judge. Instead it should be a contract set at the beginning. Government would be free to provide standardized forms if desired.

    But government should be no more than contract enforcement.

    1. Except that many divorces and most custody cases are so much more complex, involving so many other issues (e.g. distribution of assets accrued by the working spouse during the marriage, determining which parent (or both) get custody of children and where the children go to school) that are rarely or never foreseen prior to marriage.

      Premarital agreements clarify some of those decisions, but premarital agreement can have many negative influences on marriages (e.g. a rich man treats his wife and children like chattel), as occurred in the past.

      1. My wife is a divorce and custody lawyer.

        1. So, you are not opposed to gay marriage then. 🙂

  8. Now that Joe Biden’s president, the Times finally admits: Hunter’s laptop is real
    https://nypost.com/2022/03/17/the-times-finally-admits-hunter-bidens-laptop-is-real/

    First, the New York Times decides more than a year later that Hunter Biden’s business woes are worthy of a story. Then, deep in the piece, in passing, it notes that Hunter’s laptop is legitimate.

    “People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity,” the Times writes. “Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.”

    Authenticated!!! You don’t say. You mean, when a newspaper actually does reporting on a topic and doesn’t just try to whitewash coverage for Joe Biden, it discovers it’s actually true?

    But wait, it doesn’t end there. In October 2020, the Times cast doubt that there was a meeting between Joe Biden and an official from Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company for which Hunter was a board member. “A Biden campaign spokesman said Mr. Biden’s official schedules did not show a meeting between the two men,” the Times wrote, acting as a perfect stenographer.

    Yet in the latest report, published Wednesday night, the Times said the meeting likely did happen. Biden had attended the dinner in question. Funny how this works when you don’t just take someone’s word for it.

    1. And remember how social media tried to bury the Post's piece on this story?

      1. They censored accurate information for the purpose of helping a political candidate. How is that not a major scandal?

        1. No WIDESPREAD burial of accurate information.

  9. ENB is the most libertarian person I know. I’m sure not even mentioning the libertarian view on marriage was just an oversight, as she was in a hurry to get to the rest of the roundup.

    1. Ctrl+F "abortion" = 0 results

      She might be off her game this morning.

      #AbortionAboveAll

  10. https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1504163825058209793

    Biden discusses "a new civil rights cause of action."

    "I bet everybody knows somebody...that in an intimate relationship, what happened was the guy takes a revealing picture of his naked friend, or whatever, in a compromising position and then blackmails..."

    1. So most people Joe knows has done this. Fucking degenerates.

      1. Not much of a surprise though.

      2. He knows at least ONE person who's been caught in compromising positions...

        1. Tara Reid?

      3. Think about the colleagues with whom he kept company during his Senate years.

    2. I guess I live a boring life….

    3. Will Hunter be able to sue anyone who published his laptop crack pipes and hos pictures?

    4. I love the multiple references to his son in response to this.

  11. In the three weeks since Russia invaded Ukraine, at least 7,000 Russian soldiers have been killed, per a U.S. intelligence estimate.

    Putin has his own depopulation scheme.

    1. 7,000 is way lower than the 10,000 I heard about on Twitter directly from the Ukraine two weeks ago. The US Intelligence Agencies are obviously Russian propaganda assets.

  12. "Mississippi has passed a ban on critical race theory in education"

    Awful news. CRT classes should be mandatory in all public schools beginning in kindergarten.

    #RadicalIndividualistsForRacialCollectivism

    1. It’s not happening. It’s also terrible that Republicans keep trying to stop it.

      1. A certain regular commenter will be here shortly to present the "anti-anti-CRT" argument. 😉

      2. I do love how this logic is still being used by the left. They are throwing a tantrum over something they totes aren't wanting to keep being allowed to teach.

        1. It's funny how they keep trying to shift the conversation to "teaching history" as though nobody knew that there was slavery in the antebellum South until a couple of years ago.

          It's similar to them trying to claim that teaching kindergartners about sex is "teaching biology".

          1. "It's similar to them trying to claim that teaching kindergartners about sex is "teaching biology".

            Also a funny way to teach biology because instead of teaching that an X and Y chromosome are indeed, drastically different, they are teaching that gender is just a made up construct of society and nothing matters. You can say you're female and thats that!

  13. Russia’s top state-controlled energy company is set to cash in on a $10 billion contract to build out one of Iran’s most contested nuclear sites as part of concessions granted in the soon-to-be-announced nuclear agreement that will guarantee sanctions on both countries are lifted.

    Russian and Iranian documents translated for the Washington Free Beacon show that Rosatom, Russia’s leading energy company, has a $10 billion contract with Iran’s atomic energy organization to expand Tehran’s Bushehr nuclear plant. Russia and the Biden administration confirmed on Tuesday that the new nuclear agreement includes carveouts that will waive sanctions on both countries so that Russia can make good on this contract.

    https://freebeacon.com/national-security/new-iran-agreement-would-let-russia-cash-in-on-10-billion-contract-to-build-nuclear-sites/

    The firm scheduled to build this plant is the Russian firm that Hillary at State approved for a large uranium mone sale in the US.

    1. Is Hunter on the board?

      1. Not this time around. They're just buying his artwork.

    2. Remember...these are NOT "Putin's puppets"

      Important to remember that.

  14. The Federal Reserve has approved an interest rate hike—the first in three years—of a quarter percentage point.

    That will whip inflation now.

    1. Stop, you're giving me flashbacks. Biden is doing that enough as it is.

    2. It's the Roaring Twenties again!

      1. More like the whining seventies.

  15. Why is the U.S. so slow in processing Afghan refugees?

    Meet the federal government.

    1. I’m just glad we’ve gotten everyone out of Afghanistan, so we can focus on getting Afghans in UAE into the US.

  16. Children's Hospital in Portland tells young boys how to properly tuck and gives them directions to a local area sex shop.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/theres-no-co-existing-with-evil-like-this-leading-childrens-hospital-offers-advice-for-boys-to-tuck-their-genitals-out-of-sight

    1. This is outrageous!

      *Public schools*, not hospitals, should be teaching that stuff!

    2. “positive body acceptance “
      Except penises, they are disgusting.

      1. Unless they are on a woman. Then they are stunning and brave.

  17. Did flawed PCR tests convince us Covid was worse than it really was? Britain's entire response was based on results - but one scientist says they should have been axed a year ago
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10606107/Did-flawed-tests-convince-Covid-worse-really-was.html

    But as a source close to the Government's testing strategy explains: 'The reason we continued PCR testing last year is because long-term contracts had already been signed with the labs and the money had changed hands. The Government couldn't do anything about it.

    'It's no coincidence PCR testing [for the general population] is ending on March 31 – that's when the contracts end.'

    1. Just insane and will continue to be insane watching people who believed the bullshit the last 2 years rationalize why they were still the actual good people in all of this.

      1. Flawed tests might explain the miracle of no flu cases.

        1. No, that’s because everyone was wearing masks.

          —shitlunches & Asshole Joe

      2. Yup, as predicted, they will pump out weekly pieces about how some factor mislead them or made them put bad policies in place. Almost everything predicted by the rational people on this board in mid 2020 has come to pass. Between coming around on the lab leak, to masks not doing shit, to "with" rather than "of" deaths, slowly, every single thing rational people said "wtf are you talking about?" they have been shown to be completely on the wrong side of.

    2. The Government couldn't do anything about it.

      That is just patently false. They could deflect, distract and deny - magnify the crisis through propaganda in an attempt to score political favor and convince people that billions in tax revenues were not being funneled to their cronies.

      Even in criticism, the media still sticks to the narrative. Government hands were not tied. That honor went to the citizens who resisted lockdowns and mandates.

    3. Governments are the masters of the Sunk-Cost Fallacy.

  18. Mississippi has passed a ban on critical race theory in education...

    They have a dream.

