New Jersey Breweries Push Back Against Crushing New Rules
New rules from the state alcohol control board could grind breweries into insolvency.

In a column earlier this month on recent changes to alcohol legislation in several states, I detailed several good (and not-so-good) new laws. One state I didn't highlight was New Jersey, where an outrageous and asinine special ruling last month by the state's Division of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC)—not a new law passed by the state legislature—is causing chaos for brewers and consumers in the state.
While "outrageous and asinine" might seem a bit much, here's just some of what the special ruling mandates of craft breweries in the state:
- All patrons of a brewery must take a detailed tour of that brewery before purchasing any alcohol for consumption on or off site. The tour may not include sampling beer. ("A licensee must provide such a tour prior to allowing any on-premise consumption, including but not limited to consumer sampling.")
- A brewery may not sell or serve food beyond trivial quantities of "water and single-serve, pre-packaged crackers, chips, nuts and similar snacks." A brewer also may not partner with one or more food trucks to offer food for sale on the premises.
- A brewery may not sell mixed drinks containing beer on the premises.
- A brewery may not offer either free drinks "as a gesture of good will" or discounted drinks.
- A brewery may not brew and sell coffee or may not sell any soda that is not produced at the brewery.
- A brewery may not host "'pop up' shops, bazaars, or craft shows."
- A brewery may not host more than 25 special events per year. Special events include live music, trivia nights, a "live-televised championship sporting event," or the showing of any television program—news, sports, movie, etc.—that the brewery markets via social media.
- A brewery may not hire an outside marketing company to assist with any special event.
At least some of the changes the special ruling mandates may look familiar to longtime readers. Many of these regulations were introduced in an earlier special ruling, I explained in a 2019 column. That controversial ruling was held in limbo after a combination of pushback from brewers and consequences of the Covid pandemic.
But now it's back. As the New Jersey Brewers Association—which represents dozens of craft brewers in the state—explained in a position statement posted at the group's website last week, the recent ruling made the terms of the 2019 special ruling a condition of renewing breweries' licenses in the state. "There are 18 new provisions in the special ruling that will impact New Jersey's 141 breweries," the Hoboken Girl reported this week. "Some had been on the books for a while but loosely enforced, while others are new."
Who in New Jersey could favor such strict regulation of breweries? Start with the state's powerful restaurant lobby. Back in 2019, the ABC claimed the special ruling was intended to "strike a balance between the craft brewing industry and restaurants."
By "strike a balance," New Jersey's ABC really means "use the power of the state to help restaurateurs by harming brewers." Call that what you may—bad policy, protectionism, crony capitalism, or just plain bullshit.
"The special ruling is grounded in an effort—an impermissible one, I'd argue—to protect restaurants, bars, and liquor stores in the state from competition," I explained in 2019. "The state's powerful restaurant lobby, for example, opposes 'any legislation that would relax the state's uniquely restrictive [brewery] rules.'"
The restaurants' argument against breweries has little to do with breweries.
"Detractors in the restaurant and bar industries have argued that breweries are in effect competing against them, but with one major advantage: breweries are not required to buy liquor licenses," NJ.com reported this week. "Liquor licenses currently up for auction in Hudson County range from $100,000 to $400,000 and in other parts of the state can cost more than $1 million."
While that is an absurdly high price to pay for a liquor license, the price is so high only because the state ABC limits the number of new liquor licenses available, creating artificial scarcity and driving up the cost of the mandatory license. Rather than simply issuing more licenses, the state—with the support of restaurateurs—has chosen to target breweries.
As soon as news of the special ruling spread, New Jersey brewers and their supporters expressed a combination of panic and outrage.
The special ruling "will harm us, our staff, and many people in the community like musicians and others who participate in the events we sponsor," brewery owner Brian Kulbacki told Jersey City Times this week.
"They are crippling the breweries by telling us we can't have events, we can't do fun things. Why is anyone going to want to come here? They're trying to make an environment that no one wants to come to," brewery owner Kat Garrity told NBC10 earlier this month.
"Just as they are on the heels of recovering from the pandemic, getting into the swing of things, to promulgate this regulation and create artificial barriers to the success of the economic recovery of these innovators, these small businesses, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me," Jersey City assemblyman Raj Mukherji told NJ.com.
Some brewers are even looking for greener pastures. Brewery owner Leo Sawadogo told NJ.com this week that he's "thinking of moving to Pennsylvania. Seriously."
New Jersey state law generally authorizes the issuance of special rulings by the ABC commissioner that are "necessary for the proper regulation and control of the manufacture, sale[,] and distribution of alcoholic beverages." The terms of this special ruling are not necessary. In fact, they are unnecessary. And, as I told CBS News three years ago, they also likely violate the First Amendment—they restrict how breweries may describe their events and products—and may increase alcohol-related injuries and accidents in New Jersey, since eating while drinking helps to slow alcohol's absorption rate (and serving customers coffee and soft drinks instead of alcohol is largely prohibited).
In 2019, I closed my column by noting that New Jersey's regulation of craft brewers should and will evolve—just "like the state ABC's understanding of craft beer." I was right about the "should" but wrong about the "will." The New Jersey ABC's understanding of craft beer, regulation, law, and fairness appears to instead be decaying.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
...and why should this surprise anyone?
NJ has become the east coast twin of CA. Smaller but just as dysfunctional under one party rule.
But with more mafia style.
I without a doubt have made $18,000 inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task accomplishing this I'm equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather
extra cash on-line.... http://oldprofits.blogspot.com
Since the Gummint doesn't let Citizens pump their own gas in Joisey, do they also forbid Citizens to open their own beer bottles too?
I without a doubt have made $18k inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task (vwu-02) accomplishing this I'm equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather extra cash on-line
travelling this site.
>>>>>>>>>> http://netcash94.tk
So effectively craft breweries are illegal. I’m a bit of a craft beer connoisseur and I don’t believe I’ve ever had a beer from New Jersey. In fact I don’t think I’ve even ever heard of any breweries from New Jersey.
You should get out more.
Yes, because New Jersey craft breweries are something everyone knows about.
Out to New Jersey? Fuck no.
I without a doubt have made $18k inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task (bdu-02) accomplishing this I'm equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather extra cash on-line
travelling this site.
>>>>>>>>>> https://smartpays11.pages.dev/
In New Jersey, they call them "refineries".
Good one.
At one time NJ had about a half dozen refineries, however I think it is now down to just one and not a very big one at that.
As for craft brewers, there are currently about 140.
So name one I should look for with distribution out of state.
And not to get into a pissing contest, but last I knew Michigan was about 400, including Bells and Founders that are in distro in most states in the country.
Beer-pissing contest: funny. I think Shakespeare even had a quote of the subject.
I am not a shil nor am I promoting anyone's craft beer so I can't help you out. I would say that the limit on production for NJ craft beer licenses (300,000 barrels max) might preclude wide distribution. Also, given the comparative sizes of the states, NJ's 140 craft breweries is not bad.
I think once something reaches a certain level of popularity it ceases to be what it started out as. If I'm not mistaken, Sam Adams started out claiming to be a craft beer. I don't think anyone still considers it as such.
Given the explosion in craft brewing You'll never try them all but enjoy the trip.
Bells is definitely reaching the limit of “craft”, and one of their flagship beers, Oberon, seems to have slightly declined in quality. Plus Larry Bell sold it to some Japanese company recently. Still good beer overall.
Dead thread, but as Bumble indicated I don' think there's a ton of out-of-state distribution mainly due to regulations. Ours tend to be hyperlocal, which makes this ruling even more annoying - we'll rep our breweries the way Englishmen will their local soccer clubs.
If you can find them abroad, I highly recommend Kane, Carton, Cape May, Alementary, Source (they also have a Philly location if you're ever there), and Icarus. I'd put Kane's IPAs against literally anybody else's, both in terms of quality and variety.
Also, Bells is crap and Founders is overrated. It's 11:12 and Michigan still sucks.
KBS is still a damn good BA stout considering its available 365 and basically available everywhere I've gone in this country. While I've had many that are better, they are hyper local and/or only available at certain times of the year (e.g., Firestone Walker's parabola or The Bruery's black tuesday). Also, all-day IPA is a solid mass marketed session. Problem is (seems to me anyway) the larger the population you want to sell your beer to, the more you have to "average" out the flavor to appeal to the broadest amount of people...so basically anything that goes out to most of the country is never going to have the potential to pack the kinds of flavor you get in local beers.
Same here- I have yet to see any NJ craft brews and I tend to look for where beer is brewed.
I figured it had to do with nobody wanting to admit their beer was made with NJ water, which makes me think of Toxic Avenger.
See my reply to R Mac above.
As to the water, that is another misconception about NJ. There is plenty wrong in the state but it does have many sources of good water. Back in the days before national distribution took hold NJ like most states had countless breweries. Even today Budweiser has one of its 12 breweries located in Newark, NJ (not that I'd consider any Bud brand worth drinking).
Invertase in Phillpsburg is good. Went into NJ by mistake while brew hoping in Allentown East PA area.
From the Hoboken Girl article:
Hence the dilemma. This is not the only case in which a lot of private assets are tied up in the continuation of repression. We've been discussing similar situations in residential zoning. So if repression continues as it is, there are victims, but the opportunity cost to society is already baked into property, while if repression is lessened, there will be particular victims, and often a great many of them. We know in the long run laissez faire is better, but there are tons of short run situations like this wherein people who've already been screwed would have no hope of getting unscrewed.
It's called "business risk". Everyone in business is used to it, and at one time or another, it's going to bite you in the ass.
