Child Shot by Mississippi Cop After Calling 911 About Domestic Disturbance
Plus: Governments are complying more with constitutions, the Supreme Court comes to a commonsense conclusion about EPA authority, and more...

An 11-year-old boy called 911 about a domestic disturbance at his house. Police arrived and shot the child.
The boy, Aderrien Murry, survived the shooting but "came within an inch of losing his life," said his lawyer, Carlos Moore, in a Facebook livestream earlier this week.
Murry was airlifted to the hospital and suffered a collapsed lung, lacerated liver, and fractured ribs. He is "still in pain emotionally and mentally," Moore said during a Thursday news conference at the Indianola City Hall in Mississippi.
Murry called 911 for help early Saturday morning at the request of his mother, Nakala Murry, who was having a confrontation with the father of another one of her children. Police officers were told that the man, who was unarmed, had gone out the back door and that there were three children inside the home, according to Moore.
The cops told everyone in the home to come out with their hands up, prompting Aderrien Murry to emerge from his bedroom. An officer "shot him immediately when his hands were up, and he's coming around the corner," Moore said on Thursday.
The officer who shot the boy, Greg Capers, has been placed on paid administrative leave.
Meet Sgt. Greg Capers of the Indianola Police Department. He's the cop that shot 11 year old unarmed Aderrien Murry after the boy called 911 for help for his mom. To this day, neither the officer nor city has given the family any explanation why. #JusticeForAderrienMurry pic.twitter.com/4xSDL6cD4i
— Attorney Carlos Moore (@Esquiremoore) May 26, 2023
Moore and the Murry family are calling for the Indianola Police Department to release body camera footage of the incident.
"We cannot continue to tolerate a system that allows police officers to use deadly force with impunity," said Moore in a statement. "We must demand justice for this young boy and his family."
The Mississippi Bureau of Investigation is now investigating the shooting.
The man who had been threatening Nakala Murry was taken into police custody but released, according to CNN. She said police released him because she had not filed a report against him. "When was I going to have time to do that? I was in the hospital with my son."
FREE MINDS
Governments complying more with constitutions. A new paper published in The Review of International Organizations provides a database "that measures governments' compliance with national constitutions":
It combines information on de jure constitutional rules with data on their de facto implementation. The individual compliance indicators can be grouped into four categories that we aggregate into an overall indicator of constitutional compliance: property rights and the rule of law, political rights, civil rights, and basic human rights. The database covers 175 countries over the period 1900 to 2020 and can be used by researchers interested in studying the determinants or the effects of (non)compliance with constitutions. Our investigation of the stylized facts of constitutional compliance reveals a long-term increase in compliance, which occurred primarily around the year 1990. The Americas experienced the steepest increase in compliance, but also Africa and Europe improved particularly at the end of the Cold War. Democracies – particularly those with parliamentary and mixed systems – show more constitutional compliance than nondemocracies, among which military dictatorships perform the worst. Constitutional design also matters: Constitutions that allow for the dismissal of the head of state or government for violating constitutional rules are being complied with more.
You can read the full paper here.
FREE MARKETS
A Supreme Court ruling yesterday in Sackett v. EPA narrows the federal government's control over wetlands. The Court held that the Clean Water Act (CWA) applies only to "wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are 'waters of the United States' in their own right" and "indistinguishable" from those waters, thereby rejecting a lower court's expansive view of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulatory authority over certain lands.
The case stems from a dispute about property owned by Michael and Chantell Sackett. The Sacketts wanted to backfill their Priest Lake, Idaho, lot and build a home on it. But the EPA said this lot contained wetlands, so backfilling it violated the CWA's prohibition on dumping pollutants into "the waters of the United States."
The EPA defined the Sacketts' property as wetlands because it was near a ditch that fed into a creek that fed a navigable, instrastate lake. The Sacketts said their property did not contain "waters of the United States."
A U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with the EPA. Now, the Supreme Court has sided with the Sacketts. From The Volokh Conspiracy:
According to Justice Alito, this means that wetlands that have a continuous surface water connection or are directly adjoining jurisdictional waters may be regulated as part of the waters of the United States, those wetlands that are physically "separate" from such waters may not be, even if they would satisfy a more capacious definition of "adjacent." He writes:
In sum, we hold that the CWA extends to only those wetlands that are "as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States." Rapanos, 547 U. S., at 755 (plurality opinion) (emphasis deleted). This requires the party asserting jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands to establish "first, that the adjacent [body of water constitutes] . . . 'water[s] of the United States,' (i.e., a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters); and second, that the wetland has a continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine where the 'water' ends and the 'wetland' begins." Id., at 742.
You can find the full decision here.
Reason's Ronald Bailey wrote about the case yesterday, calling the Court's decision the "commonsense conclusion." Reason TV covered the case in a video earlier this year:
QUICK HITS
• One hundred years ago this weekend, the U.S. attorney general legalized women wearing pants.
• Jail officials refused to give Dexter Barry his heart transplant medication. Days later, he was dead.
• Clinical psychologist Lisa Damour suggests that the biggest issue with kids and smartphones or other digital tech is that it is displacing sleep.