  19. Fredo Cuomo releases his 125 million dollar suit against CNN. Shows a lack of journalistic ethics in every member of CNN.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/chris-cuomo-demands-125-million-from-cnn-cuomos-journalistic-integrity-unjustifiably-smeared

  20. Sen. Hawley warns of Biden SCOTUS pick's 'long record' of letting child porn offenders 'off the hook'
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen-hawley-warns-long-record-biden-scotus-pick-letting-child-porn-offenders-off-hook

    1. It's really something else, how they all seem to have some kind of connection to pedophilia.

  21. Secret service continues to tell Congress it doesn't have any Hunter Biden emails despite the emails having appeared on Hunters laptop. Their FOIA responses also keep coming up blank despite evidence.

    https://justthenews.com/government/congress/incompetence-or-corruption-sen-ron-johnson-secret-service-missing-hunter-biden

    1. Vindication Over Hunter’s Emails
      Politico confirms the New York Post story the Bidens never denied.
      https://www.wsj.com/articles/vindication-over-hunter-biden-emails-new-york-post-politico-11632521169

      The New York Post is claiming vindication over its scoop in October 2020 about Hunter Biden’s emails, and deservedly so. But that shouldn’t be the end of the story for everyone who attacked the Post or ignored the story to cover for Joe Biden.

      A writer for Politico has published a book about President Biden that confirms that some of the emails on a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden are authentic. This is barely a scoop, since neither Hunter Biden nor Joe Biden’s campaign denied last year that the laptop provided to the Post by Rudy Giuliani was Hunter’s. Both men counted instead on the rest of the media to serve as a cordon sanitaire, and did they ever. Twitter barred the Post’s feed for a time lest Americans be able to read about the emails and their content.

      1. Impeach! 🙂

      2. mSm-SoC MeDiA coLLooSHun!

  22. Transexuels de Grenoble is the best web place for finding casual chat contacts with hot girls in the all France

    1. Finally! Hot girls who understand the stress of not being able to maintain an erection.

    2. Spam that's actually relative to the headline. Is this a first?

      1. relative

        That should be relevant.

  23. I love how you went straight into “Free Minds” right from your half page screed against Wrongthink.
    Yikes, indeed

    1. You are only free to think the right things.

    2. The survey is a sobering reminder that some people disagree with you sometimes, particularly when you try to counteract centuries of law, tradition, and religious teaching.

      1. Well, some 10 percent of Americans still disapprove of interracial marriage. Should their opinion be hallowed and honored or even gave q shit about just because it was part of "centuries of law, tradition, and religious thinking?"

  24. 1/4%?
    That's like sending one band-aid to Ukraine.

  25. Its ok to oppose something and not force others to comply.

    Gay marriage IS wrong. Forcing gay people not to act married is also wrong.

    1. I mean, it's your opinion that it's wrong, to clarify.

      1. He was clear about that.

    2. My personal experience is that heterosexual marriage IS ALSO wrong.

      1. Do you know why divorce is expensive?
        Because it’s worth it.

        1. So why not really save your money and never marry?

    3. In my experience marriage is wrong. Nobody should do it.

  26. Only 30%? Given that at least that many Americans will claim they are against any idea or group, we need to set the news reporter bar higher. Call us when you get a 50% (or better yet, 80%) negative response.

    1. Good comment. I wonder how many things Americans actually do agree upon.

      1. 90% of commentators think you’re a lefty.

      2. I think most Americans believe that the other political tribe is pure evil.

        Sometimes I think they're all correct.

        1. Sarc of course is the one true tribal elite where he is the only good actor and everyone else is evil. And he doesn't see the irony of his statement.

      3. That it is a good idea to lie to pollsters?

    2. this is also my response to the people who complain that ONLY 70 percent of people have received some vax. Only?! I am surprised you can get 70% of people to do anything, much less something this politically charged.

      1. Seriously, it's amazing what a difference "framing" makes.

      2. Nothing brings "agreement" like threats of losing your job.

  27. Photobombing a star! Thousands of distant and ancient galaxies can be seen in the background of the first in-focus image from NASA's James Webb Space Telescope - including some we've never seen before
    The James Webb Space Telescope is a joint project of NASA, ESA and the CSA
    It launched from the European spaceport in French Guiana on Christmas Day
    The $10 billion observatory is designed to peer deep into the early universe
    It will also allow astronomers to study the atmosphere of distant exoplanets
    This latest milestone includes the first fully in-focus image of a single star

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10623403/Thousands-distant-galaxies-seen-background-James-Webb-image.html

    1. There’s stuff in the universe we didn’t know about!

      1. I think there may be a convincing argument that Science! is inherently corruptive. The whole global warming thing never took root until we finally reached Venus and Science! speculated wildly about its differences from Earth.

        Now we continue the orgy of spending to study planets that every honest scientist knows we can never reach due to the speed limit. We now know we can't trust the CDC, why do people still trust NASA? Government science is not science.

        1. I wouldn't trust NASA per se, but NASA (or ESA) just puts the things into space. The experiments and telescopes are designed by astronomers and appropriately qualified engineers and the data is generally available to any scientist who wants to study it.
          Are you trying to claim that it's all in the service of some really long-term propaganda?

          1. Scientists used to have patrons. Now they just suck on the government teat. Government grants, public universities, even private universities are subsidized with government loans.

            When the smart people allow other supposedly smart people to promote the idea that science is somehow made better when more women and trannies are involved, all of them deserve nothing but ridicule. They have let science become Science! because they are too cowardly to go get real jobs.

  28. "We were interested in finding out how cognitive ability is represented in the brain"

    Hey, claiming that only the brain can be used for cognition is racist privilege.

    1. Cognitive ability is white supremacist.

    2. Bring back the settled science of phrenology.

    1. LOL! I thought the whole idea was to make people use less gas.

      1. It will be again, sometimes around mid-November.

  29. Horrifying video shows final moments of LA DUI suspect who died after screaming 'I can't breathe' ELEVEN times after being pinned to ground face-down for refusing to give blood sample over fear of needles
    Edward Bronstein, 38, died March 31, 2020 in Pasadena less than two months before George Floyd died in Minneapolis
    Footage of his final moments was released by LA cops on Wednesday after his family sued to see the harrowing video
    He was pulled over for suspicion of drunk driving and police were forcing him to give blood for a sobriety test
    His family sued for excessive use of force and violation of his civil rights
    Video shows Bronstein being forced onto a mat in the police station's garage while handcuffed then five officer kneel on his back as they extract blood
    He screams 'I can't breathe' 11 times before he eventually falls silent
    The California Highway Patrol fought the release of the video tape, but a federal judge ordered them to do so
    Criminal justice experts say the tape shows a callous disregard for human life

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10621751/Video-shows-LA-man-shout-breathe-moments-died-restrained-cops.html

    Since when did cops hold someone down and draw blood? That's kinda fucked up. Of course the cause of death was meth. When cops suffocate people the cause of death is always meth. And the fuckers in the comments need to die. "He's be alive if he'd listened to the cops!" they bleat. Yeah, well he'd be alive if the cops listened to him so fuck you. And finally, I always thought a callous disregard for human life was a requirement for the job.

    1. Check the photos. Edward Bronstein is white so this is not a story. Also, "Bronstein" sounds Jewish.

      1. Yep. Local story.

      2. If I start hearing about a march for Bronstein, we might be on the right track. I don't expect it, though.

    2. Tony Timpa, 2016. But also, white. So not even mentioned in the context of St. Floyd. They made this a "police are racist" problem, not a police problem. Itll be their fault nothing changes.

      1. No shit. BLM ruined police reform. Assholes.

      2. They did it on purpose. A few racist pawns sacrificed to protect the unions.

    3. Jabbing you with a sharp instrument and taking your blood seems to be the worst kind of unreasonable search and seizure.