It's not our job to protect other people from the business risk contained in their own business decisions.
But when it's a risk that government created? A risk that the person who wants to get into business (or buy a home) will have to pay or borrow exorbitant amounts to do so, because of scarcity created by government, and then unexpectedly find themselves unable to recoup that payment because arbitrary government action has reduced or eliminated that scarcity? So the victim is victimized again, making sacrifices at both ends?
If you say people should treat that risk as built into any such investment, then effectively you're making government impositions worse, more restrictive than they actually are. Zoning may make housing scarce, but at least some people can afford the high price because they can treat it as a recoverable expense, as long as the scarcity is maintained as it was before they bought. If you say it should be treated as a non-recoverable expense, then zoning restrictions change from merely burdensome to prohibitive. Same for taxi medallions, liquor licenses, or any other program that imposes scarcity via a supply cap. If you say the expense of such a business license should be treated as lost on payment, then rather than government merely pushing up the cost of such services, you convert them into practical prohibitions.
Consider, for instance, an expensive but renewable and transferable license on new barber shops that could be imposed for a limited period, say 2023-2026. That would guarantee that there would be no new barber shops opened during that period, as all barbers would wait it out. But if the imposition were made permanent, then the suppression of the business would not be as severe, since people could pay for the license in the hope of selling it eventually, and lenders would even treat it as collateral.
If you start a business and do well, then a competitor comes along with a better process and better designs and pulls the rug out from under your antiquated process and designs, does your competitor owe you anything, society owe you anything, for this sudden disaster which you did not anticipate?
If you were Edison and bet the farm on DC, and Tesla/Westinghouse come along with AC and destroy your business model, does Tesla/Westinghouse or society owe you anything?
If you invested in electric cars in 1900, and Henry Ford and his model T undercut you with price, convenience, and practicality, does Henry Ford owe you anything?
No, no, and no, because you had no property right in the potential rewards of your investment. That was your risk, yours alone.
Just because you took advantage of government zoning and saw your house worth more and more does not mean that you have any property right in the continued artificial elevation of your house's worth. either the government nor society owes you anything if zoning changes or disappears.
If you want the moral high ground in protesting government actions which decrease your house's value, you had damn well better have taken the similar moral high ground when government zoning increased your house value; you had better have protested it, written letters, called up your representatives, and picketed, just as much as you did when you saw your house's value drop.
Did you? I bet not.
Government is usually the #1 business risk.
The entire concept of professional licensing is cronyism. Everything you point out above is cronyism.
If you remove the government from the market, you remove cronyism from the market.
Roberta seems to be arguing that it's just not fair for the government to taketh away what the government had previouthly given.
Hence the compelling argument to keep government out in the first place.
Sorry for the missing /sarc! Yes, I agree. Government is the root of almost all problems today, and expecting government to solve them with more regulations is mind-bogglingly naive.
That is indeed a compelling argument. What we're arguing about now, however, is how best to mitigate the damage when the laissez-faire course has not been taken.
You can’t mitigate the damage. It’s not going to get better with time—only worse.
Rip the band aid off.
They invested in an asset that diminished in value. The reasons suck. C’est la vie.
It isn't fair. But that's not an excuse to undo an injustice.
Too many negatives. Try again.
It's not fair to the person who didn't plan on the injustice being undone, but that's not an excuse to not undo it.
Think I got it right this time.
Maybe not, but it is an excuse for the cost of righting the wrong to be shared more fairly.
We kid a lot here about taxpayers being on the hook for some catastrophically expensive damage caused by government agents, but isn't that better than the victim's not getting anything at all? In most cases even if the actual malfeasor were held liable, the victim would get only a tiny portion of what's due.
There are ways of doing this sort of thing. My idea for taxi medallions was to issue additional medallions to the holder of each. They could then sell them. So supply would be eased, and much of the benefit would be captured by those who'd already put a ton of money toward buying into the oligopoly. Everybody wins.
No no no. I posted several equivalents below, where competitors, changing fads, new technology reduce a company's investments to useless. It's just too bad and no one owes those investors a dime, not the government, not society, not former customers -- nobody.
Here you are arguing that homeowners have an actual 5th amendment takings value in a house whose value has gone up because of government action, and that if government removes or changes zoning such that the value drops, government and/or society owe those homeowners.
No, they do not.
Then you're saying government should be allowed to do these things with impunity, never incurring any liability for the havoc they create? Don't you see a difference in that regard between risks incurred because of voluntary actions (fads, inventions, etc.) and those from involuntary government exactions? Like, in the case at hand, being allowed into the bar business only by buying one of the existing licenses that government issued long ago? And having borrowed to the hilt to buy that license, which was the only way to get into it? And then having the license's value drop to 0 when unexpectedly the license was no longer required, resulting in your having a huge debt and no equity, no way to sell out of it?
No, I see no difference, other than you wanting to soak society by means of higher taxes.
Here's another scenario: a state government suddenly changes from right-to-work to close-shop. Business expenses go up, product prices go up, sales go down, profits go down, and some businesses go out of business because competitors in right-to-work states have lower prices.
Do you think those investors and workers should get a handout from the state taxpayers?
Two wrongs do not make a right. If government could make up the difference with magic money, maybe you'd have a better argument. But there is no such thing. All government money comes from society in the form of taxes. You are saying that taxpayers need to make up the difference. You want other people to pay you. That is not libertarian.
Why do you keep insisting damage from government actions is somehow different from social or technological changes? Neither is predictable.
The only practical difference I can see between government zoning fads or medallion fads, and social fashion fads, is that government is a single entity and has taxes to cough up. But technology also has a clear culprit whose new riches are a perfectly cromulent piggy bank to rob. Why would it not have been proper for buggy manufacturers to sue Henry Ford for their lost revenue? Why should Edison not have sued Westinghouse for lost revenue when AC proved better than DC? Why should longshoremen and bulk shippers not have tried to recover lost jobs and lost revenue from Malcolm McLean when he invented containers? Why should oil producers not have paid coal miners for lost jobs, and then natural gas producers have paid oil producers?
The only difference I can see is government taxes are invisible to you.
Government induced favoritism is always worse than market favoritism.
The difference you seem to be blind to is evidenced by all we do here, which is argue what gosvernment policy should be. We don't argue about whether we should have improvements in technology. We don't discuss what the best fads would be. We do discuss government policy, so why shouldn't we include in our consideration how best to ameliorate the pain of transition to those policies?
People here seem to take account of how immigration policies might have to be adjusted to go along with other changes in government policy, so as to reduce certain deleterious impacts of changes that would overall and in the long run be good. Don't you see that other improvements toward laissez faire could impact some parties adversely enough to make it impossible to get them on our side? Do we have to insist on policy changes that require certain parties to sacrifice everything for the good of all, rather than spreading the burden?
If you think these are trivial, why not tackle a big one, like what to do about government debt? Or unfunded liabilities of retirement programs that government subjects were required to participate in?
"My idea for taxi medallions was to issue additional medallions to the holder of each. They could then sell them."
Good and creative thinking! Good job, kudos! (Ease the pains and injustices while fixing things.)
But "given" isn't usually the word for it. Rather, sold at high cost what should've been freely available.
What about when government makes you give up your money in return for a currency they decree to be its equivalent? Do you not then complain when government fails to back up its value? Are you saying we were "given" greenbacks, therefore we shouldn't complain when the banking monopoly issues more of them?
Yes, I am indeed saying that in cases where government carries out some deal leaving certain persons with something of value (which they could probably have gotten for less on their own), government should not carry out further deals to deliberately devalue what those persons were left with, unless those persons are given just compensation.
And you are as wrong in this case as those who argue that business investors and workers have a valid claim on society when changes in fashion or technology reduce the value of their investments and jobs.
Don't you see that government action is fundamentally different from fashion or technology? Otherwise you might as well say that taxation is as valid a business as any other way of making money.
Yes, government pays you from taxes. You want to rob society to pay you.
I don't see how government pays me from taxes. Isn't it usually the other way around?
Where do you suppose they get the money?
People who gained from any form of Government restriction or subsidy such as slavery, licenses, zoning, regulatory capture, grants, etc. can just as easily gain from a Free-Market Capitalist economy too by doing what everybody else does to get where the get in such an economy.
Life isn't fair, but you can make life better by producing a good or service people are willing to buy with helpers willing to offer it.
So someone who borrowed to the hilt to buy slaves yesterday, which was the only affordable way to get into business at that time, now has to compete in an environment where everybody has to hire? Forget it, that person is now upside down on human ownership, bankrupt, after never having had time to make the investment back when unexpectedly the slaves were all freed today.
There has to be a better way to do these sorts of things.
Yes, keep government out of the economy to start with, there's your better way. Absent that, when the government capriciously changes the rules, tough luck. Society owes you nothing when you invested according to how the government rigged the game, and now they rigged it differently.
That's your opinion, which differs from mine regarding the "absent that". Is there any argument you can make to persuade anyone of it? Any way to show that once government has used force to intervene in anybody's affairs, there's never any better thing to do than simply stop it in whatever condition it is at the moment?
How about when government has used coercively extracted resources to get into business. Say they're running a telecommunication monopoly business. Is there nothing better they could do than to abandon it this instant? How about jails? Walk off and leave those incarcerated locked in till their death?
How about we pile as many wrongs together and see if it ever comes out right?
Two wrongs do not make a right. Nor does a third, fourth, or an infinite number of wrongs.
Sure, assume everything is a wrong to begin with. Easy way to prove an ethical point, huh? And water is wet.