• "How did the internet become so puritanical?" asks Aja Romano at Vox.
• President Joe Biden is embracing mandatory minimums for drug crimes again.
• "As details leak about an emerging bipartisan debt deal just days before a possible default, House conservatives are growing increasingly unhappy," reports Politico.
• South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster just signed into law a measure banning most abortions at six weeks of pregnancy (which equates to just four weeks of gestation and around two weeks after a pregnancy is detectable).
• Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz vetoed a bill that would have upended the rideshare industry by setting a minimum wage for drivers. Walz's veto comes "after Uber threatened to halt its operations in greater Minnesota — outside of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area — if the bill had been signed into law," CBS News reports.
• "A Republican-led committee of the Texas House of Representatives recommended on Thursday that the state's attorney general, Ken Paxton, be impeached for a range of abuses of his office that the committee's investigators said may have been crimes," notes The New York Times.
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
One hundred years ago this weekend, the U.S. attorney general legalized women wearing pants.
He foresaw thigh tattoos.
But he didn’t foresee size 18 yoga pants.
Google pays $300 on a regular basis. My latest salary check was $8600 for working 10 hours a week on the internet. My younger sibling has been averaging $19k for the last few months, and he constantly works approximately 24 hours. I'm not sure how simple it was once I checked it out. This is my main concern............. GOOD LUCK.
.
.
BONNE CHANCE…............................ https://Www.Coins71.Com
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by kaf doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
Just open the link————— http://WWW.TOPOFFER1.COM
And 100 years later, we have high capacity assault booty shorts. You don't even need a license or anything!
It's all fun and games until you're staring down the business end of a pantsuit.
The First Amendment protects only clothing that was available in 1789.
Do you want trannies? Because this is how you get trannies.
First it's pants on ladies, and then before you know it we have dick-tucking bikinis on boys.
Pants were clearly a slippery slope.
I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.apprichs.com
and now 100 years later you risk becoming an internet viral metoo villain if you go to the gym and aren't careful.
It's like prison etiquette now- keep your eyes down, don't speak to anybody
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
Just open the link—————>> http://Www.Pay.hiring9.Com
Jail officials refused to give Dexter Barry his heart transplant medication. Days later, he was dead.
Whose ever heart that originally was wasn't under arrest.
No sympathy for a guy who gets a heart transplant then goes out and does crime.
What an asshole.
Yeah, but his heart wasn’t in it.
Seems like a heartless thing to do.
You guys need to stop pumping out these puns.
Otherwise, it'll bleed us dry.
" According to The Tributary, a news outlet based in Jacksonville, Florida, Barry was arrested on November 18, after a neighbor reported him to the police for allegedly threatening to "beat him up" following an extended dispute over Wi-Fi. While the two never physically fought, Barry was nonetheless arrested on a simple assault charge. "
What crime ?
Threatening to kick someone's ass is assault.
Following through is battery.
He was arrested for the first thing. Whether he should have been or not is a different issue.
"Threatening to kick someone’s ass is assault"
Words are violence?
Oh no! The 54 year old , 12-year heart transplant waitlist recipient that had to carted away in a wheelchair, has threatened physical violence ! Whatever shall I do ? (Besides walk away at a slow to moderate pace)
https://www.rawstory.com/dexter-barry-jacksonville/
No. The common law definition of assault is an intentional act or threat that puts someone in reasonable fear of imminent harm or violence. The context of the threat is obviously important here, but words could have been sufficient
If Mike Tyson says, "I'm going to knock you out and chew your ears off", it's a threat; you may reasonably fear that he could and would do it. If a guy in a wheelchair says that, unless you're so feeble that you reasonably fear that he _could_ do it to you, it's not legally a threat.
Assault: "I'm going to kick your ass."
Battery: "I'm kicking your ass."
Since his heart had stopped beating months earlier, the police could argue that he was already technically dead before the arrest.
Clinical psychologist Lisa Damour suggests that the biggest issue with kids and smartphones or other digital tech is that it is displacing sleep.
Whatever it takes to get that ban.
Nothing else interferes with the sleep of teens. nothing. Except smartphones.
One hundred years ago this weekend, the U.S. attorney general legalized women wearing pants.
SoCons were furious.
saying - IT AIN'T NO ENUMERATED RIGHT!
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
I know you're trying to troll, but that one doesn't even make sense, Pluggo. Have you been taking sarcasmic posting lessons?
Anyway, I hope you didn't get fifty-cents for that weak attempt.
The irony of this particular attempt at trolling from Buttplug is that it is the Bolshevik/proggie wing that furiously disbelieves in unenumerated rights.
turd is a pathological liar, but he makes up for it with his abysmal stupidity. Consistency requires some measurable IQ, leaving turd out.
"How did the internet become so puritanical?" asks Aja Romano at Vox.
Vox wonders.
It wouldn't be an ENB Roundup without at least one Vox link.
At least she's not linking to Jacobin. Yet.
You could stop subjecting yourself to writing you don’t like.
Why is every comment from you about living in a bubble?
People who have thought through arguments and have a firm stance dont hide from counter arguments.