      1. They certainly need a warrant to take blood. That was the whole reason for the super-shitty 'driving is a privilege' argument, so they could just cancel your license if you refuse to test.

        It also came up when the nurse in Utah refused to do a blood draw on a trucker injured in a crash that resulted from the high-speed police chase of a third-party and the cop was trying to cover their ass for the liability.

        1. They had a court order, and the guy was high on meth. I think this is a case where the "Search and seizure" is legally justified.

          The problem is the use of four-five guys pinning him down and keeping him in a stressed position until he stops breathing. The guy was uncooperative, sure, but then he starts screaming about how can't breathe, how he needs to breathe, and starts getting quieter and quieter until he goes silent. They assumed he'd gone to sleep or something and didn't check to see if he had a pulse for 2 minutes and 50 seconds. And even as they were checking his pulse he remained pinned down. Meanwhile, they're drawing a second syringe-full of blood.

          So it took them about 5 minutes to get off of him, and even longer to try to start any kind of medical treatment.

          1. Still fucking bullshit even if legally justified. A warrant isn't that hard to get. I think that way more than a warrant should be needed to violate a person's bodily integrity. I would go so far as to say proof beyond a reasonable doubt should be required before anyone can be subjected to having part of their body forcibly removed. Not to mention right not to self-incriminate. I can't think of any circumstances where a forced blood draw can be justified.

            1. Not to mention right not to self-incriminate.

              It's not self incrimination. The constitution itself says police can search your house and your person if they have a warrant or probable cause. You can't just tell police they have no right to search your house when they've actually obtained a search warrant.

              I don't know the full story of this case but a guy acting extremely drunk and whacked-out while operating a motor vehicle is probable cause. And if they got a court order, as they claimed, then this was a warrant. You don't have an absolute right to drive while high on intoxicants.

              The issue here is how they callously killed him. When the suspect is screaming, that screaming turns into "Can't breathe! Let me breathe!" and then he goes silent, it probably means something not good. It doesn't take someone of even moderate intelligence to figure this out, either, especially when there's someone there with a modicum of medical training for taking the blood sample.

              1. Sorry, taking part of your body is a lot more than a search of your person. If he was acting high as fuck and wacked out, then that should be enough to charge him on. DUI convictions don't require a blood test.
                There isn't a right to drive while intoxicated, but I do believe in an absolute right to bodily integrity. The most the police should be able to force someone to do is to stay in a cell awaiting court proceedings. Searching a home or vehicle, or even someone's person is different from taking out a part of someone's body.
                Legally you are probably right. But fuck that shit. The law is often wrong, occasionally even at the constitutional level.

                1. I can understand, in a sense, the principle. Even when you're detained by police, there are certain rights they can't violate-they can't force you to speak, to incriminate yourself, they can't start beating you up until you talk, etc. I just don't principally see taking a blood sample as being the type of "harm" that is different from searching you.

                  If they have a warrant or a court order, they don't need your consent to search you. If you have a weapon on your person that was recently used in the commission of a felony, your lack of consent doesn't matter. They can photograph you, they can seize your clothes and test for blood or gunshot residue or anything else that might forensically link you to a crime. I see taking a blood sample as following the same principle; as long as the arrest and the warrant/order is valid.

                  1. I find violating bodily integrity an easy and clear line to draw.
                    I don't expect anything to change.

    4. And the fuckers in the comments need to die. "He's be alive if he'd listened to the cops!" they bleat.

      Oh, huh. Seems like I've literally heard people say "just get the jab" somewhere recently.

      1. Which has what to do with police officers forcefully drawing blood from someone?

        1. Let's just let that question hang out there.

          1. Anyone who attempts to answer will look like an ass.

            1. You're just defending potentially drunk people who want to kill grandma.

              1. Drunk driving violates the NAP. Not wanting to get a vaccine does not.

                1. Drunk driving violates the NAP.

                  Wait, what? Crashing when you knowingly drive without being properly in control of your vehicle might violate the NAP. Of course that would apply regardless of the conditions: eating and driving, texting and driving, driving with too heavy a load, allowing a woman to drive, etc.

                  Driving without incident with alcohol in your system being a violation of the NAP is just assigning blame to a cause without an effect.

                  1. Recklessness is a guilty intent. Being drunk while driving is creating an intentional risk and being reckless to the danger it causes. And yes it would apply to things like texting or anything else that makes you present an inherently dangerous risk to others.

                2. Drunk driving is irresponsible and dangerous, but it doesn't violate the NAP anymore than shooting a gun into the air violates the NAP. Intent plays a role in whether or not something is considered aggression, does it not?

                  1. Shooting a gun into the air violates the NAP also. Reckless actions that show a callous disregard to the potential to harm others are aggression.

                    Yes, intent matters, and recklessness is an intent. Nobody drives drunk accidentally; you had an intent to create a reckless harm. The only exceptions would be cases where you were drugged against your will just before getting into the vehicle.

                    1. Shooting a gun into the air violates the NAP also.

                      The odds of being struck by a bullet fired into the air are miniscule compared to the odds of dying of COVID. The CFR for being struck by a falling bullet is much higher as they tend much more often to be head shots, but the odds of being shot are exceedingly slim. Moreover, unlike masks, helmets are exceedingly effective, both principally and practically, at preventing death from being hit in the head with a falling bullet.

                      Reckless actions that show a disregard for the potential to harm others are not aggression. We have a system where 12 people judge whether they are and people frequently walk free despite having demonstrated callous disregard but who's outcome was not foreseeable.

                    2. People who are killed by a bullet that was fired into the air were killed directly by the bullet. There's no subtlety or nuance to it. You are responsible for every single bullet and where it lands.

                      You cannot be held responsible for where your exhalations end up. There's no direct causal relationship to be established between someone going maskless and someone's death from COVID. They could have caught it elsewhere, they might have ended up catching it anyway, the mask might not have stopped it, etc.

                      If you've got COVID symptoms and then decide it would be fun to head to the supermarket and lick all the produce, then that's recklessness.

                    3. People who are killed by a bullet that was fired into the air were killed directly by the bullet.

                      Yup.

                      There's no subtlety or nuance to it.

                      I don't think you know what "into the air" means.

                      You cannot be held responsible for where your exhalations end up.

                      Now I'm fairly certain you don't know what "into the air" means.

                      If you've got COVID symptoms and then decide it would be fun to head to the supermarket and lick all the produce, then that's recklessness.

                      You say this like there's a difference between applying your bodily fluids to someone or something in a deliberate and targeted manner and simply releasing them "into the air". Might want to brush up on that before trying to make the distinction one way and not the other.

              2. Well yeah. Nobody likes grandma.

            2. Sarc seems to be defending the position that firing a woman for not giving him a blow job is fundamentally different from just holding her down and stuffing his tiny little cock in her mouth. I suppose he is right, but the argument is repugnant.

              Does that make me look like an ass?

              1. Difficult and repugnant questions are often the ones that really need answering. In your example, there is a huge difference. Yes, both are distasteful and inappropriate. But only one really violates someone's essential rights.

      2. Those people need to fuck off and/or die as well.

  30. "The terribly illiberal bill—dubbed the Prohibiting Anticompetitive Mergers Act—would let the DOJ and the FTC retroactively reject mergers that were already approved if they "materially harmed" competition or led to a market share above 50 percent."

    What we really need is a similar law aimed at political parties.