Government could give a share of the telecommunications company to each Citizen, to avoid Cronyism, and whomever, over time acquires the most stock shares by buying from stock-selling Citizens takes majority ownership.
Meanwhile, the Government would also repeal all laws establishing coercive monopolies, so other companies would be free to offer telecommunications services.
Government could contract out prison services to the bidder who offers the most services for the money offered, with the proviso that sentences are still definite and prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment stay in place.
Personally, I also think we should bring back exile for especially violent, predatory offenders and build artificial one-person islands for that purpose, patrolled against escape by satellites, small warships, and drones. They'd have their own biosphere, but "Root, Hog, or Die" using it.
Those are decent ideas. Surely we could come up with something similar regarding liquor licenses.
Slaveholders can be glad that we threw off debtor's prison when we cast off rule by the British Empire.
And as I allude to elsewhere on this thread, they can be glad they didn't get the treatment dished out by Django in Tatantino's fiction movie or Denmark Vesey in reaĺ life.
Slavery in many ways is worse than murder because it is taking a life while simultaneously keeping that life alive...It is the literal living death portrayed with horror in the Zombie genre of fiction so disturbingly popular nowadays. Anyone who does something so vile to human beings is getting off light any way the scales tip.
Then they shouldn't've surrendered, but just gotten killed, when they were presented with that choice.
Slavery was a way to mitigate the evil of war. You could surrender instead of just being killed. If the shoe were on the other foot, you could take a prisoner as slave instead of killing them. Tell me any other species that, when they fight, give each other that choice.
I'd give slaveholders a chance to surrender, of course, but surrender or death are the only ultimate options in any run-in with government, whether it's a domestic law violation or a war abroad. And in any society that values Individual Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property, practicing slavery can never be without consequence.
And when human beings are regarded as property, taking slaves in war just makes war more lucrative and attractive for those who send men to fight and die. Our present agreements on POWs, when abided by, are just fine by me. War is horrific enough without throwing slavery on top of it.
But that's always the problem with war. Every reform to make it less violent makes it more attractive.
But making slavery a feature of war imposes the costs only on the ones forced to endure it. The Governments that conscript men to endure war and slavery pay no costs for their actions, especially if the Governments are not accountable or checkable by voiceless, powerless, disarmed Citizen-Cogs.
And I emphasize men because even in this modern world of Women's Lib, men are the primary victims of the meat-grinder of war.
Correction: Tarantino's fiction movie.
I think I see where you and some other commenters went wrong in your analysis. You assume that anyone who holds one of these government-created privileges gained from it. In general that's true only at the time that privilege was created — when licenses were capped, when a hitherto free person was taken as a slave, etc. Following that, the asset that privilege represents is capitalized, and the subsequent owners had to pay its market value. The person who bought one of these established liquor licenses gained nothing from it but what should've been everyone's right: the right to get into the business. If there was any monopoly value entailed, the purchaser would be expected to do no more than eventually break even on that additional value, i.e. recouping the cost of purchasing it. The people who gained anything from the government imposition are gone from the scene. If the current owners lose the value of that privilege, they're not returning some ill-gotten gain of theirs; rather, they're paying for someone else's ill-gotten gain in the past.
If they play their cards right, they'll live and live well in any new Free Market economy that arises from the mess wrought by Statism.
Libertarian justice is means-oriented, not ends oriented. If you're focused on getting everyone to some mythical steady-state outcome, we'll never get tyrannical governments out of our lives.
Sigh. Once again, zoning does not make housing scarce. It makes certain types of housing sanctioned (or prohibited). No matter how much or little zoning in a given area, only so many houses with yards can fit into an area within walking distance of downtown. Changing the zoning to allow 5 story apartment buildings built to the lot lines does allow for more housing "units", but they are different and probably inferior, at least to many people. Crowding 10 times more people into a community will almost certainly destroy at least some of the qualities that attracted people in the first place.
^This.
I'm sure some plantation owner made a similar argument.
It was a huge part of the debate. There were all sorts of scheme to ameliorate the loss in property value.
* Slaves' children are not slaves when born, thus decreasing the capital stock gradually and eventually eliminating slavery altogether, several generations down the road.
* The state would buy slaves and free them or deport them, and prohibit all new slaves. All over some long number of years to avoid sudden shocks and make the funding palatable.
I remember a wild variety of such schemes.
Django relieved slave owners of a lot of burdens like breathing, heartbeat, brain function.... 🙂
Like what Uber did to the value of cab medallions.
Just what I was going to say. NYC especially went through a taxi medallion "crisis" which was entirely the result of the government having propped up medallion prices because the medallion holders were in effect just renting them from the government, intending to sell them to someone else when they retired.
Same thing with land zoning restricting new housing and raising the price of homes, except in that case, governments have their own finger in the pie because their property tax revenue goes down as home prices drop. Too many commenters here claim artificially high housing prices are their property right, and land zoning reform infringes their "right" to high housing prices, as if the drop in price is a 5th amendment taking.
NJ fucking sucks. The land of cronyism!
It's literally like living in a third world nation. If you know who to grease, you can get whatever you want. And this kind of behavior is not only tolerated, it's encouraged!
The whole country is like this in Joe Biden's America now. If you're Steve Bannon you get charged and convicted, but if you're Hunter Biden you can have video footage of yourself weighing 20.7 grams of crack cocaine and nothing will ever happen to you.
Double standards have become THE standard.
The essence of tribalism.
"A brewery may not sell or serve food beyond trivial quantities..."
Huh, a lot of provinces up here won't let you serve alcohol unless food as substantial as a meal is also on offer.
A lot of nightclubs kept a couple of old frozen microwavable dinners in the freezer just to meet the regs.
Same thing in many states. Looking at you, Utah.
Yeet groomers.
https://twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1550427949819695104?t=Az1CZ4dP3nkMMPkGWlQQhQ&s=19
Research suggests that children as young as 2 recognise their trans identity. Yet, many nurseries and schools teach a binary understanding of pre-assigned gender.
LGBTQ-inclusive and affirming education is crucial for the wellbeing of all young people!
[Link]
https://twitter.com/MMMMeowwwwwww/status/1084468382961934338?t=aXttgsal6lIvqThJoz06yQ&s=19
These are SOME institutions that Stonewall advises (these hv become “Stonewall Diversity Champions”); meanwhile Stonewall keeps Aimee Challenor on its Trans Advisory Board despite AC choosing their father who was under child rape charges to be their agent in local elections 2018:
[Links]
Izzat chu, half the members of the Reason Commentariat? 🙂
A PetSmart manager kicks out "LGBTQ hunter" Ethan Schmidt in 20 seconds (video)
 Carla Sinclair
https://boingboing.net/2022/07/22/a-petsmart-manager-kicks-out-lgbtq-hunter-ethan-schmidt-in-20-seconds-video.html
I guess there's no Biblical command of: "Thou shalt not showeth thine ass in a retail store." 😉
And whatthefuck does this have to do with beer in NJ?
Try to stay on topic.
Welcome to weekend threads on reason. New here? They replace the roundups.
Old here. Caring was my first mistake.
Nothing, but we always use the weekend food column as a general.
Chill, dude. Reason could publish an "article" called Free Comment Space everyday, and most of us would still find more information and entertainment in the comments that in most things Reason staff write.
When I was 5 or 6, I remember asking my mother why something seemingly as trivial as the configuration of the organs we pee with should determine our harstyles, what kind of clothes we wear, even our names and what words (e.g. pronouns) people will use to refer to us by. And getting an answer that seemed reasonable and sufficient: the physical differences between the sexes may be minor at the age I then was, but they would get larger later in life: men would grow whiskers and their voices would get deeper, while women would grow breasts and gain the ability to bear children.. So we were treated in a way that would ease our transitions later in life into men and women. Children often wonder about such questions, and ought to be given real answers like I was. Teachers should be able to discuss such matters with their students. But kids shouldn't be told that they can simply change genders at will, because their bodies will eventually show them that they can't, which is something they probably haven't thought about.
We wouldn't need different hir styles or clothes if we were naked below the waist.
"Teachers should be able to discuss such matters with their students.:
But why?
Why not? Children may ask them such questions, and teachers should not have to say things like "I'm not allowed to discuss that." Such statements will unnecessarily alarm kids.
"Ask your parents."
It's not a difficult answer, and the only appropriate one. Teachers should not be discussing sexuality or genitalia with 8 year olds.
I never asked a teacher any questions like this. Neither did anyone in any of my classes. If this type of conversations was going on in any of your classes, you were being groomed. Which explains why you think it’s ok. But it’s not.
The Biden economy is awesome. Inflation is a wingnut.com myth. 1 / 6 is exactly like 9 / 11. Trump is going to prison soon.
#TemporarilyFillingInForButtplug
No, 1/6 was worse than 9/11.
I know fractions are hard, but why so judgmental?
Reason comments, home to ADHD.
That or maximum strength Adderall at work
https://twitter.com/DrKimSue/status/1550450493918527489?t=CWl_m2HdfbjvzxnwnOYjAQ&s=19
POTUS working while having COVID infection epitomizes white supremacy urgency in the workplace. Sets a bad example for everyone that he cannot rest. COVID infection is serious, symptoms debilitating for many, and ppl should take time off without working through it.
Holy crap.
So, the proper way to treat illness is based on solidarity? Since somebody might have (or just fear) more severe symptoms, others with mild symptoms should also endure the most extreme treatment regimen--for medical fairness?
WTF is wrong with progressives?
Existing
White supremacy is a good thing. Fuck you if you aren't white.