Then why are you even in the comment sections? They're full of writing you dislike to the point of muting it.
"Shut up!", Mike explained.
You know who else subjects himself to writing he doesn't like?
Pretty much every English teacher.
Vox had no hand in it. They need amnesty. Time to move on.
At this point, what difference does it make...
President Joe Biden is embracing mandatory minimums for drug crimes again.
To be fair he probably thinks it's the 90's.
The 1890s.
As details leak about an emerging bipartisan debt deal just days before a possible default, House conservatives are growing increasingly unhappy...
Imagine how angry they'll be a month or two from now when their staffs actually kind of read the deal that their bosses will have nonetheless voted for.
South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster just signed into law a measure banning most abortions at six weeks of pregnancy...
You're either against abortion or you're not. Figure it out.
Walz's veto comes "after Uber threatened to halt its operations in greater Minnesota...
This, as they say, is the way.
A Republican-led committee of the Texas House of Representatives recommended on Thursday that the state's attorney general, Ken Paxton, be impeached...
Never go after one of your own!
This is being led by the Texas Speaker of the House who, as I understand, has been in a pissing match with Paxton for a while now.
An officer "shot him immediately when his hands were up, and he's coming around the corner," Moore said on Thursday.
While this description may be a bit of sugarcoating, I have little doubt the cop is a fuckup.
Racist.
How many reporters do you think were mostly disappointed given the skin color of the officer?
All of them.
That's why we're hearing about he shooting of the kid, and not much about the cop or motives by the cop. My best guess, his finger was a little too twitchy. The situation was best served by a bit more patience (as many situations seem to). An interesting takeaway is that there are more than one fathers involved here.
Based on Capitol shootings he should get a medal.
How do you soot women and children?
Easy, just don't lead them as much
the situation is best served by not sending out armed sociopaths to deal with an argument in the home.
Probably thought it was the family dog.
The man who had been threatening Nakala Murry was taken into police custody but released...
I'm kind of surprised they didn't try to find a way to charge him for the kid's shooting.
Oh, if the kid had not survived (glad he did) you know they would have gotten him on felony murder.
A Supreme Court ruling yesterday in Sackett v. EPA narrows the federal government's control over wetlands.
People are actually going to get back control of their property?
No, just the illusion of control.
these days we call it permission to do something on your property.
Nobody owns property.
Not saying this is good (it ain't), but it is a sad reality.
https://twitter.com/WatcherontheWeb/status/1661936890499723266?t=wBnPpiKuOqMlpJ0rirFksg&s=19
People are waiting for some kind of clear delineating line like a nuke going off or the dollar hyperinflating
You are already IN the collapse my guys
It will feel like all feel like a snails pace, till you look back
and life will go on the whole while, afterwards as well
I'll predict a sign of the collapse: watch for a wave of cancellations of Fourth of July celebrations this summer in blue cities. Lack of adequate police staffing will be cited as one of the reasons.
I’ll predict a sign of the collapse: Six months of engineered rioting before an election and a phony pandemic lockdown necessitating voting methods that break the chain of custody for ballots...
Oh wait.
The 2024 riots will be brought to you by mentally ill people. These people think they can change there gender with surgery. There will be rioting over these mentally ill people being unable to host sex shows in front of children. Unable to read children pornographic material. Unable to brainwash children into thinking the children were born body. And unable to cut off parts of the children's body and give them hormones all without the parents consent.
Are you sure? Those type of bans are happening now, in 2023, and the responses so far have only been online complaining, waving around picket signs, and lawsuits.
Did you forget shooting up schools and burning down churches on purpose, or are you just being retarded?
It's both.
Sounds plausible. I'll watch for it.
Our investigation of the stylized facts of constitutional compliance reveals a long-term increase in compliance, which occurred primarily around the year 1990.
I've long suspected that the reason our constitution "worked" for the first 150 or so years is that we largely ignored it. The more literally we enforce it as written, the more of a clusterfuck the country becomes.
Is today Opposite Day?
It's not *begins nodding head up and down* Opposite Day.
DeSantis Derangement Syndrome is real.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/05/25/the-disinformation-campaign-against-ron-desantis/
Two political campaigns were launched this week. First, Florida governor Ron DeSantis’s bid to be the 2024 presidential candidate for the Republicans. And second, the woke crusade to brand DeSantis as dangerous. A menace to minorities. An ‘Ultra MAGA’ – not just a run-of-the mill bad MAGA – whose words and ideas hurt entire communities. It doesn’t matter where you stand on DeSantis, whether you reckon he’ll make a good president or a terrible one – it’s the second campaign that should chill you most.
Most hearteningly, he talked a lot about liberty. People who have watched in horror as capitalism has gone woke will have cheered his promise to prohibit banks from ditching customers over their political views. Too right. That credit-card companies and online fundraising platforms have blocked donations to certain political actors is an intolerable affront to freedom of speech and democracy itself. Corporations have no business using their economic muscle to punish intellectually ‘disobedient’ citizens. And if a future president stops them from doing so, good.