    1. Or the percentage of power held by one speaker of the house.

      1. Pelosi really has turned the position into a queenship.

    2. We could rename it the "Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Act".

      1. The Prophetess strikes again.

  31. 'You don't seem as appalled by the violation of OUR borders!' Tucker Carlson has fiery clash with GOP rep who says she's open to no-fly zone over Ukraine but not sending troops to US border with Mexico
    Tucker Carlson on Wednesday night invited on his show Florida congresswoman Maria Salazar, a Republican whose district includes much of Miami
    Salazar, 60, a former news anchor and reporter for Telemundo and Univision, attracted attention last week by backing a no-fly zone over Ukraine
    Salazar passionately defended plans to send weapons to Ukraine, as requested on Wednesday by President Volodymyr Zelensky, when he addressed Congress
    Carlson accused her of wanting to drag the US into war with Russia, thanks to her support for a no-fly zone
    Salazar said that she was not dictating policy in Ukraine, and was merely supporting Zelensky in every way she could
    Carlson questioned her over her immigration proposals, which she says halt new illegal immigration and provide dignity to undocumented people already here
    He asked her why she was so keen to defend the borders of Ukraine, but less interested in the US-Mexico border
    Salazar, in the fiery 20 minute debate, insisted that she wanted to protect the US-Mexico border with all means possible, short of sending troops

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10622029/Carlson-accuses-Republican-Florida-congresswoman-caring-Ukraines-borders-US.html

    Riiiight. Because an invading army with tanks is the same as people looking for work. What a douche. Hope he chokes on Trump's dick.

    1. Really it's just more sad that there are so many idiots who lap up every word that comes out of his mouth.

      But he knows what he's doing. He knows he's being broadcasted in Russia as a propaganda piece and does not care. You have to wonder why.

      1. I stopped wondering the day that Trump won the Republican party nomination back in... 2015? Everyone on talk radio and FOX became instant fanboys. The man had never done anything wrong and could do no wrong. Like a bunch of sycophants competing to see who can get their nose the furthest up his ass. And it's still going on.

        1. TDS still not fatal, ladies and gentlemen.

        2. Because, apparently, winning the war against the liberals and progressives is the most important thing. No matter what cost in selling out decency and principles.

          Just about every social organization in our society is suffering right now from the members not holding their own side to any standards whatsoever.

          1. Standards are limitations. They're for losers. Winners have no limits, no scruples, no morals, no ethics or other restrictions. That's how they win. And that's why I have very little respect for post-Trump conservatives. They used to have standards.

            1. First four sentences are sarcasm. The last two are not.

              1. Understood. And I completely agree.

                1. Proof that Sarc has a tiny little penis. No way White Mike could hold his breath that long if it were reaching the back of his throat.

            2. Winners have no limits, no scruples, no morals, no ethics or other restrictions.

              Are you sure that one was sarcasm? I mean in the practical sense. Does any election winner display those characteristics? To win a major election you have to be a piece of shit.

              1. In politics yes. In civil society not so much.

                1. Agree. Politicians are losers to me, but winners in their own minds and many others.

          2. There was a plausible candidate who had principles? I must have missed that.
            I'm not going to claim Trump had principles or decency. But the alternatives were Hillary Clinton and then Joe Biden. You are never going to convince me that either of them was preferable.

      2. SleepyJoe is doing excellent work.

  32. https://twitter.com/laralogan/status/1503879024006762496

    BREAKING VIDEO: Unconstitutional Pre-Dawn FBI Raid on Project Veritas Journalist Shows Armed Agents Clutching Weapons, Tossing Belongings, and Ransacking Home at Direction of Biden DOJ

    “LET ME SEE YOUR HANDS!”

  33. Disney employees busted in child trafficking sting just days after corporation opposed anti-grooming law
    https://thepostmillennial.com/four-disney-employees-busted-in-child-trafficking-sting-just-days-after-corporation-opposed-anti-grooming-law

    1. It's good to see journalists being equal-opportunity propagandists and turning this on Disney, but "child trafficking sting" is what they call old-timey prostitution stings now.

  34. The Prohibiting Anticompetitive Mergers Act would also automatically block mergers valued at more than $5 billion, those resulting in highly concentrated markets, or those resulting in market shares above a certain threshold.

    I lean conservative. I disagree with the$5 Billion threshold but could agree with other limits (depending on where it's set). Prohibit mergers resulting in market share above 30% and prohibit mergers by firms with more than 20% would be my starting point.

    1. What's wrong with mergers? Unless a company has some sort of government-granted monopoly, the bigger the better. Economy of scale. Lower prices. Consumers win.
      However if they have government at their back preventing competition, preventing mergers isn't going to fix anything. Because that's not the problem.

      1. What's wrong with mergers? Unless a company has some sort of government-granted monopoly, the bigger the better. Economy of scale. Lower prices. Consumers win.

        We're talking two different things. Yes, there's economy of scale. I'm looking at Market Share & Competition.

        The problem is when bottlenecks occur. Concentrated markets perpetuate scarcity. When a company has a large market share it can directly control prices. When there's scarcity, the large market share company can make more money perpetuating scarcity than by increasing supply. If they did increase supply enough to eliminate the scarcity, the prices would drop enough that the total profits would drop.

        Small market share companies are too small to control prices by themselves. What it can do is increase its own capacity, and profits, without upsetting supply/demand. This incentivises them to increase capacity. This means competition amongst the companies and lower prices.

        We need enough companies to promote competition.

        1. I don't buy it. How many such companies exist? I'd be interested in some examples. From what I've seen when what you describe happens, it doesn't happen for long. History is littered with the dead corpses of companies that were once unstoppable, but were killed by competition and innovation. Without the help of government.

    2. And if some megacompany starts gouging its customers, some entrepreneur will see an opportunity for profit.
      Big companies aren't the problem. Government protection is the problem.

      1. "some entrepreneur will see an opportunity for profit"

        Problem is that megacompanies can often keep entrepreneurs out of the market. It usually requires government intervening to keep companies from getting too large. If you believe that competition is best for capitalist economy at some point you have to accept government maintaining some level of competition.

        1. But why? If a megacompany can do something more cheaply and efficiently than anyone else, the consumer wins.
          Government maintained competition means propping up losers. It means connected companies that can't compete in the market get government favors to stay afloat.
          Or government breaks up that company that provided "unfairly" low prices in order to raise prices to a level where the losers can compete.
          Whenever government gets involved, we lose.

          1. Are you really too stupid to not understand how barriers to entry work? How megacorp works to increase regulations to stop competitors? How they collude with suppliers to not allow them to sell to competitors? Buy and kills?

            Educate yourself at some point please.

          2. I unmuted JesseAz thinking he might, for the very first time ever, have a response that is about the topic without making a personal dig. Of course I was wrong. Silly me.

            1. LOL!

              And I am not sure which is more ironic, your lie that you that you unmuted J other than to mock him or the lie that the comment wasn't perfectly on topic, including the observation about your display of ignorance regarding the economics of highly regulated markets.

              Self-pwn for the ages.

              1. I'm not actually shocked.

            2. My comment was purely about the topic dumbass.

        2. Problem is that government backing of megacompanies can often keep entrepreneurs out of the market.

          FTFY

          1. Exactly. Problems created by government should be fixed with less government, not more.

            1. Government collusion isn't the only way free markets are hampered dummy.

      2. And if some megacompany starts gouging its customers, some entrepreneur will see an opportunity for profit.
        Big companies aren't the problem. Government protection is the problem.

        I agree with all you say here. That doesn't change my position on large market share creating problems. See the disconnect between cattle prices & beef prices for an example of a concentrated market causing problems. Cattle prices have steadily dropped while beef prices are way up. The meat packers aren't increasing capacity as it'll decrease total profits.

        The ranchers are innovating to try to get around this, in the mean time we will have many years of scarcity until the market share of the big 4 meat packers comes down.

        1. Try to find an industry more regulated than beef. The problem isn't the big companies. The problem is barriers to entry created by government. Without that these companies would be at the mercy of competition.