If by white supremacy you mean all the things listed on the Smithsonian poster of white culture, then yes, it's a fucking good thing.
White Mike was running cover as usual yesterday and posted this gem:
Mike Laursen
July.22.2022 at 10:47 am
If we didn’t get intense January 6th style riots after the Dobbs decision, we won’t get them after a Republican midterm victory.
https://reason.com/2022/07/22/january-6-committee-wraps-summer-hearings-with-footage-of-hawley-fleeing-detailed-account-of-trumps-day/?comments=true#comment-9612320v
This is bullshit of course because the establishment left has gone utterly bananas. There have been at least 75 attacks linked to pro-choice activism on churches and pregnancy centers, and assassination attempts on judges and congressmen.
Aside from the greatly increased level of actual destruction, the other main difference from the Jan 6 protesters is that not one attacker has been sent to prison.
Which makes me wonder, if the fortification/fraud factor is overcome in the next election, how much destruction will the establishment have their lefty tools wreak?
You trying to out-do JesseAz in the "Let's take a weak attempt at humor, take it out of context, and act like it's the only serious thing the person ever said! Attaaaaaaaaaaack!" department?
White Mike obviously wasn't being humorous, sarc. He was being serious.
They defended over 100 nights of rioting, making every excuse they could. They now push imaginations of violence on the right.
This is why people do shit like try to stab Zeldin, run down trump supporters with cars, try to stab trump, shoot up a congressional baseball game, etc.
I saw it as a joke because one the left doesn't riot J6 style, rather they burn down businesses; two there have already been protests; and three the left's Dear Leader isn't stirring the pot and trying to get the base to riot.
Maybe I'm wrong. Regardless it's a really stupid thing to get worked up about.
I mean except for all the times they did it like in Wisconsin.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/14/democrats-were-occupying-capitols-before-they-were-against-it/
Or the times they laughed about sending trump to the bunker.
Kavanaugh.
Etc.
But other than that the left are saints and completely different.
That's nice. I don't give a shit what the left does.
Yet have an incessant need to rush into every mild criticism of them to complain about the right. Even defending grooming by teachers when you see jeff sinking.
It is very obvious you don't give a shit about what the left does. Because you have no principles. They remove them openly, your response? "Meh. Look at the right over there!"
Thank you for finally being honest.
Remove rights openly*
Even defending grooming by teachers when you see jeff sinking.
Post what I actually said. C'mon boy! You can do it!
But you won't. If you did then everyone would see you're full of shit as usual.
lol you are the biggest tribalist here. "criticism of the right = support for the left"
Cite?
Jeff, you do nothing but push leftist talking points. The majority of those you call right wing here have criticized the right far more than you have ever criticized the left. On top of that you've admitted to being pro socialism, a globalism, and saying shit like government should teach social morality in schools.
Everyone here knows you're a leftist. I dont know why you continue to lie about it.
Jeff, you do nothing but push leftist talking points.
there we go. this is the tribalism I'm talking about.
You don't even know what "leftist talking points" are. You don't have a CLUE as to what real "leftism" or "progressivism" or even "center-left liberalism" REALLY are.
So when I say "schools should teach tolerance and acceptance" you think that is "leftism" just because I'm saying it and it's from people from the "other tribe".
Have you ever stopped to consider what your viewpoint really is? What you are affirmatively for? Seems to me that, with a few exceptions, you define yourself in opposition to everything that you are against.
Lol. The tribalism that you actually demonstrate but lie about.
You freely call people right wing. Are you just a hypocrite now? I mean look at your post below. It is purely what you claim to dislike here. So not only do you lie, you're a hypocrite.
And when I say you state government should teach societal morality even in favor of parental rights that is just what I mean. You think government should induce behaviors. See here.
https://reason.com/2022/07/21/a-right-to-contraception/?comments=true#comment-9610878
That is not the domain of government. They should not be teaching preferred behaviors. That is not their domain. That is a form of authoritarianism dumbass.
And yes I know what leftism is. Thats why I know and understand your talking points and see your lies. Haidts research shows that non leftists understand the arguments of the other side far more than leftists do. That's why all your arguments about the right are strawman.
I honestly don't know how you think you are fooling anybody here.
As for what I'm for I'm very clear and consistent om those matters dumbass.
Youre just a partisan leftist moron.
I call right-wingers like you right-wing, that's right.
Haidts research shows that non leftists understand the arguments of the other side far more than leftists do.
Well if this is correct, then you're the exception to the rule.
I call liars like Lying Jeffy liars.
"'lol you are the biggest tribalist here"
You, a guy who actually earns a wage fifty-centing for the Democrats here, don't get to call others "tribalist".
He really thinks he is clever no matter how many times his views are shown to be sophomoric.
Unlike you I'm not a simpleton who thinks there are only two possible ways of political thinking, and every single person is one or the other.
It's as if you paint caricatures and ascribe evil motivations to anyone who disagrees with you.
You dont think at all. That is your problem. You think politics is finding friends over having principles. You'll side with whoever gives you an attaboy.
Another great example of you telling me I'm wrong because I disagree with the voices in your head.
Bravo!
Mike Laursen hasn't got a funny bone in his entire body. He's one of the most humorless boring people here. He makes accountants seem positively bouyant, the very kind you'd want at your next party.
Joke? From him? Not bloody likely.
Humor is subjective.
Not when there is none. Even your pathetic attempts at sarcasm are recognizable; Mike Laursen has less sense of humor than the driest accountant imagineable.
I'm sure I could name some movies and people who I think are funny and you'd disagree. Doesn't mean they're not funny. Just like I doubt I'd laugh at things that you find to be humorous. For example I don't laugh at harm coming to people, even if I don't like them, and I'm sure that's something that gives you a side ache.
Dee doesn’t realize what Fist is doing to this day.
People watch hanah Gatsby. She claims to be a comedian. But she just sobs woke shit on stage. There is more clapping from the woke signaling than laughter. But it is a thing.
Leftists try to change everything. Even comedy.
https://politicalorphanage.libsyn.com/the-essence-of-conservative-humor
There's an actual serious conversation on that very subject without all of your whining and crying about how evil leftists ruin everything waahh boo hooo.
Not really. You and him are never funny.
That's not what your mom said.
And thank you for providing the evidence and saving me a few seconds to find one of hundreds of idiotic things you say that you claim is comedy.
Were you born with a stick up your ass or did someone put it there?
Nobody here finds you funny. Dies everyone have a stick in their ass? Many funny things are said here. Just not by you. Your attempt at humor above is a perfect example. You think comedy stopped at 7th grade. Youre what, 50? Lol. Was it because you retool that grade for a few years? Honestly curious.
That's one troll's opinion.
But see, the difference between sarcasmic and Mike Laursen is that you can at least recognize sarcasmic's attempts at humor as such, like this pathetic joke. Mike Laursen has never even come close to any such recognizable attempts.
Agreed. Sarc’s got a sense of humor. It just sucks. Dee doesn’t even understand how humor works.
Your joke is that Jesse’s mom thinks you’re a joke. Fail.
Liz Cheney is bragging about violating norms and how she has extracted confessions. Creepy as shit reminiscent of the inquisition.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/07/22/true-confessions-liz-cheney-said-trump-family-and-aides-have-now-publicly-confessed/
A 3rd political prisoner has now committed suicide because the regime ruined his life.
He was guilty of trespass.
Watch the judge for Bannon go for over a year.
Anyone still think she’s less evil than her father?
It's Saturday. Take some time off and support your local craft brewery or local winery.
They've outlawed brewpubs? Dicks.
You just took a weak attempt at humor, take it out of context, and act like it's the only serious thing the person ever said!
brewpub: a restaurant that sells beverages brewed on the premises.
Don't look at me!: a retarded troll that haunts the Reason comments.
Victim signal ignited.
Here comes the chief troll to defend one of his minions.
Poor sarc.
Always prepared to light his signal.
Now you made him cry.
I think you're exaggerating the effect of the rule. Where does it say they can't operate? I look at this and compare with the way Angry Erik's been operating, and see practically no difference. They just have to go back to having customers take the physical tour instead of the virtual one before being served. Or maybe not even that, maybe the virtual tour still qualifies. Vendors have food trucks outside without needing coordination, just as food trucks operate outside of lots of businesses without needing permission.
When someone says "Brewpub" I think of a juicy burger with freshly cut fries washed down with an ale that was brewed in the basement.
These rules prohibit serving food where beer is made.
Hence they've banned brewpubs.
No, just your vision of brewpubs.
Well that sucks for you. You're missing out on some great lunch spots.
Can't put three links in a post. Try again.
https://federaljacks.com/
two
https://grittys.com/
three
http://www.sebagobrewing.com/
Silly me. To think a brewpub meant a restaurant that serves drinks brewed on the premises. How could I ever get that idea?
You just took a weak attempt at humor, take it out of context, and act like it's the only serious thing the person ever said!
If that's what you mean, yes. But the ban was long ago. NJ hasn't had brewpubs (in the sense of places that could serve hot food) in any of our lifetimes. In recent years they've been allowed to have breweries serve their product during limited hours. And they've been using workarounds not very different from the recently finalized rules for years. Angry Erik serves charcuteries and allows food trucks to park and serve in the lot of their space in the industrial park; he just can't coordinate with them. He holds special events about every other week. Another NJ microbrewery whose name I forgot served at a tent at a music festival last Sunday that was held on a farm that also prepared and sold food for consumption on the premises or to take out.
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1550796334185283584?t=4pJxTTRIkVdtRDB5uhMyaQ&s=19
Whatever you think of Bannon, the fact he was charged with contempt of Congress, but Clapper, Brennan & others who lied to Congress have never been charged, shows how the Biden admin / elite have shamelessly weaponized law enforcement into a political hit squad.