He also slammed the ‘legacy media’ for shrinking the space for political ideas. These people live in a ‘little bubble’, he said: ‘The elites in our society have tried to cluster themselves to where their assumptions are never challenged.’ This represents the death of critical thought, he said, because ‘no one is ever going to question obviously wrong assumptions if everybody around you shares them’. Americans who open a newspaper or switch on cable news and always see the same cosy consensus, the same staid ideas that seem so alien to their own lives, will recognise DeSantis’s description of a clerisy-like media elite more devoted to dogma than curiosity.
Yet judging by some of the chatter about DeSantis this week, you could be forgiven for thinking he had just launched KKK 2.0. His launch was ‘full of hate’, says one observer. What? Where? This is the other political campaign that was launched this week, though of course it’s been brewing for years: the campaign of DeSantis delegitimation. The elite effort to put a cordon sanitaire around DeSantis as if he were a toxin to be avoided rather than a politician to be engaged with.
At the forefront of the delegitimation efforts was the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). In a breathtakingly cynical move, the NAACP issued a ‘travel advisory’ for Florida. Just ahead of DeSantis’s presidential launch, it said Florida is ‘openly hostile’ to minorities. Be careful down there. Its proof? The fact that DeSantis has clamped down on the teaching of critical race theory in schools.
You see it in commentary circles, too. Vanity Fair breezily refers to his ‘bigoted culture wars’ and his ‘cruel crusade against black Floridians’, both myths. Britain’s Pink News says he is ‘reliant on hate’. For example, he said in his launch that the US military should focus on its ‘mission’ rather than daft things like ‘gender ideology and pronouns’. That isn’t hate. Just as it isn’t racism to bristle at critical race theory, so it isn’t bigotry to think soldiers have bigger things to worry about than misgendering a they / them.
The disinfo attack on DeSantis speaks to one of the most sinister tactics of the woke. They don’t just say their opponents are wrong or misguided – fine points to make in political to-and-fro. No, they say they’re a menace to life as we know it. Their every utterance threatens to erase the vulnerable. Their ideas kill. They’re deplorable, semi-fascistic, evil. Such fact-lite dread-mongering is what passes for political opposition now, and, ironically, it really does pose a threat to the American republic and its traditions of free, honest debate.
Florida is ‘openly hostile’ to minorities.
Aren't white people a minority in Florida?
Florida appare try has the greatest growth for Black owned businesses. Truly frightening.
Well, they're a plurality.
Aren’t white people a minority in Florida?
How do you think it became 'openly hostile' to minorities?
do a few searches and learn which NAACP leaders live in Florida.
That credit-card companies and online fundraising platforms have blocked donations to certain political actors is an intolerable affront to freedom of speech and democracy itself.
So, what exactly is the principled libertarian case for the government coercing corporations to do businesses with customers with whom they would rather not associate?
If you're going to make the argument "public accommodation laws already exist therefore I demand that they benefit ME and MY TRIBE" then fine, but that is not a principled nor libertarian argument, that is simply an argument based on self-interest.
Condemm it publicly. Something you deride.
See if the companies are being coerced by regulators. Something you deride.
See if they have federal funding and demand no political actions if so. Something you deride.
Seeing as you absolutely know that alphabet agencies have been constantly pressuring "private corporations" to censor individuals for political speech, you're being deliberately disingenuous here at best.
Any corporation executive suite doing something that violates their fiduciary duties is a dead giveaway.
So, what exactly is the principled libertarian case for the government coercing corporations to do businesses with customers with whom they would rather not associate?
Well, let’s see.
So if I do that thing where I pinch some dust and drop it to the ground to see which way the wind is blowing, if it’s YOUR hobby-horse, then it’s due to dastardly activist groups and unsavory government pressure. If it’s THEIR hobby-horse, it’s just a private company making a business decision.
Yeah well I don't agree with that analysis either.
Don’t see how your reply was responsive to chemjeff’s question. Instead, you went for a personal attack against him.
It wasn't really a personal attack, but it was not a response to the question.
Ah, I assumed Diane/Paul was using "YOUR" to refer to you specifically, but I can see where she/he could have been using "YOUR" generically.
In a breathtakingly cynical move, the NAACP issued a ‘travel advisory’ for Florida. Just ahead of DeSantis’s presidential launch, it said Florida is ‘openly hostile’ to minorities.
I understand DC, Baltimore, Detroit and Chicago are all perfectly safe, though.
I love that the head of the NAACP lives in Tampa.
Not THAT dangerous.
…… and the list of contradictions that one must ignore to remain a progressive continues to grow. I keep hoping that this will eventually be their undoing, and people will tune them out.
Not holding my breath tho.
The pregnant NP who was accused of being a racist Karen for not allowing someone to take the bike she rented is still getting the blame by a number of people on the left, even after she produced a receipt proving she was in the right. They are now saying her getting upset escalated the situation and she played it up for sympathy. They're basically blaming her for getting hysterical. Not sure what they wanted her to do, give them the bike? Because they're black and whites shouldn't stand up for what's theirs if a black person claims it?
No, they will never wake up, they will continue to adapt their narrative to suit them. Remember these are the same people who were casting doubt on the vaccine while Trump was president but as soon as Biden took office they were calling for vaccine mandates and cheering when people got fired for not getting the vaccine.