          1. Try to find an industry more regulated than beef.
            I'll give you two. Nuclear & Healthcare.

            If you want an example industry with zero regulation, it doesn't exist. Although the Standard Oil monopoly is a good historical example of an unregulated abusive monopoly. The shenanigans Standard Oil did are still in use today to limit competition.

            If you want more modern examples then...

            Ammunition, 2 companies, prices up 200%. Credit Cards, Visa/Mastercard dominate (raising fees to increase profit margin). One factory in Texas makes the majority of plastic resin causing shortages for all sorts of plastic products from piers to pipettes. Newell Brands has a monopoly on canning lids (owns Ball & Kerr) and we've had 2 years of shortages.

            Here's how Amazon keeps prices higher using it's market power
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8Jk7zuwOxg

            If your argument is that complete deregulation is required... that's not going to happen. Lets work with the world we have rather than the world that's never going to be.

            1. Standard Oil not only saved the whales, but captured the market by selling the best product at the lowest price. I don't buy the robber barons myth.

              Ammo is up because a Democrat is in the White House and because government limiting imports. Supply is down and demand is up. That's just economics.

              My argument is that demanding that government fix a problem that it caused is only going to make things worse.

              1. Ammo prices shot up under Trump. It predates Biden being elected. Read this on the ammo industry.

                https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/concentrated-firepower-what-high?s=r

                1. Interesting read. There's a guy in my town who has a factory in a warehouse and does reloads. His prices are outrageous. I'll order new brass from Midway before dealing with him.
                  What does that mean? Is he a dick? Is the cost of reloading brass on a small scale more expensive than doing it from scratch on a large scale?
                  I think the answer to the question of "Where are the competitors?" is "The big guys are making bank, but they're still making widgets more cheaply than any upstart, which is why they've got the market cornered."

                  1. "Where are the competitors?" is "The big guys are making bank, but they're still making widgets more cheaply than any upstart, which is why they've got the market cornered."

                    If they're making bank, why aren't they increasing capacity to meet demand?

            2. I remember the Sears Roebuck catalog was it. If it wasn't in there then it didn't exist. For a while if you wanted to shop you went to a mall. What happened to Sears? What happened to malls? Oh sure Amazon is the big thing now, but I bet they'll be gone as soon as someone comes up with a better idea.

              Markets aren't perfect. That's a straw man. And yes companies will collude and such. But imperfect markets are always better than what happens after government makes them worse.

              1. How old are you? 120? There's always been alternatives to the Sears Roebuck catalog. Malls came along in the 50s. The catalog died off and Sears got rid of it in the 80s.

                Markets aren't perfect. That's a straw man. And yes companies will collude and such. But imperfect markets are always better than what happens after government makes them worse.

                Where did I ever say markets could be perfect? I'm trying to limit abusive behavior. I'm trying to ensure the incentive is to compete and not to collude. Are you trying to argue collusion & coercion is superior to competition?

                1. Both were powerhouses. Not so much anymore. Was government intervention required to correct their market share?

                  1. Both were powerhouses. Not so much anymore. Was government intervention required to correct their market share?

                    What was their market share? And why do you think I'm trying to "correct" the market share? I'm trying to prevent too much consolidation. If there is any abuse of market share, then punishment should result which MAY include breakup.

                2. And I didn't say you said.... I was making a rhetorical argument. I apologize if you took it personal.

                  1. On the internet, tone does not come through. Everything gets taken literally. No cues for sarcasm unless its explicitly stated.

    3. Why not let the investors (or their appointed officers) in each company decide whether to merge or not. It's their money. If they then raise prices too high or provide too low a level of customer service, it creates an opportunity for a competitor, or a new firm.

      No government intervention needed, or justified.

      1. As I'm posting elsewhere:
        1) New competitors are locked out of the market by the big guys using anti-competitive practices. See standard oil.
        2) It takes YEARS for any new competitor to scale up. During that time, scarcity persists and prices remain higher.
        3) This assumes the "big guys" don't buy out the smaller ones to prevent any competition from forming.

        1. 1) Standard Oil had a monopoly because they produced the best product at the lowest price. Consumers (and whales) benefited.

          2) Markets aren't perfect. How is government action, as in people with the power to use force choosing winners and losers, going to make it better?

          3) I've heard that argument and I don't agree with it. Sure the "big guys" buy up the smaller companies, but why? If the smaller company can produce the same goods and services at a lower price, why sell? It doesn't make sense. I think the smaller companies are purchased so the bigger one can own their patents and ideas, and then produce a better product.

          Business is not the enemy. Business is us. It's people working to produce things of value. It's all cooperative and voluntary. Nobody puts a gun to your head and says "buy my product or else" or "work for me or else." There's no force involved.
          Government is force. And it is also people. So when you ask the government to get involved in the economy, you're asking power-hungry people to get forcefully involved in what was cooperative and voluntary. I fail to see how that will have a better outcome.

          1. 1) Standard Oil blocked competitors from forming. If you wanted to do anything in oil, you had to work with them or you were out of business. Price had nothing to do with it. Standard Oil controlled too much.

            2) Please explain how you believe I think the government is "picking winner and losers". If market share is above X, it's blocked. That's it. Nothing else matters. Yes, markets aren't perfect. I'm trying to make sure there's a market in existence rather than a monopoly.

            3) If I offered the owner enough money, they'd sell. Doesn't matter what price I can produce at, if someone comes to me with a big enough check, I'd sell. Facebook and Google have been buying up companies for years to prevent them from becoming competitors.

            Business is not the enemy. Business is us. It's people working to produce things of value. It's all cooperative and voluntary. Nobody puts a gun to your head and says "buy my product or else" or "work for me or else." There's no force involved.

            I literally have over a million dollar stock portfolio. I agree, business isn't the enemy. If you think I'm trying to punish those "evil" corporations, you don't understand what I've been trying to say. I'm trying to encourage competition. I'm trying to make sure the business incentive is there to compete and produce the best product at the lowest price.

            The problem is, above a certain level of market share, the incentive changes. If I've got 90% of the market, I can lock out competitors. If I'm selling a product to a company, and I'm the only one who can provide the require volume, I can prevent my customers from going to competitors by threatening to cut them off. It doesn't matter what my competition can sell at if they can't produce the volume to make up for it.

            Yes, government is force. Yes, power-hungry people will be involved on the government side. They're not limited to government. There's power hungry people in the business world. Power-hungry people are everywhere. I'm trying to make sure the power-hungry people are competing with each other and not colluding to block out others.

            1. Market power and political power are two totally different things. One moves capital and the other is backed up by men with guns.

              1. Someday you'll learn power is power. Capital is great at influencing the one backed by men with guns. The one men backed by men with guns is great at influencing capital. More money for both results.

            2. Standard Oil blocked competitors from forming.

              Bullshit.

              1) at the time, the oil industry was 10% the size of the shoe industry in the U.S., it is not comparable to anything modern.

              2) Standard Oil had competition in every single product niche from lamp oil to heating fuel to asphalt. The products were cheaper than the alternatives.

              3) Standard Oil invented the refining processes that competitors had to steal and violate to compete. How is that 'fair' competition?

          2. The bottom line is you are completely ignoring the incentives, human motivation, to abuse market position and maximize profit. You're focused on "nothing good at all can come from government" while completely ignoring actual abuses going on.

            1. When a reply to a comment of mine contains the word "you" in every sentence, I stop.

  35. I doubt there is any issue with 100% ideological agreement across the population. The proponents of same sex marriage decided to achieve their goal by judicial fiat. Which meant that the only people they were interested in persuading were 5 out of 9 people in black robes, not the general population. Why does ENB seem to expect everyone to agree with her position on that issue in 2022? Her side did not argue their case to those people, they did not care what they thought. There is a strangely naive arrogance there.