I don't have a problem with Bannon being charged with contempt of Congress, but I do have a problem with Holder and others doing the exact same thing or worse and getting away with it.
Right now there's one set of rules for the Democrats and another set for everyone else.
I have a problem as the hearing has no congressional purpose, especially Bannon portion of the requested testimony. He had no say on executive matters, so there is no law in place that would have stopped Bannon from making the claims he did.
Holder on the other hand was acting from executive authority and would fall under oversight. Same with lerner.
https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1550804314171609088?t=bV4cDRsiy8jxjfB8eTjntg&s=19
You still can’t find the FDA approved versions of this vaccine in the US, even though FDA granted approval to a version almost a year ago. The American people deserve to know why the government & Pfizer & Moderna & fact-checkers have engaged in this bait-and-switch.
https://twitter.com/ddayen/status/1550504640940105728?t=SNh5Eco1Q2jAgxCmruvChQ&s=19
This isn't about tariffs it's about market structure.
There is an infinity percent tariff for half the market for infant formula because WIC users can only buy 1 brand. Actual tariffs at 0% (which they are temporarily, Biden today repealed the tariff) doesn't change that.
The problem is that foreign producers of formula that already face hefty tariffs would have spend a shitload of money to revamp their labels in order to appease the FDA, and it just isn't worth it because after spending that money the tariffs would still make their products prohibitively expensive.
But you righty-tighties feel the need to defend tariffs in the name of Dear Leader, so you'll search and search for anything else to blame.
the costs to related are the same with or without tariffs.
On a critical supply like formula that is out of stock families would have willingly paid the tariffs. Even more so as it is a critical commodity. Importation at that time was solely held up by regulations, not tariffs. Try reading an economics book sometime. We see the same thing with gas even though its price has doubled under biden. It is still an essential commodity. People are still buying it. Yet you want to pretend a 15% price increase would keep parents from buying formula lol.
This is not a defense of those tariffs. It is pointing out the sole problem of the situation, the regulatory framework. But you've had this explained to you before.
On top of that WIC provides half of all formula. That is the reason the market is so distorted here. Another government regulation issue, not tariff.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/wics-competitive-bidding-process-for-infant-formula-is-highly-cost
Compassionate fascism.
This is not a defense of those tariffs. It is pointing out the sole problem of the situation, the regulatory framework. But you've had this explained to you before.
Foreign businessmen are not stupid. If there was a profit to be made then they'd do what was necessary to comply with labeling requirements. That's a one-time expense.
But they will not because the protectionist tariffs you support and defend are doing what they are intended to do, which is to price foreign goods off the shelves.
Who votes for this carp?
Ugh. Drumpf and #DeathSantis won't stop unleashing plagues upon the planet. Once again it will be up to Biden to save us.
The World Health Organization declares monkeypox outbreak a public health emergency. Cases have been reported in 74 countries.
Remember — do not blame cis gay men. They're no more at fault than they were in the 1980s when AIDS spread because of Ronald Reagan.
#LGBTQIA+
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1550864590560546816?t=FcjacxcDHEMI4y6HzuMa6g&s=19
Cannibalism has a time and a place. Some recent books, films and shows suggest that the time is now. Can you stomach it?
[Link]
The proper time is when we run out of bugs.
So don't put the bodies in the freezer and let the bugs come to you.
In the future, we will all be
famousbug bait for 15 minutes.Correction: Tarantino's fiction movie.Funnty, Putin's Russia, for all of it's size, resources, and population, has an economy with a GDP only the size of little Italy.
With an economy like that, it certainly isn't a Free-Market powerhouse and it looks like Putin has the Russians in bug-eating territory faster that the Davos Men.
If Putin keeps pouring his rickety military down the rat-of war with Ukraine, he may have Russians resorting to even worse options. The Nutcracker may become a means of procuring Ural Mountain Oysters. Humbert Humbert may be shaking and coughing for some young land-fish and lamb. The prison camps may change their name from Gulag to Goulash.
By the way, you know who brought the cannibalism of the Holodolmar to Ukraine, who now has a revived cult of personality in Putin's Russia?
Lots of food for thought huh, Dugin Hooligan?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/23/trump-pence-arizona-republicans-future-election
So which Republican will you be voting for, Jesse?
I think we figured out who Jesse's mom is:
“I’ll be voting for all of Trump’s endorsements, and for him in 2024. Pence? He’s a Rino and a traitor, not to be trusted,” said Kelly Ciccone, 58, referencing the shorthand for Republican In Name Only.
Die, pedo
Lol. Quite pathetic trolling jeff. Youre getting worse at this.
Watching you expose yourself constantly the last 2 weeks has been hilarious.
You're voting for the Trumpy candidate, aren't you? You know, the one who was a Democrat up until 2012 and who tweeted that Inauguration Day of *2016* should be a "national day of mourning".
that should be Inauguration Day of 2017 of course
Ha-ha. You're such a predictable retard, Jeff. You can't even troll Jesse properly.
Jeff. Quite pathetic trolling with you crying about tribalism. Lol. Just pathetic.
Good work buddy. Let the hypocrisy and exposure flow through you.
You're still doing it. You don't even understand what tribalism is.
Unlike you, Jesse, I am able to conceive of a world with multiple different perspectives and points of view. If a person has a perspective different than mine, that does not automatically make that person an 'enemy' or a member of the 'opposite tribe'. It simply makes that person a different human being with different desires and ideas. That's not you, Jesse. For you the world is binary, and the people who are not in your tribe are the 'enemy' to be extinguished.
this is how you justify your crimes against children. It's just a different point of view
you need to be summarily executed, pedo
Watching him expose himself? Well if thats what gets you off, as long as children aren't around
Thats the scary part. Honestly thinking he is a pedophile after the last week. So desperate to groom kids and hide behind lies like stop talking about gays. Won't even admit 141 teachers and principles have been arrested for it this year alone. He wants teachers to continue doing it. It is scary.
Won't even admit 141 teachers and principles have been arrested for it this year alone.
You mean this response, Jesse?
https://reason.com/2022/07/22/biden-and-trump-repulse-voters-as-gop-shows-signs-of-becoming-normal-again/?comments=true#comment-9613125
You are trying to deceive with statistics.
No he isn't. What the fuck are you trying to pull?
Wow. A Republican voter that likes Trump. Breaking news. Good job Jeffy.
Please tell us again how it's A-ok to talk with kindergartners about sex/gender issues without parental consent or how it's reasonable for the Feds to be holding trespassers for 18 months without bail.
how it's A-ok to talk with kindergartners about sex/gender issues without parental consent
Well I guess no more children's fairy tales in kindergarten where a prince and a princess fall in love. Wouldn't want to 'indoctrinate' kids into the 'heterosexual lifestyle' or anything.
how it's reasonable for the Feds to be holding trespassers for 18 months without bail.
Is there a specific case you would like to talk about? Or am I expected to believe that every single one of the rioters have been held without bail for 18 months?
Lol. Youre still bringing up snow white no matter how stupid it makes you look like?
Oh, you're right. There are no sex or gender issues in Snow White. Nothing about a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman falling in love. Those don't really count as "sex or gender issues". Only LGBTQ-themed issues count as "sex or gender issues" which are controversial and taboo and kids need to be shielded from. Is that what you are going with?
What elementary class of yours covered Snow White Lying Jeffy?
And you're voting for the Trumpy candidate too, aren't you?
Why wouldn't they? I don't understand how your fat bloated ass imagines this is some sort of gotcha.
It doesn't even make sense.
He cries about tribalism above but here he has used it in attacks a half dozen times.
He is truly pathetic lol.
Why don't you explain why it is NEVER appropriate EVER under ANY circumstances to talk to kindergartners about ANYTHING even remotely related to "sexual orientation or gender identity" no matter how age-appropriate it may be, so much so that it requires a ban in state law.
Why don't you tell us again how you think it's okay to castrate a child, if his attention-whoring, Munchausen-syndrome-by-proxy addled mother demands it.
He even won't say fucking a 6 year old child is wrong if the 6 year old can be convinced it is a good thing by a parent.
Collectivistjeff will molest a child some day, if it hasn't already
Luckily he’s a fat creepy piece of shit so kids probably avoid him like the plague. Local law enforcement should check his mom’s basement just to be sure though.
Notice how jeff skipped over this comment lol.
I don't read ML's garbage anymore.
You seem to be mistaken.
I don't post to convince you. I post to refute you.
You're a fifty-center. Facts and evidence aren't going to convince you. You get paid to post narratives and messages, not engage in good faith debate. You can never be convinced of anything different from what appears in your talking points.
Why would I waste my energy trying to convince you?
No, I post refutations to your comments to demonstrate how crooked, idiotic, cruel, sinister and evil you are.
Wow, that was a hell of a takedown. Good job.
yes.. correct reasoning is a balm to the psyche
Because morality is taught by community, family. And other cultural groups. Not by the fucking government you statist shit.
This is why I called you out for a desire to indoctrinate months ago.
The school IS a part of the community. And there is no such thing as a completely amoral education. No matter what curriculum you choose, there is going to be some type of moral dimension to it, if for no other reason than with the choices of topics to be covered. Does an English teacher assign, say, Huckleberry Finn as a text, or not?
So the actual question is, what moral framework should the public school curriculum adopt? And I argue that it should be as inclusive as possible, especially *because* it is publicly funded and therefore has many different types of stakeholders and many different types of students attending. For most moral questions, the curriculum should NOT cater to the moral standards of one specific group over another. That's my position.