"They don’t just say their opponents are wrong or misguided"
Well, if they actually stopped doing that, that's good. The whole "voting against their own interests" line of thinking was a very easy way to get people to stop listening to you.
Unfortunately, they've escalated the rhetoric so we'll just see where that goes moving forward.
Oh, they're still using it. Also, I love the number of white progressives who are bashing black conservatives and using (in print nonetheless) phrases that are clearly racist.
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1661748071708135424?t=2iRphHe_iYTbus2j4O5akA&s=19
The FBI Knows What Car Was Used In J6 DNC Pipe Bomb, But Refuses To Identify Prime Suspect
[Link]
OOPS! It was Christopher Wray's car.
The suspect is a black SUV isn't it?
Last night I got Chinese takeout, and as I waited they had MSNBC on the tv. The energetic black lady was saying that because Elon Musk was born in apartheid South Africa, DeSantis is racist. She then went on to say libertarianism means freedom for white people and authoritarian rule over non-whites. What the actual fuck? She’s like the leftist version of the conservative retards on this site who say libertarians are leftists for disagreeing with Republicans.
Sarc saw something retarded, and then tries to top it.
It was amazingly well done though. One upping the retard.
Love seeing Reason "Editor in Chief" Mingo-Mango-Mongo pretending that she just happened to catch a glimpse of a few minutes of MSNBC at the Chinese takeout joint when it's one of her primary sources of information and talking points that she consumes regularly.
Now you're seeing what we're seeing.
The host is obviously a progressive, so libertarians who disagree with her must be hardcore conservatives.
Meanwhile, according to the comments, libertarians are hardcore leftists because they disagree with conservatives.
Both cannot be true.
Again, that's what we see pushed most often in the media. A progressive host who lumps anyone who is conservative or libertarian (anti-authoritarian) together as they oppose progressive and Democrat ideas. No one in the comments calls anti-authoritarians, "hardcore leftists". The editors here tend to be more libertine than libertarian in that regard. Last I looked, libertarianism is not about ass-sex, food trucks, open borders, and abortion on demand. Those are libertine things. Libertarianism is about an adherence to the rule of law, following the Constitution, leaving most people to make their own choices, and individual responsibility. At its core, there is a strong streak of anti-authoritarianism.
Libertine means a lack of morals, especially in sexual matters. I could see that argument being made about ass-sex and prostitution, but not the rest. Unless those food-trucks are selling something I don't know about.
That would be one heck of a twist on the concept of 'Secret Menu'.
I wonder if the president of the fast food secrets club has some insight onto that.
I think people who push libertine ideas are those who are looking to shift social mores to be more unrestrained, so people can feel less guilty about their vices. They push for normalization of sexual promiscuity, drug use, prostitution, bad diets, and obesity.
Pushing libertarian ideas is not the same. It means that, regardless of social acceptance, you should be free to choose literally anything from that list. That doesn't mean you shouldn't bear the consequences, such as having higher medical bills because you're obese and in poor health, or perhaps devaluing your perceived value as a partner because you sleep around.
Libertine advocates want to change the social context so that bad choices are now seen as good. Libertarians just want you to have the freedom to make bad choices.
Libertarianism is primarily about living free of coercion. NAP, non aggression principle. So long as you aren't harming the life, liberty or property of another person, then they have no say in what you do. That includes a libertine lifestyle as long as it doesn't harm others.
Always amuses me when sarc tries to start rationalizing his behavior as being the one true libertarian view.
HE TOOK A TEST!
Notice he had nothing to say about individual responsibility, which is the core of libertarianism.
Standing naked in your front window while kids are walking by on their way to school is libertine, doesn't harm anyone, and is also completely unacceptable.
Where did this idea come from that "individual responsibility is the core of libertarianism"?
It's called "libertarianism", not "responsibiiltarianism".
Standing naked in your front window while kids are walking by on their way to school is libertine, doesn’t harm anyone, and is also completely unacceptable.
All correct. And, from a libertarian perspective, should not be criminalized by the state, because no aggression is taking place.
A libertarian society is not this moralistic utopia. If we had Libertopia, there would be a lot of bad shit happening, because *people* are capable of doing a lot of bad shit, and when people are free to exercise a maximum degree of liberty, a great many of them will use that liberty irresponsibly in ways that most of us would not approve of. The way that the bad shit is minimized is via voluntary action.
So in your hypothetical example, I would imagine that parents of those kids would politely ask the creepy exhibitionist to be more considerate and not to flash the kids on their way to school. If the exhibitionist refuses, then it's up to the parents to try another strategy, such as choosing a different route to school, or applying peer pressure on the exhibitionist until he changes his mind. That is how change happens in a libertarian society without resorting to government coercion throwing the exhibitionist in jail.
Got straw?
That comment would be better if you used is correctly.
Perhaps when someone accuses someone of making an argument they never made, and then gives that argument a loud spanking.
Like a good number of the replies to my posts.
Oh, but you can't. The people who do that are part of your tribe. And tribe trumps truth.