    1. The entire blurb is the most un-libertarian presentation possible. Who cares how many people approve of gay marriage? The government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage from a libertarian stand point, except for contract enforcement. It should be a contract between individuals. Sacramental marriages should have no legal status.

      But, because it IS a civil institution that the government administers, all legally competent adult citizens should have equal access to it as a civil right, and the civil rights of individuals aren't decided by popular opinion or polling.

      1. Same sex marriage is a category error. Not all relationships are equivalent. The requirement that a marriage is between persons of different sexes does not bar anyone from it in itself.

        What was being looked for from the LGBT activists was the moral approval of society. Which is why they are becoming increasingly shrill and zealous about everyone confirming to their quasi-religious ideology.

        1. Same sex marriage is a category error. Not all relationships are equivalent.

          Yup. And this becomes clear when you look at what was specifically excluded from the gay rights expansion of marriage as well as what has been included as part of the movement.

          If my wife and I hire a in-home nanny who watches our kids for 10 yrs. and want to forego employment insurance and grant her custodial benefits should we die, we're still barred. But the inclusion of gender as distinct from sex in the CRA obviates the need for specific adoption of gay marriage. For legal/ceremonial purposes, the one spouse could (supposedly) always just identify as the opposite gender even under enforced opposite sex/gender marriage.

          The explicit aim is/was to bend knees. And ENB wonders why 30% still oppose.

      2. all legally competent adult citizens should have equal access to it as a civil right

        Historically, common law marriage established inheritance and ownership rights. The participants in same-sex unions cannot produce offspring, so adoption law applies. Ownership is easily established with a will. The only new ground being treaded with the SCOTUS decision is access to the legal decisions allowed by a spouse when one is non-compos mentis and the quagmire that is modern divorce law.

        The first was certainly navigable already with power-of-attorney, so what was really being fought for was tax rules regarding spouses and access to family courts. Go civil rights!?

  36. Nicolas Cage says he wants to play the supervillain Egghead in a potential The Batman sequel: 'I think I can make him absolutely terrifying' needs a job! He's broke! He'll do anything for a cookie!

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-10621057/Nicolas-Cage-says-wants-play-supervillain-Egghead-potential-Batman-sequel.html

    1. LOL Egghead wasn't much of a supervillain, although he was entertaining given he was portrayed by Vincent Price. I laughed out loud in the fight scenes when he was putting raw eggs in Robin's hair and Robin was bleating "Batman help!"

    2. Cage would make a great Egghead though..

  37. The study was spurred by two researchers who couldn't replicate their own relatively large (1,000 kids) study. The median sample size in published neuroscience papers is 25.

    But remember, when a trans kid says they feel like the opposite gender trapped in their body's gender, the definitive treatment for the mismatch is genital mutilation.

  38. I oppose all marriage - so yeah I oppose same sex marriage as well.

    1. That's an odd position if it extends beyond yourself. What do you care what 2 (or more) other people decide to do about living arrangements, financial arrangements, children, etc.?

      1. What do you care what 2 (or more) other people decide to do about living arrangements, financial arrangements, children, etc.?

        Weird how you analogized all these individual things you yourself would admit may or may not constitute a marriage.

        1. I'm not exactly following....I didn't "analogize" anything. I just listed a few things that are normally hallmarks of a marriage. I'm not hung up on the word marriage. A "family unit" will also do, and they have been a staple of most civilizations throughout time.

          1. I didn't "analogize" anything. I just listed a few things that are normally hallmarks of a marriage.

            So if two people decide to live together, keep their finances separate, and don't have kids, are they married (or a "family unit")?

            Or is there a lot more to marriage, that he may actually have a very valid libertarian complaint about, other than just "living arrangements, financial arrangements, children"?

            1. Well I did throw in an "etc". But I listed the major things and not sure what a libertarian objection would be. Perhaps you could get specific rather than just thinking I should read your mind.

              1. Perhaps you could get specific rather than just thinking I should read your mind.

                Eeyore said marriage and you retorted "living arrangements, financial arrangements, children". You didn't seem to have any trouble attempting and failing to read his mind.

                1. It's not up to his mind. Those are the hallmarks of marriage. Objectively.

      2. The government's interest in those things is mainly related to the tax code.
        If marital status and child bearing were not aspects of the tax code, the government would not care a bit.
        The whole mess is because congress was too lazy to write a coherent law, and used a religious institution as a proxy. (which was probably unconstitutional)

      3. You can have and do all those things without a contract enforced by the state.

  39. The bill effectively does away with the prevailing consumer welfare standard for antitrust enforcement,

    That's not surprising. Democrats never really cared about consumers anyway, their posturing notwithstanding.

    1. I'm not seeing that. Democrats seem to genuinely care about consumers, but have poor understanding of how a free market economy works.

      1. " . . . seem to care . . . "
        Have you read the party platform?

        1. No, and why should I? I’m sure it is full of bad ideas.

          I’m not a supporter or promoter of the Democratic Party. I am just acknowledging that many Democrats do have good intentions.

          1. I am just acknowledging that many Democrats do have good intentions.

            And union support to pave those roads to hell.

            1. True, true.

          2. Here’s Dee admitting to willful ignorance on a topic she’s commenting on. Again.

  40. I think that acceptance of gay marriage is demographic and influenced by age. As older groups die acceptance will go up.

    1. I believe it was first said about paradigm changes among physicists, but it applied to politics as well, that true change requires the dying off of older generations.

      1. I think Mao said it best

      2. true change requires the dying off of older generations

        ""The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living." ― Karl Marx

        And all the shitposters call me a liar why I contend that they ignorantly spout Marxist ideology.

        Fuck you, White Mike. Fuck you very much.

        1. "The Four Olds or the Four Old Things (simplified Chinese: 四旧; traditional Chinese: 四舊; pinyin: sì jiù) was a term used during the Cultural Revolution by the student-led Red Guards in the People's Republic of China in reference to the pre-communist elements of Chinese culture they attempted to destroy. The Four Olds were: Old Ideas, Old Culture, Old Habits, and Old Customs"

          "where the Old Things were described as anti-proletarian, "fostered by the exploiting classes, [and to] have poisoned the minds of the people for thousands of years"

          Def a common thread among the commies

  41. Gay marriage having become legal despite many people’s personal objections could be viewed as a win for the libertarian principle of MYOB.

    1. It doesn't matter how many people approve of it. Rights aren't decided by public opinion.

    2. Or a loss for those who don't think government should be in the business of defining things like "marriage" that are sacred to certain people.

    3. Dee is the one true libertarian!

    4. You mean the legal forcing of marriage that allows activists to sue bakers, flower arrangers, etc? That show you define mind your own business? Fuck off.

  42. Fight for your right to party! Spring breakers grapple with each other on the beach as hundreds of thousands flock to coast to enjoy biggest celebration ever
    A fight broke out from a football drill on Fort Lauderdale Beach on Wednesday
    Two men were seen tackling each other to the ground as they couldn't let go of the football
    However, most Spring Breakers continued to celebrate their break from school
    Many were seen day-drinking, doing cartwheels and playing games in the water on Fort Lauderdale's beach
    Others were living it up in Texas while attending a Steve Aoki concert on South Padre Island

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10622313/Spring-break-turns-nasty-football-drill-erupts-BRAWL-Fort-Lauderdale-beach.html

    This just in! Youth continues to be wasted on the young!

    1. "Two men were seen tackling each other to the ground as they couldn't let go of the football."

      Hey Daily Mail (UK), that's called "playing football."

  43. Define 'Oppose'. That wishy washy ambiguous term is BS.

    What I think people shouldn't do is very different than what I think the state should be able/allowed to prohibit. That is, I will tolerate behavior I abhor. So am I opposing it or not?

    1. Exactly. Same with the business thing. Do I WANT people turning away gay people's business? Well no, I don't WANT that. Do I think they have the right to turn away gay people's business? Yes, they have the right.