What is your position, Jesse? What is the type of moral framework that you want public schools to adopt?
So this is something that the majority can’t rule?
No. The school is the state you fucking idiot. Not Maoist indoctrination camps. Their charter is to teach objective truths. Not to groom them into the DNC.
You want to replace parents with teachers who are the arbiters of morality.
It is honestly disgusting. You aren't a libertarian.
Show me any educational curriculum, and I'll show you a "Maoist indoctrination camp" from a certain point of view.
Their charter is to teach objective truths.
How is this possible without a moral framework? Who decides what is an "objective truth"? What standard will you use? For each choice you make, you borrow upon some implicit moral framework. Right with this comment, you are making a value judgment that "objective truths" are more important in a curriculum than other topics. Who says? Why should that be the case?
Should a highschool English teacher assign Huckleberry Finn as a part of an American literature class? Yes or no? No matter what answer you give, you are going to make someone upset. You are making a moral judgment either way - either "No, the book is too offensive for young audiences", or "Yes, the book is a timeless American classic that all students should read". Which choice is "objectively" right?
You want to pretend that your preferred curriculum is 'objective' when it is not. It is just as much an exercise of 'indoctrination' as anything that might be proposed by any leftist educator. You just aren't honest about the indoctrination part. By choosing one topic over another topic, by explaining a concept in this way vs. that way, by emphasizing this idea over that idea, you are creating a course of study that in its totality creates a body of knowledge that is heavily imbued with your own preferences. Maybe it is just plain narcissism that you think that YOUR preferences are "objectively right" and everyone else is engaging in 'indoctrination'. I hate to break it to you, but you are no different than anyone else.
What I want, is to have a curriculum that is broad, that is supportive and accepting of all students, so as to MINIMIZE the indoctrination effects of having a curriculum that is so narrow it is heavily influenced by the people choosing the curriculum. I want to expose kids to a wide range of ideas so that they AREN'T indoctrinated into just a narrow viewpoint. Do you? Answer: no. You want to indoctrinate kids into YOUR preferred viewpoint.
And Jesse is of course not going to respond to this post. Because to do so in a thoughtful manner would actually take work. He hasn't quite found the easy cheap shot insult angle yet.
Respond to what? You listed phony hypotheticals, lied about what people are objecting to and misrepresented his position.
"I'll show you a "Maoist indoctrination camp" from a certain point of view."
A child castrating, far-left demagogue's point of of view
I just realized that you don't know what a curriculum is and seem to be confusing it with subject matter taught, but okay. https://www.gov.uk/national-curriculum/key-stage-1-and-2
Two posts about New Jersey? What's going on in NJ? Sounds like they could use a... Libertarian Moment!
One party dictatorship = What's going on in NJ?
Prohibition, by any other name, is still prohibition.
Baptists and bootleggers.
So, many Secret Service agents deleted a bunch of texts around Jan. 6, 2021. Hmm. Was anything important happening that day?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/22/politics/secret-service-investigators-text-messages/index.html
Incidentally. When Cassidy Hutchinson gave her testimony in front of the Jan. 6 committee, two of the Secret Service agents were very quick to challenge her testimony and requested that they testify under oath to that effect. So, where are these agents now? Where is their testimony? "Oh but the committee won't release it!" Even if true, the agents are still free to say what they wish.
Could it be that their 'proof' that Hutchinson was lying was contained within those deleted text messages? I wonder.
Oh. And there were of course several commenters here who were absolutely *certain* that Hutchinson was lying since those agents demanded to testify under oath to challenge her statement. We didn't even need to hear what they had to say. The mere fact that they were requesting to testify was ITSELF proof that Hutchinson was a liar. Remember that?
So, in light of current events, where these agents have not only NOT testified, but have been shown to have deleted evidence from that day, I wonder if any of our commenters here now have a different view of what transpired.
Another bombshell.
We've reached the tipping point.
The walls are closing in.
It's the beginning of the end.
#ItsMuellerTime
"Even if true, the agents are still free to say what they wish."
And they have, as have their USSS bosses, and it infuriates your demagogic ass.
"Could it be that their 'proof' that Hutchinson was lying was contained within those deleted text messages? I wonder."
No you don't. You're trying to infer that the text messages existed and they contradict the Secret Service, even though you know that there's actually no chance in hell.
"but have been shown to have deleted evidence from that day"
No it doesn't. Your own fucking (CNN, lol) article says that they aren't sure yet that they even exist, let alone what's on them.
So your claiming that they're all lying based on something that I bet doesn't exist and never did.
Remember three months ago when you and the Democrats and CNN claimed Trump deleted phone records, and then it turned out to be bullshit? Same thing.
I've saved your post and can hardly wait to hang it as an albatross around your fifty-centing neck when it collapses.
He is saying hearsay is now truth because of missing text messages despite no proof anybody ever talked to her even though the committee has WH footage. Lol.
So where are the Secret Service agents testifying? Hmm?
In public. They've all issued public statements and volunteered to testify - in public - at the show trial.
You know this. You know we know this. How the fuck did you imagine that you'd get away with pretending that they haven't?
Fuck, the USSS higher-ups gave a statement denying it to the New York Times too. And I know that you know this.
Who do you think that you're tricking?
The committee refused to have them publicly speak you fucking idiot.
They did? Since when?
Die, stalinist pedo
Since they were interviewed, and you know that you lying fuck.
Now jeff goes full conspiracy despite the appropriate IG admitting the changeover for the devices was jan 5th?
Do I need to go find Jeff's comments from Hillary servers or the DoJ under Muller?
No, the device changeover date was Jan. 27.
So youre just full conspiracy then? The IG found intentional deleting of texts? Please provide your citations.
The IG found intentional deleting of texts?
I didn't say that. I am simply correcting your error.
Please provide your citations.
Jesse. Do you know how to use Google. Hint use quotations for exact sentences.
And I admire your assumption a change over occurs in a single day and no preparations are ever made. Lol.
Just wow.
I said none of those things. You continue your streak of making shit up.
Just in case any NJ brewery owners read these comments:
We like beer in Florida.
Sure, so long as it doesn't come with leftist assholes from jersey
Sad story: Jai Alai was one of the beers that Michiganders would mule back from the south, and we would look forward to when we went down on vacation. Then they hooked up with Perrin to brew it up here. Don’t know if it was different water or quality of ingredients but it wasn’t near as good. Now it sits on shelves collecting dust. Very disappointing.
I wonder how Trudeau will end up thwarting this:
Saskatchewan, Ontario to roll out mini-nuclear reactors
The GEH zero-emission reactors – each with enough power to fuel more than 200,000 homes - could be deployed by 2030s
Either they violate aboriginal sacred feelings or the reactor teams need more diversity.
Forget bugs, thanks to the WEF and New York Times it looks like meat's back on the menu, boys:
The New York Times @nytimes
Cannibalism has a time and a place. Some recent books, films and shows suggest that the time is now.
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1550864590560546816
Chubbies hardest hit.
Well, the Miami school district just canceled its sex ed books.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/23/us/miami-dade-school-sex-ed-textbooks/index.html
Of course this textbook was more than just "sex ed". It was about healthy habits generally. But that's okay. Kids don't need to learn about stuff like that. Look at how thin and fit kids are these days!
Now, kids in Miami won't be indoctrinated by those "professional" "teachers" and instead will learn about sex ed from their peers and from the Internet, just like God intended it to be.
Die, pedo
"Of course this textbook was more than just "sex ed". It was about healthy habits generally."
Because you can't have another textbook that teaches healthy habits that doesn't also teach you how to suck a dick or take one up the ass too.
It's all or nothing.
This last week has truly convince me he is a pedophile. He is angry because he didnt get his way over kids who aren't his in a school district he doesn't live in. They voted. He lost. He is furious kids won't be groomed.
It is honestly disgusting.
Wait Jesse I thought "grooming" just meant hiding curriculum materials from parents! That's what you and Overt tried to tell me! Now you are telling me that was all a lie?
Teaching kids about sex ed in an age-appropriate professional manner IS NOT GROOMING.
Having a discussion about gender identity or sexual orientation with kids, that is age appropriate, that is not "graphic dirty sex talk", IS NOT GROOMING.
It is a completely vile smear from your tribe to try to associate completely relevant conversations with child sexual abuse just because the ONLY way you can get schools to teach your preferred agenda is to lie about what they are doing and then rile up the mob using fear as a weapon. Team Red has tried for years to get rid of sex ed in the classroom and they were unsuccessful. But NOW, you are starting to be successful by smearing everyone who disagrees as a child molester and a pedophile. If you had any sense of shame, you would be ashamed of yourself.
Maybe there is no hope for this country if every disagreement on an issue is going to devolve into the most vile accusations imaginable.
And one more time Jesse.
What is your preferred curricular goals here? What would you look for in an appropriate sex ed curriculum? Let's hear your ideas. Do you have any?
It is much easier to just sit on the sidelines and throw bombs at everyone else criticizing all of their ideas. It is ESPECIALLY easy for you, since you have no shame and no morals, to call everyone a pedo and a monster for offering even reasonable and defensible ideas.
The fact of the matter is, you don't have any ideas, let alone original ideas. It is just whatever your tribe would support. Jesse's version of "sex ed" is probably something like this:
(teacher walks in to the classroom)
"Hey kids, keep your pants on!"
(teacher walks out of the classroom)
It’s sad you think you’re winning this argument.
Notice the article doesn't give the title nor the passages of the book in question. So the reader can decide the appropriateness themselves.