Oh no, sarcasmic. You, out of all the billions of people in the world, have no right to infer that the word "strawman" is being applied incorrectly.
I've never seen you use it correctly yet. And if the rest of your comment is any indication, you still don't really know what it means.
Because dumbfuck, once people are no longer responsible for bad behavior laws are formed.
It is very clear from this response you dont believe in responsibility. Why you tend to promote welfare and liberal talking points of no shame or push back against things like sleeping with kids. You want to be free from failure of your choices. Libertarians do not wish that, they accept failure.
Chuck P – individual responsibility, which is the core of libertarianism. Standing naked in your front window while kids are walking by on their way to school is libertine, doesn’t harm anyone, and is also completely unacceptable.
Pedo Jeff – “All correct. And, from a libertarian perspective, should not be criminalized by the state, because no aggression is taking place.”
Notice how Jeff purposefully ignores Chuck’s point about individual responsibility being the core of libertarianism, to push for the legal the freedom to expose his genitals to children.
No obvious agenda there.
Avoiding the main thrust of any counter-argument is right of the Marxist playbook. Dissemble. Deflect. Distract. He is a good student of Alinsky.
should not be criminalized by the state, because no aggression is taking place
Jeffy, you sick fuck. Standing with your dick hanging out in front of children is without question aggression. You get to do you, but not in view of my kids.
Standing with your dick hanging out in front of children is without question aggression.
We both agree that it is totally inappropriate behavior. But what is the aggression? Be specific here.
And let's just review.
Even though I said that *I AGREED WITH YOU* that it is inappropriate for an exhibitionist to be flashing kids, you nevertheless called me a "sick fuck" because I didn't think the exhibitionist should be thrown in a cage with government coercion.
This leads me to conclude that you think the proper role of government is to enforce proper moral behavior, particularly when it comes to protecting children. The government should throw exhibitionists in jail for flashing kids because it's the government's job to protect the innocence of children. It is also why, in our previous discussion, you thought it was an act of "aggression" for a person to read a book to a child if that book contained certain types of pernicious lies.
Do you think the proper role of government is to protect the innocence of children?
But what is the aggression? Be specific here.
Positioning yourself specifically to expose your nudity to others.
If my kid told me he looked in someone's window and saw someone walking through the house naked, I would tell him to stop looking in windows. If someone is proudly standing with a hard-on in full view of the neighborhood, he has a fucking problem and needs to go in front of a judge. Behavior like that inevitably escalates.
Positioning yourself specifically to expose your nudity to others.
Interesting. Do you think nudist camps should be illegal?
If someone is proudly standing with a hard-on in full view of the neighborhood, he has a fucking problem and needs to go in front of a judge.
Just as I thought – you believe it is the government’s job to protect the innocence of children.
Do you think the proper role of government is to protect the innocence of children?
This is where you fail as a libertarian. Moral standards set by government that do not otherwise violate natural rights, are not an infringement of your liberty unless you are constrained from movement. If you don't like your HOA's rule about basketball hoops and can't convince enough others to change it, move out of the neighborhood. If you don't like a city ordinance about lawn care, move to another city. If you want an abortion, leave the state. I guarantee you can do whatever the fuck you want on your property if you move to Alaska. Real libertine libertarians do exactly that.
I choose to live someplace that guards against perverts who expose themselves to children.
Moral standards set by government that do not otherwise violate natural rights, are not an infringement of your liberty unless you are constrained from movement.
What is an example of a moral standard *set by government* that does not violate natural rights?
Because as far as I can see, a moral standard that is *set by government* is a standard that constrains my choices (whether it be the choice to move or not) and is backed by the use of government force.
For example, for the longest time, we had "blue laws" in this country (some areas still do!) which prohibited the sale of alcohol on Sundays. Those are "moral standards set by government". They are an infringement of liberty, because they restrict my liberty to freely engage in commerce with a legal product for an arbitrary reason.
you believe it is the government’s job to protect the innocence of children.
I believe that the 10th Amendment is there for a reason; that the right to set reasonable standards of behavior and to decide what constitutes criminal activity is reserved to the states and to the People. And that your predilection to spread perversion does not trump my child's innocence because "freedom".
So you want the government to enforce moral standards. Congratulations that makes you a conservative not a libertarian. So you can stop trying to shoe-horn your conservatism into the NAP because it doesn't fit. It is a separate belief system.
They are an infringement of liberty, because they restrict my liberty to freely engage in commerce with a legal product for an arbitrary reason.
Bullshit. The next county over will make it legal to sell on Sunday just to get that business. Your county cannot prevent you from driving over the county line on Sunday because that would violate a natural right. See how it works? Freedom does not mean "at jeffy's convenience."
And quit moving the goalposts to evade the argument, pervert.
So you want the government to enforce moral standards. Congratulations that makes you a conservative not a libertarian.
Yep. Conservatives are always happy to increase government in the name of morality. They then accuse libertarians of being leftists for not wanting more government. Yeah, sure. Show me a leftist who doesn't want more government. Good luck.
"So you want the government to enforce moral standards. Congratulations that makes you a conservative not a libertarian"
Run with this logic and good luck getting three votes for anything you want.