  44. It's Kulturwar. You can STILL find a lot of people not wanting Blacks in their neighborhood, not wanting Blacks marrying Whites, still wanting race based housing covenants, etc. So yeah, you're still going to get people with brooms up their butt over gay marriage. Hell, they're still writing hate mail to the networks that Liberace was allowed to play the piano on television.

    But rather than engage in the Kulturwar we just need to understand that most of these people will be dead in twenty years and we can wait them out. No need to set up gulags for them, they've already isolated themselves.

    1. "You can STILL find a lot of people not wanting Blacks in their neighborhood, not wanting Blacks marrying Whites, still wanting race based housing covenants, etc."

      https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx
      Gallup: U.S. Approval of Interracial Marriage at New High of 94%

      Ive heard this argument in relation to "a white supremacist around every corner" but it doesnt seem to bear out. Progs have trouble admitting the racism of the 50's is not actually raging today (other than inside their own ranks).

      Iron law of woke projection and all that jazz.

      Oopsies for responding in wrong spot.

      1. Yes, times are changing. But that's still 6% that don't approve of the "sin" of miscegenation.

        1. WE MUST HAVE 100% THOUGHT COMPLIANCE!

      2. "a white supremacist around every corner" but it doesnt seem to bear out.

        So much so that when a tiny crowd turned out in Charlottesville, the 'counterprotesters' assaulted them and rioted until somebody charged them with a car, the escalation they desired. Since then they make sure their cause is offensive enough that it inspires more than just Confederacy fanboys.

    2. most of these people will be dead in twenty years and we can wait them out

      "The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living." ― Karl Marx

      Oh, look, Brandy is another one ignorantly posting right out of the playbook.

      1. Survivorship bias trumps Darwin every time. Until it doesn't.

  45. "You can STILL find a lot of people not wanting Blacks in their neighborhood, not wanting Blacks marrying Whites, still wanting race based housing covenants, etc."

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx
    Gallup: U.S. Approval of Interracial Marriage at New High of 94%

    Ive heard this argument in relation to "a white supremacist around every corner" but it doesnt seem to bear out. Progs have trouble admitting the racism of the 50's is not actually raging today (other than inside their own ranks).

    Iron law of woke projection and all that jazz.

    1. I think we would be surprised (maybe not a lot though) to find out how many dems oppose black people in their neighborhoods, etc.

      My grandmother was a life-long democrat and she was pretty vehement in not wanting "darkies" and "niggras" on her block.

      1. The fact that most rich dems claim to be "champions of the poor and disenfranchised" but move into gated communities where they never encounter such a person and are full on NIMBY's tells us a lot.

        When the rubber meets the road, their inner Robin Deangelo comes out.

      2. The most racist person I ever knew was my grandpa. He was an FDR Democrat who worshiped the ground Jimmy Hoffa used to walk on. Jesse Jackson seeking the nomination was an absolute outrage to him. It was from him that I learned that the N word was a word of absolute hate, not just funny slang.

        1. I learned that the N word was a word of absolute hate, not just funny slang.

          A word is just a word. Like a gun, the word doesn't hate anyone.

          Grandpa and his BIL (my Great Uncle) were pretty hardcore Republicans. They referred to each other as 'Fritz' and 'Dago'. They married sisters of British descent that they both referred to as 'Queenies'. Both hated lazy negroes of any race and were more than appreciative of hard work regardless of the worker's skin color. It was not uncommon to hear them refer to someone as a half-breed, for which they would've been denounced, but if they'd said bi- or multi-racial, they would've been celebrated for their sensitivity despite simply using a different word for the exact same meaning. They would be regarded as racist today because they used a funny word genuinely absent any racial animus.

  46. 30 Percent of Americans Still Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

    And some of the top BLM activists oppose interracial marriage.

  47. dafuq do you need l'Etat or Jeebus to say it's okay if you want to connect your life to another person's?

    1. You need l'etat for the legal benefits and status conferred by marriage, until l'etat decides to gtfo the marriage business (which it never will).

      As far as Jeebus and all the rest, they don't NEED it for anything, they just require everyone to validate their life choices.

      1. >>legal benefits and status conferred by marriage

        I recognize it's not for everyone, but eschewing them works too.

        1. I think the government should have nothing to do with marriage but I can see why some people would want to take advantage of those legal benefits and status. I don't think they should be excluded from them on the basis of sexual orientation.

          1. absolutely not. the concept of marriage dissolves once gender exclusion is introduced.

  48. I don't oppose same-sex marriage. I oppose the government having any say in what two (or more) consenting adults want to do with their lives. Marriage is essentially a contract and it should be treated as such. Fill out a contract, get all the benefits of marriage. If you really have to march down the aisle and spend thousands of dollars to prove something, then find a church and do it, but the contract is enough.

    1. That's a standard libertarian take, but is it practical. It may be better to have default marriage laws, which can be overridden by contract (as it largely is now).

      The practical difficulty is that marriage is a (ideally) life-long contract, it can produce children who were never part of the contract, and it has tentacles that go everywhere. For example, hospital visitation, medical privacy, immunity from testimony, child custody, ...

      Just an example of real-world practicality: My wife and I set up a family trust a few years after we got married, but when we moved to a new state, it took us a couple of years to get around to updating the trust language for our new state's law. There were more pressing things to deal with after moving.

      Same thing would likely happen with marriage contracts, which, in the U.S. at least, would be likely to be established under state law.

    2. Fill out a contract, get all the benefits of marriage.

      "Wait, what do you mean, "By inserting your penis you agree to the updated terms and conditions?""

    3. How do you have contracts without any government involvement?

      A marriage contract is just a convenient contract template. You can draw up any alternative you like. In any case, it's government that enforces contracts.

      1. The standard theoretical libertarian answer is that you include an agreement on who will judge breaches of contract in the contract. Like binding arbitration, except anarcho-libertarians go way further than binding arbitration does to include possible criminal punishment for certain breaches of contract, for contracts that would merit such.

        (I'm not an anarcho-libertarian, just repeating what I've heard.)

        1. I think the standard libertarian answer is "Gee, I hadn't thought of that," but sure, daydreaming about a utopia is fun too. Socialists love that crap too.

  49. Marriage, and especially gay marriage are white supremacist institutions that favor the privileged. Do you know how much weddings cost, and divorce? Time for it to go!

    1. Weddings cost as much as you want to spend. Far too many people think that wedding have to be large scale events.

  50. According to the graphs on the polling Web site, the question was about "allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally."

    If that's how the question was phrased, no wonder so many people supported it.

    Suppose after the "allowed" question, they'd asked, "if you said yes to allowed, would you support the government providing the same recognition and benefits to same-sex couples as to opposite-sex couples?"

  51. Days since enbs last yglasias reffrence :7

  52. In the three weeks since Russia invaded Ukraine, at least 7,000 Russian soldiers have been killed, per a U.S. intelligence estimate.

    U.S. intelligence gave us a feebleminded president.

    1. totes nukes. right in downtown fucking Baghdad ... or in trailers in Syria ... totes

    2. It's working out great for them. The dollars are rolling into wallets and the questions are rolling into prisons.

  53. https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1504480509740531714?s=20&t=50M22dCPh7EOc2a9aczRAA

    Reporter: *asks questions about COVID money
    Pelosi: PEOPLE ARE DYING IN THE UKRAINE

    1. congress simultaneously showing it cant walk and chew gum, and that they are fully intent on using Ukraine to make Americans forget about how poorly they mismanaged this country.

      1. congress simultaneously showing it cant walk and chew gum

        This sounds like just plane incompetence. It's not. They're walking and chewing gum and if you stop them, they'll spit the gum out on your shoe, point out that you've got gum on you, and then continue walking right past you.