Also note jeff apparently thinks no other sex ed text books exist and it wasn't solely because of the content of this one set of books.
Jeff is indeed an idiot.
So let's see what the no votes say.
“An 11-year-old being told where to obtain and how easy it is to obtain Plan B pills, in our assessment, is not age-appropriate,” said the father of three. He also told 7 News Miami that he pulled his kids out of public school two years ago.
Oh. The books were telling kids how to get these bills without parental notification.
So it is more of how schools are reaching things against the wishes of parents. Because jeff is a creepy fuck.
So if the books had actually been age appropriate, they would have been passed. You know the types of books common prior to the last few years.
Jeff truly wants schools to indoctrinate and take ownership of children. Without regard to parental involvement.
Also notice how Jeff failed to note it was the school board voting 5-4 over the contents of the book, not the state. Those elected to oversee the schools made the decision, not DeSantis.
Jeff is truly an idiot.
I will so note that the parents who want to teach the kids using these textbooks are free to do so.
I will so note that parents ALREADY HAD the power to take their kids out of the sex ed curriculum.
This is not about 'parental control'. This is about establishing a conservative standard for ALL kids on what constitutes a proper education. Because parents already had the control to take their kids out of sex ed. But that wasn't good enough.
Die, pedo
Why do you want it to be opt out and not opt in?
Why shouldn't it be opt out?
And you avoided the part where I pointed out this issue is NOT about "parental control" since parents already had control over whether their kids were subjected to the sex ed curriculum. It is NOT. It is about activists controlling the education of ALL kids.
THIS is what indoctrination looks like, Jesse.
Are you really this ficking retarded? Democeats have for a long time tried forcing opt out over opt in for things such as voting as they rely on the laziness of people to force the non opt out.
Parents who want the material can get it dummy. You really are not a smart person.
Oh, so now you are rationalizing parents being lazy and not taking responsibility for overseeing their childrens' education. I get it.
Maybe math class should be "opt in" as well. Sound good?
The books also introduce gender fluidity. So it isnt about health or sex and in fact about a controversial topic that many parents disagree with. The books also told the students to go to trusted not parental adults if issues arise per the group against the books that attended.
Interesting jeff. More of you defending leftist grooming habits.
Where is your source for this book?
Die, pedo
Google it pedo. I went to see why people protested it. Like a normal person would do.
Why are you ignoring the school board voted on it after presentations and discussions from both sides?
Fuck you. I'm not a pedophile. You are, however, an arrogant ass.
Die, pedo
I'm arrogant for poi ting out youre crying like a sad pedo bitch for a vote of the school board at a public meeting going the way you disagree with?
Arrogance is believing your pedo ass moral code should be forced upon the school district.
Fuck you, asshole. YOU want to impose your moral code on the curriculum, you just pretend that it's possible not to.
Jesse controls the school board? Interesting hypothesis Lying Jeffy.
Where did you get that quote? It isn't from the article that I cited. But let's see what he says:
“An 11-year-old being told where to obtain and how easy it is to obtain Plan B pills, in our assessment, is not age-appropriate,” said the father of three. He also told 7 News Miami that he pulled his kids out of public school two years ago.
So this matter doesn't even concern his own kids! What the hell is he even doing there? This isn't about parental control over his kids, this is about HIS control over EVERYONE'S kids.
Oh. The books were telling kids how to get these bills without parental notification.
We don't even know that, because we don't know what the book actually says.
So it is more of how schools are reaching things against the wishes of parents.
Umm, no. Also, from the article that I cited:
Maxx Fenning, a co-founder and president of Prism LGBT, a nonprofit that works to expand access to sexual health education and resources, said that parents who not want their child to participate in the sex ed curriculum have the right to request an exemption but “trust that they will get this information elsewhere regardless.”
So, your claim:
it is more of how schools are reaching things against the wishes of parents.
is false. Parents ALREADY had the power to remove their kids from the sex ed curriculum.
So no, this is not about "parental control". This is about right-wing activists dictating to EVERYONE what the curriculum should be. Because the parents who wanted to exercise control over the sex ed curriculum *for their own kids* already had the option to do so.
So if the books had actually been age appropriate, they would have been passed. You know the types of books common prior to the last few years.
I doubt it. Team Red has had a problem with sex ed generally for a *long* time.
Here is an article from 2012 about Republicans in Utah wanting to eliminate the sex ed curriculum entirely.
https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=53736564&itype=CMSID
Here is an article from 2012 about a school district in Texas yanking its sex ed curriculum at the last minute over complaints.
https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/champions-klein/news/article/CFISD-delays-new-sex-ed-program-for-further-review-9452952.php
As one person said in the latter article: "By teaching students about sexual activity, the school will encourage student to engage in sexual activity." That is the Team Red ideal. They don't want kids actually learning about sexual activity, not even highschool students. They want kids to be taught "abstinence" and that's it. And not just their kids, but all kids.
It is your team that is on the pro-indoctrination side here. Your team is the one who wants to impose a particular sex ed curriculum for everyone, even if their kids aren't affected by it, even if they already have the option to withdraw their kids from the sex ed curriculum.
Jeff. Do you know how to use Google. Hint use quotations for exact sentences.
Again this went to a school board vote. Your side wanting to groom lost.
And you realize he pulled the kid out because of the materials being taught right? Lol.
He is still free to attend school board meetings moron.
I mean you don't even have kids and don't live in Florida. But you're attacking the dad who didn't want his 11 year old being told where to get plan B.
Lol. What a ridiculous person you are jeff.
His kids were never going to be told ANYWAY where to get Plan B if he didn't want them to know, because his kids weren't in the school in the first place! And EVEN IF THEY WERE, he had complete control over whether they would participate in the sex ed curriculum or not!
This is just a pathetic excuse. He is not there to advocate for his own kids. He is there to push an agenda onto everyone's kids.
Because they were being taught it originally you fucking moron.
The other parents there were also objecting. You childless pedo fuck.
Fuck you I am not a pedophile and you are a complete garbage human being for even suggesting it.
Because they were being taught it originally you fucking moron.
That's not what he said.
If you’re offended by being called a pedo maybe don’t defend child grooming so vociferously.
i was just about to respond..
if you dont want to be called a pedo quit defending pedo-enabling policies
but now i dont have to - 😉
It's not about "parental control" if he didn't have any kids in the school in the first place.
Because he was sick of his kids being taught this shit retard. His kids are still in the district. He can choose to go back to the schools now. What don't you get?
Yourr a childless pedo from out of state crying about it.
There were other parents there. Their objections swayed the school board. And youre furious about it. Youre not a libertarian.
I am outraged that activists from your team are using demagoguery to generate outrage and fear that is ultimately based on lies, using an excuse of "parental control" to impose an educational agenda on kids that will not serve them well. They are imposing their own personal tastes on the curriculum of the entire district because THEY don't like it.
One team wants a curriculum that is broad and inclusive.
The other team will only permit a curriculum that agrees with their feelings.
Here's another article about this story. But you're not going to like this one.
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/miami-dade-school-board-bows-to-conservative-groups-in-sex-ed-textbook-debate-14914430
Why wouldn't I like it? I don't live in Florida retard.
The school board voted. Your side lost. Deal.
The people leading these protests are right-wing activists. They are not doing it on behalf of their own kids. They are doing it on behalf of a broader agenda.
Maybe, but your side still lost.
Amd jeff once again screams the other tribe when he doesn't get his way despite them not being kids. Their arguments were firm enough the school board voted no.
Weren't you just screaming tribalism this morning you hyoiceticial shit weasel?
But they are right-wing activists. Why are you even trying to contest this? Why are you trying to obscure this?
And I literally posted someone's quote, as did you, About their kids. He was forced to pull his kids because of it due to the conflict with his moral structure he intends for his kid. His kids are on the district. He isnt some pedo fuck from another state crying like a bitch his side lost on a vote from a local school board.
Youre pathetic.
He was forced to pull his kids because of it due to the conflict with his moral structure he intends for his kid.
That's not what he said.
But, Jesse, let's hear your take on when these sex ed topics should be introduced.
The Miami activists think it's not appropriate for middle schoolers to learn about abortion or Plan B. Fine. When is the appropriate age, in your view?
How about leaving everything outside of scientific presentation of the biological processes, to the parents, you groomey fuck?
Nobody needs Xr. Partridge teaching teens how to suck a dick after lunch.
How about letting the local school board decide jeff? Like they did you fucking retard.
No no, Jesse. What would you propose to the school board?
I want to see you present some ideas of your own for a change instead of just attacking everyone else's ideas.
They aren't my kids. It isnt my school district fucking idiot.
Unlike you I am fine with them voting this material put you retarded anti libertarian fuck.
Cry more you can't groom kids. It is pretty fucking disgusting at this point.
No one here is grooming any kids. You are a disgusting human being for continuing to fling that slur around.
I guess once pedophilia is normalized by the teachers unions and the democrat party and the LGBTP(edo)+ community it wont be considered grooming.
But until then...
Jesse, what about the parents who DO want their kids to have a comprehensive sex ed curriculum? What about THEIR rights to parental control?
Look at Jeff go. Apparently the parents can't do the job themselves, they have to have the state do it for them or it just can't happen.
This is fifth-grade sophistry.
And he is demanding they teach what he wants them to teach lol.
Facts are the school board had comments from both sides and voted No.
And kidless pedo jeff is up in arms about it.
Fuck you, I'm not a pedophile and I will not let you get away with that disgusting smear.