Cannot figure out why some people think some libertarians are just autistic fucks.
Bullshit. The next county over will make it legal to sell on Sunday just to get that business. Your county cannot prevent you from driving over the county line on Sunday because that would violate a natural right. See how it works? Freedom does not mean “at jeffy’s convenience.”
Yeah it kinda does, actually. But thanks for clarifying what you actually meant. I think that makes you a collectivist - the collective's moral standards outweigh the individual's liberty. So if the individual says "I want to buy beer on Sunday" but the collective says "hell no" then it's tough noogies for the beer drinker. Got it. So according to this analysis, the only *real* crime of the North Korean government is not letting their citizens leave. All the labor camps, economic controls, suppression of fundamental liberties, all that is just fine as long as people are free to leave.
I think that makes you a collectivist – the collective’s moral standards outweigh the individual’s liberty.
People agreeing by mutual choice to not allow a few perverts to expose themselves to children is not collectivism. It is, in fact, democracy.
100 million people died in the last century under collectivist policies and you dishonor their sacrifice in your failure to understand the difference between liberty and your anarcho-whateverthefuck ramblings.
Conservatives are always happy to increase government in the name of morality. They then accuse libertarians of being leftists for not wanting more government.
Hey, Sarcumsac, go fuck yourself with a rusty spade and die in agony for constantly shilling for the fucking pervert apologists like jeffy and SPB. You know you read this and are just too chickenshit to admit it, you attention-whore.
“Standing naked in your front window while kids are walking by on their way to school is libertine, doesn’t harm anyone, and is also completely unacceptable.”
What about raising your kids to idolize and worship a bunch of child fuckers? Teaching them that a child fucking fraud was the second most important person to walk the earth? Then sending them out for 2 years to recruit others to join your pervert worshipping club?
What about finding out about possible sex abuse and not going to the police? What about confirming the abuse happened and pressuring the victim to forgive the abuser? Then allowing the abuser to be a member of good standing if he “repents?”
People who worship, promote and enable child fuckers shouldn’t be criticizing others sexual morality. They certainly shouldn’t be teachers or in law enforcement.
Every time I get into it with jeffy recently, this fuckstick shows up. It is notable that neither jeffy nor Sarcasmic ever denounce it.
I notice you are back to insulting my dead friend and outing his wife, you twisted bastard. You should really keep the focus on me.
You’re right. I’ll stick to you.
I was going to post links to a television interview that a certain police officer gave to a local tv station. To illustrate that that officer made himself a public figure. Also a lawsuit against a city accusing a certain officer of wrongdoing. Also another link to another local tv station covering his funeral and the town shutting down streets for it. That town is known for two things. Bad traffic and uneducated hicks. Was going to point out all the attention seeking by a church/family.
I was also going to post links to numerous articles detailing abuse in your organization.
However, I’ll stick to you.
Lucky you. Seems like a pleasant fellow there.
Are you referring to some specific person or incident? Could you use the person's name or link to whatever you are talking about?
Do you find this condemnable, by the way?
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kendalltaggart/teen-beauty-queens-say-trump-walked-in-on-them-changing
"Four women who competed in the 1997 Miss Teen USA beauty pageant said Donald Trump walked into the dressing room while contestants — some as young as 15 — were changing."
It is wrong for him to enter any women's dressing room, doubly so if at least some of the women are underage.
Wonder if KARtikeya agrees.
Libertarianism is about an adherence to the rule of law, following the Constitution, leaving most people to make their own choices, and individual responsibility.
bzzzt – no, try again
Libertarianism is about defending liberty as the birthright of all human kind for its own sake. Period, full stop, end of story.
It is not about the “rule of law” per se. There are many laws that criminalize the rightful exercise of liberty. Those laws should be resisted, not enforced.
It is not about “following the Constitution” per se. There are many places in the Constitution that violate individual liberty (example: legalized theft via eminent domain). I think Lysander Spooner had a few things to say about liberty vs. the Constitution.
It IS about “leaving most people to make their own choices”, because that tends to be the result when there is a state of maximized liberty. It should be noted however that this is the effect, not the cause, of liberty.
Finally, it is not about “individual responsibility” per se. To have liberty means to have the freedom to be completely irresponsible if one so chooses. Which can mean living the life of a libertine layabout.
Unsurprisingly, you are describing something like a conservative caricature of libertarianism. It’s not the worst caricature in the world, but it is not the same thing as the authentic product.
Got straw?
The strawman was your conservative caricature of libertarians. jeff's comment is mostly accurate.
What's the strawman argument?
"Unsurprisingly, you are describing something like a conservative caricature of libertarianism."
Hell, Jeff is SERIOUSLY presenting a far right wing caricature of libertarianism as being the actual cause of libertarianism.
I like how jeffy's liberal caricature of libertarianism justifies support for the forever war in
EastasiaEurasia. And how he characterizes the requirement for just compensation to obtain right of way as "legalized theft". And how he poo-poos individual responsibility, the keystone of libertarianism."Public sidewalks are theft, but I have every right to protest in front of your business and declare my support for abortions in Afghanukraine."