        1. can't walk and chew gum - unable to navigate a flat surface when presented with the slightest distraction - 'plane' incompetence

          Awesome pun, whether it was intentional or not.

      2. But they are going to fuck that up, too.

    2. I never knew zombies could smile. Creepy a.f.

  54. • Why is the U.S. so slow in processing Afghan refugees?

    Because Biden's handlers know that many of the Afghan refugees were/are planted Islamic terrorists, and were never vetted by American officials during Biden's rush to withdraw.

  55. I don' t think government should be involved in personal relationships at all. I don't care what consenting adults get up to with each other or what they call it. I do care that when words lose their meaning...or meanings lose their words, it becomes hard to communicate. Fostering perpetual miscommunication is a wedge that social engineers use to fracture society into special interest groups.

    Now that "marriage" is a meaningless word then why bother using it for gays on traditional unions...they both need new, clearly descriptive words now.

    1. I've heard this before. Nothing has been taken away from those who are in traditional marriages. The most important factor in the meaning and value of a traditional marriage is the effort of the two individuals who are in the traditional marriage.

  56. Firstly, every sexuality other than heterosexuality is either a preference or a disorder. As a preference, it isn’t a right. As a disorder that interferes with the normal human function of biological parents raising children, it should be discriminated against.

    Secondly, rational people don’t like extremist lobby groups changing the meaning of our language to get what they want. Marriage has always been defined as between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

  57. This is unfortunate (that 30% of Americans oppose same-sex marriage) but it doesn't surprise me at all; it wasn't that long ago that a majority of Americans opposed same-sex marriage. I'm actually pleasantly surprised that the current numbers are so low.

    1. Barack Obama, the liberals messiah, barely longer than a decade ago, said that "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman".

      That its gone from there, with majority against it, to 70% approval is actually a massive shift.

      1. Yeah, 30% seems amazingly, remarkably, historically low. Not something to be upset about.

        1. To be clear, I'm not upset. I would prefer that the numbers were different, but I recognize progress when I see it. I'm not sure if the author of the article sees it that way though.

        2. Yeah, 30% seems amazingly, remarkably, historically low. Not something to be upset about.

          Change the topic to being about people of different races or religions rather than different sexual orientations, and 30% still being intolerant or bigoted would be something to be upset about, though, right? Progress is great, but we should still want to see a society where bigotry is limited to a powerless fringe, rather than still having a sizable hold in one of two major political parties.

          As is clear from these results, it isn't even that a majority of Republican voters oppose same sex marriage or other rights for same sex couples, since there is no such majority. The problem is that those among Republicans that do oppose LGBT rights are vocal and demanding about it and the rest of Republican voters won't punish Republican candidates that pander to that part of the base. Instead, they make excuses or even fall for the fearmongering equating efforts at equality for LGBT individuals to making it easier for predators or with trying to 'covert' kids to being gay or transgender against parents' rights.

      2. I remember when a Democrat who supported same-sex marriage was a rare thing, at least on the national level. It is an amazing shift, especially considering the short space of time.

  58. The 2015 satirical comedy series stars Volodymyr Zelenskyy playing a teacher who unexpectedly becomes President after…

    Terry Crews 2024

    1. So he's pretty much Ukraine's Trump, I guess.

      1. So he's pretty much Ukraine's Trump, I guess.

        That analogy may have seemed reasonable to us when he was first elected, but it breaks down completely if you know more about Trump and Zelenskyy than the simple fact that they were both celebrities before being elected.

        The biggest difference between them is that Zelenskyy was apparently successful at being funny when he tried to be, whereas Trump was only ever funny when wasn't trying to be funny.

  59. Americans will choose logic and fairness over hate and eugenics every time, as long as someone promises to give them a makeover.

  60. The Democratic Party "materially harms" the Republican party, and therefore should be broken up per the proposed new anti-monopoly standard. Some Democrats should be broken up into a number of transplantable organs.

  61. Some 30 percent of people surveyed by PRRI still think that gay and lesbian couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. Among Republicans only, this figure jumps to 50 percent. Yikes. The good news is that 68 percent of those surveyed support same-sex marriage, and this figure has been steadily and quickly rising.

    Wrongthink cannot be tolerated by Reason!

    1. "Some 30 percent of people surveyed by PRRI still think that mixed race couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. Among Republicans only, this figure jumps to 50 percent. Yikes. The good news is that 68 percent of those surveyed support interracial marriage, and this figure has been steadily and quickly rising."

      Would you have had the same response if this had been the statement made? Would it still seem Orwellian to you for someone to act like those that disapprove of interracial marriage to are backward and bigoted? Or if the question had been about marriage between people with different religious beliefs? Or different political views?

      The fact of the matter is that the movement of Western society toward greater acceptance of gay and lesbian rights has left those that still don't have that acceptance with fewer places to hide their bigotry. They have fewer excuses for denying those people equal rights, and it just becomes more and more obvious that they just don't like homosexuality and are disgusted by it.

      1. Would it still seem Orwellian to you for someone to act like those that disapprove of interracial marriage to are backward and bigoted? Or if the question had been about marriage between people with different religious beliefs? Or different political views?

        In the context of baker's being forced to bake chocolate and vanilla swirl wedding cakes or standalone?

        Actually, nevermind, yes, very Orwellian. Virtually every culture's parents have been setting arbitrary and high standards for, and disapproving of, their childrens' mates' cultures since at least a millennium before The Bard penned Romeo and Juliet. As long as they aren't dragging people out of their homes and beating them to death or thwarting the weddings at gunpoint, I don't care. Getting bent out of shape that 30% of the bride/grooms parents don't approve of the groom/bride for any reason is exceptionally Orwellian. Especially if you're not in the family or even in the ceremony.

  62. The nonsensical replacement standard would consider whether activity harms competitors—a.k.a. exactly what business is meant to do.

    Um, no. Business is not meant to "harm" competitors. They are meant to outcompete them. There can be pretty big difference between fair and unfair competition. Even in combat sports (boxing, MMA, etc.), where harming the opponent is the actual goal, rules and weight classes are set up to keep the competition fair.

    Competition between businesses is only beneficial to customers if the competition is fair. That is, if it is based on the value of the product or service. When businesses can use their size to outcompete other businesses without providing superior value to customers (or less value), then you can end up with market failure.

    1. derp, no. If the market is free and one company is bigger than the other it's because they're better than the other. If they're not better than the other they won't be bigger for long. Again, in a free market. One in which individual/private property rights are protected.

      1. If the market is free and one company is bigger than the other it's because they're better than the other. If they're not better than the other they won't be bigger for long. Again, in a free market. One in which individual/private property rights are protected.

        These are assumptions that rely on there being a "free market", which you are not defining precisely enough to justify those assumptions. What makes a market a free market? How much do individual and private property rights need to be protected to maintain one? What regulations will be reasonable and which will go too far?

        Economics is a complex problem and simple ideas and talking points don't get you very far.

  63. I am fundamentally against marriage licenses for same sex marriages.

    Then again I am against licensing for heterosexual couples.

    Why would anybody want to beg their overlord to become a married couple. Marriage is between the couple, the people, their churches and whatever fluffy God they pray to, not between government and them.

    1. As the world is now there are legal reasons for people to get marriage licenses from the state. Property, child custody, inheritances and so forth. So why not let people of the same sex get marriage licenses? No skin off my nose.

  64. I believe the poll numbers are a lie, but if true, then this nation is doomed. And rightly so.

  65. Yes, I see all this in practice. This is one of the reasons why many girls do not try to show their position, but are looking for partners in a special comfortable online environment. As a rule, these are local chats and dating sites. You can see it in detail in this great post to read. Do you need to stand up for your rights? Yes, sure. but you should not do this in case of a real threat to your physical and psychological condition. Online dating is the easiest way to find your partner without any effort or struggle.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.