Yes the school board voted. I think they voted incorrectly but I'm not going to force them to change their votes. I'm going to try to expose what happened so the same thing doesn't happen again, and I'm going to also make the case for having a curriculum that is broad, inclusive, and grounded in a classical liberal education.
What will you do Jesse? Just bitch and moan when something doesn't go your way, pretend that there is such a thing as an "objective education" that is devoid of morality, and just attack any idea from anybody who isn't from your tribe.
If you dont want to be called a pedo stop fucking defending and deflecting from grooming.
141 teachers so far have been caught soliciting minors. Many using the same defenses you are you fucking pedo.
You are outraged parents dont want their kids taught this shit. They aren't your fucking kids. They aren't the schools kids either.
I already told you I dont live in this county. So I dont actually care. I'm a federalist. I want power close to the people unlike you. I'm not going to bitch about California normalizing grooming and spend a dozen posts about it like you are.
The fact you don't give 2 shits the school board voted on this is proof you aren't actually libertarian. You want and demand your grooming based moral structure forced on kids who aren't yours. The parents disagreed with it. Deal with it pedo.
How about you stop slandering millions of people with a vile slur accusing them of child sexual abuse. Huh? Why not try that?
And fuck you I am not a pedophile.
141 teachers so far have been caught soliciting minors.
That is very bad, Jesse. Now, why don't you put that number into perspective. Why don't you determine the percentage of K-12 teachers who are caught soliciting minors. I will even help you out. There are about 3.5 million total K-12 teachers in the country. So, go ahead and figure out what that percentage is. 141/3,500,000. Can you do that math? Once you do that math, you will see that while it is terrible that anyone is soliciting minors, it is actually not a huge problem among teachers, either. The percentage is very low. It is roughly comparable to what it is in the general population.
So this is what you do - when you don't put numbers into context, you create a misleading impression about the topic. You are LYING BY OMISSION by just posting a raw number and then screaming OMG OMG OMG. It is NOT a huge problem. It is NOT some monumental epidemic that requires slandering vast numbers of teachers with vile slurs or passing new laws.
You are outraged parents dont want their kids taught this shit. They aren't your fucking kids. They aren't the schools kids either.
Gee I seem to remember you being quite outraged when places like Loudoun County were teaching topics that you didn't approve of. THEY aren't your kids either. Why did you decide to go apeshit bananas about their curriculum? Hmm?
I'm a federalist. I want power close to the people unlike you.
That is bullshit. You supported all of DeSantis' idiocy 100%. You supported the mobs protesting at places like Loudoun County even though you have no tangible interest in that place either. You only claim to be a federalist when the mob supports your position.
I am putting to bed the myth that this is about "parental control". It is not. The two principal activists there don't even have kids in the school system. This is about imposing an agenda. Do not even pretend to convince anyone here that you would be totally okay if a mob of parents went to the school board and demanded a more extensive sex ed curriculum, or demanded Critical Race Theory in the classroom. There is no way you could ever convince anyone here that you would support their desire to run their schools as they see fit.
This 'inclusive and diverse' curriculum is just a fast track to normalizing things that are objectively outside the norm.
They can teach kids on their own if they want jeff.
What don't you actually understand you pedo fuck?
Fuck you, I'm not a pedophile.
What else should be optional in the curriculum, Jesse?
You sure do want to teach young kids about sex and teach 11 year olds how to get plan b.
No, Jesse, why don't you tell us what should be in the curriculum.
You can't do it, can you? All you can do is bitch and whine and moan and root for your team against the other team. You have no earthly idea what a proper curriculum looks like, all you know is that you are rooting for the people on your team.
I wonder how long those sex ed books were there before anyone complained. I wonder what happened in the last couple of years that now causes the school system to cancel normal sex ed books?
Diane, as I note above, Republicans have long objected to sex ed in public schools. This is not a new phenomenon.
One of the activists above complains that it's not appropriate to talk to middle schoolers about abortion or Plan B. Well, those are not new.
What is new is the strategy used to fight. It's the "Rufo strategy": take the thing that you want to change, and tie it to its most extreme examples. So a "discussion about race" becomes "MARXIST CRT INDOCTRINATION". A discussion about sex ed becomes "GROOMING". That way outraged parents, thinking that their kids are being "indoctrinated by Marxism" or "groomed" will storm down to school HQ and demand change. It is sheer demagoguery. It is also a tacit admission that their logical arguments in favor of their positions don't work, so they have to manipulate people's emotions, particularly those surrounding their children, in order to enact their agenda. It is a variant of the usual Team Blue strategy, of trying to justify every one of their ridiculous ideas as necessary "for the children", but more sinister because instead of trying to manipulate people to think that this new idea will create opportunities and hope for kids (which it won't), the Rufo strategy tries to manipulate people through fear in protecting their kids against the lurking forces of evil that are around every corner.
My God. Could you be even more against a local school board deciding for themselves what is appropriate.
Please tell us how you are pro liberty. Lol.
Jeff wants to have the liberty to sexually abuse prepubescent children
I am fine with local school boards deciding.
I am not fine with the vile demagogic tactics that you all employ. Accusing wide swaths of professionals of being GROOMERS and Marxist radicals and garbage like that. Do you understand the difference?
You apparently aren't fine with it as you're crying like a bitch about it.
The Bulwark is still conserving conservatism most conservatively:
The Constitution Is a Mass Delusion
Overturning democracy == returning more control to local legislatures where there is no clear constitutional authority.
Who in New Jersey could favor such strict regulation of breweries? Start with the state's powerful restaurant lobby.
And you do know who runs that lobby, right?
Who runs that lobby?
Hitler?
https://twitter.com/NBCOUT/status/1550596761030463493?t=qXhpODNqxjBhzvIt-H_pGg&s=19
NEW: Gay and bisexual men comprise 98% of new monkeypox cases globally, according to a major new study.
[Link]
And you know what that means!
US Health Officials Weigh Emergency Declaration Over Monkeypox
At the risk of offending OBL... there's absolutely no justification for this.
It's insane.
One of the comments called for "Two weeks to flatten the colon." Lmao!
Stop your homophobic slut-shaming. Put the blame where it belongs — Ron DeSantis.
#ILoveScience
The other 2% were babies living in the same house with gay men.
You know what he means by this...
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1550963221292584960?t=ETak4gH04VTIPkDMtRpa_g&s=19
Al Gore: America must address "democracy crisis" to solve climate crisis
[Link]
Gore's desperate for attention. His lies aren't big enough for the movement anymore.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/23/1113206272/suspect-in-lee-zeldin-attack-didnt-know-who-lawmaker-was-investigators-say
Suspect in Lee Zeldin attack didn't know who lawmaker was, investigators say.
BULL FUCKING SHIT!
Somebody isn't buying that.
First, he was released, no bail. This afternoon, he got hit with federal charges and is in the slammer.
I dont get how it isnt attempted murder. Went for his neck with a blade and said youre done.
It is NY, and Zeldin is Team R. What more needs to be said?
This was an attempted assassination, pure and simple. Party/Team labels simply do not apply. This guy should be in the clink. It remains to be seen if this is someone with chronic mental/emotional issues.
Cannot stress this enough. This is the same state where it's illegal to pump your own gas.
Add this to the already long list of reasons to never visit.
Advice to Nardz: It takes more than *67 on your phone to mask your number from the FBI.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/man-charged-threatening-kill-black-people-tops-market-buffalo-rcna39614
Good Lord. What is wrong with some people?
Pedojeff stasi bitch
"Good Lord. What is wrong with some people?"
You tell us, pedo.
https://twitter.com/NYPD121Pct/status/1550629306686136320?t=gM462B4jZ5-D_z-nyddh-Q&s=19
Last night, great work by our public safety officers whom removed an Orbeez gun off of our streets.
These Bead Blasters shoot gel water beads propelled by a spring-loaded air pump, making them an air rifle. Air rifles are a violation in NYC & are unlawful to possess.
[Link]
https://twitter.com/persecutedsgin/status/1550814909373419523?t=2PP8M7oIIRzv0g678ZNcMA&s=19
Komrades, get ready to bash the fash!
[Video]
Long live the Revolution brothers! https://t.co/AwSRtR6rAj
Wow almost sounds like prohibition. Are there any underground\speakeasy breweries in NJ? That could be kind of fun.
It is economic, Rich. The liquor license is the key. In my town, the liquor license fee is 1.2MM. We have 4 issued, with 2 held in reserve (town has not seen fit to sell them).
I can understand the economic argument, and the regulatory argument. The current license holders were forced by the state to buy the license, and then the state changes the regulatory structure, greatly diminishing the value of the license. They have a legitimate complaint about that.
As a resident of the People's Republic of NJ, I would like to see a legislative compromise where microbreweries (and wineries) can flourish (read: sell liquor, do tours, have food for Pete's sake) and the liquor license owners are compensated for their loss (the mechanism to achieve this will be the real tough one....can't rely on PR of NJ's government to do this). The liquor license regulations would have to change, to account for this hybrid structure.
The compensation couldn't just be a fixed amount of cash, because the value of the license will differ a lot from place to place, and even the potential offering of cash will increase it.
Sounds like somebodies are getting their back pockets padded by "special interests" as in the local Restaurant Association [usually dominated by the franchisees of national chain restaurants] and major brewers with an interstate presence and deep pockets.
Wouldn't it be a joy if FedGov passed a law saying that no state may set any finite number for permits, registrations or licenses of any kind (and then applied the same rule to itself, e.g. machine gun permits).
Better yet, states should be prohibited from requiring any permit for anything -- At most, a state should be allowed to require no more than a registration (tell what real person is hiding behind the fictitious business entity).