Jeff continues to confuse anarchism with libertarianism.
This is the argument I had with overt the other day. Some see an communal or group norm as aniethical to libertarianism, but that has never been the case.
Jeff wants freedom from responsibility, failure of his choices, etc.
Jeff continues to confuse anarchism with libertarianism.
Yup. I just got him to wave his freak flag for all to see. Apparently, community standards are not libertarian.
https://reason.com/2023/05/26/child-shot-by-mississippi-cop-after-calling-911-about-domestic-disturbance/?comments=true#comment-10081337
At least you will get a thoughtful debate from Overt, even if you disagree.
There is nothing "liberal" (i.e., politically left-wing) about my description of libertarianism. It is a property rights based formulation, and as we all know, Team Blue has a very problematic relationship with the concept of property rights.
The statement that libertarianism is about the defense of individual liberty is a statement of principle, not of strategy of tactics. I think that a correct libertarian response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine is to condemn the aggression and support the victim. HOW that condemnnation/support takes place is up for debate. It can be nothing more than just words. It can be actually declaring war on Russia. Or it can be something in between.
The statement that libertarianism is about the defense of individual liberty is a statement of principle, not of strategy of tactics.
It is a crock of shit. I have no obligation to defend your freedom. This is the motte & bailey position you used in prior arguments that I have an obligation to wear a mask in public to protect your health. No matter how you try to disguise your sophism, it can be identified by the odor it produces.
When you get arrested for masturbating in public, it is perfectly libertarian for me to laugh my ass off and walk the other way.
I have no obligation to defend your freedom.
Well, then let me ask this.
Do you believe that liberty is the birthright of all human kind? That we are all born with inherent natural rights that ought to be protected?
No. I believe that liberty is an object that every individual must seize on their own. That we are all born with inherent natural rights that ought to be recognized. I don't need protection and I won't demand sacrifice.
And how he characterizes the requirement for just compensation to obtain right of way as “legalized theft”.
With eminent domain, the government forces you to sell property to them at the price that *they* think is fair. It is certainly not a voluntary transaction. How would you describe it?
I think there are good justifications for eminent domain, though in practice it mostly abused.
God damn you, Sarcasmic, don't write shit that I agree with. It makes me feel dirty.
I think there can also be good justification for eminent domain, but it is still legalized theft. It is a necessary evil, like taxation. The justification for it is purely utilitarian in nature, not because it is harmonious with libertarian principle.
Some libertarians are more deontological than others.
I don't know if you like podcasts, but "Words and Numbers" is pretty good. Both hosts are college professors. One with PHDs in Political Science and Philosophy, the other in Economics.
They also put out a book called "Cooperation and Coercion." I highly recommend it. Not everything can be cooperative. Sometimes coercion is necessary. It really changed my outlook.
Thank you for the recommendation. I will check it out on my next road trip.
The audio book was totally worth the seven or eight bucks.
I usually have some audio book in queue for when I'm driving. Right now I've got "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman set up. People just don't write like they used to.
If there is no individual responsibility, laws are impossible. I can choose to murder you and, well, no punishment for me since I am just not being responsible for where I'm shooting. And since you, personally, are dead --- hey, no aggression complaint against me. Though my being aggressive against you is fine...you know, no personal responsibility and all.
No, the enforcement of laws and the ensuing punishment are the result of what happens if a person does not exhibit personal responsibility on a matter that violates the NAP.
Who enforces them? If you have no need to be responsible, there is no need for punishment either. And the people arresting you would be committing violence against you.
With no personal responsibility, the NAP ceases to exist.
No one in the comments calls anti-authoritarians, “hardcore leftists”.
When someone opposes authoritarian policies put forth by Republicans they sure do.
Cite?
Trade wars, xenophobic immigration policies, book bans, and that's just off the top of my head.
Libertarians question all new laws, no matter the party. Partisans only question laws from the other party.
Which book was banned? What xenophobia? How is 1.5M legal immigrants a year xenophobic? How is ignoring non free trade actions of others a promotion of free trade?
You sure do push a lot of DNC talking points for claiming to not be a Democrat.
Right. You just want reasonable, common sense immigration control, the same way AOC just wants reasonable, common sense gun control.
As for the 1.5M limit on legal immigrants, what limit would you like to see on new native-born white babies each year? I assume you have no objection to reasonable, common sense limits on the number of new native-born white babies?
This may shock you but every country has a border and every country has some type of standard for entry to share in their culture. This is especially true given the welfare state and use of resources in a community. This has been true since man walked out of caves.
If you advocate to end the welfare state most libertarians would support open borders. Libertarianism is not a suicide pact. As long as there is a threat to take resources from one and give to another, validation of migrants needs to be done.
You also are confusing with a culture expanding through natural birth to those seeking to come in from outside the culture. This is a retarded argument made by leftists without mental capacity to make any valid arguments.
In one case you have parents and family responsible for associated costs and contributing to the community. In the other you do not. The US Sponsorship program never actually tries to recoup costs from an indigent person using up welfare despite laws. Again it is strange how leftists gaslighting as libertarians always ignore this as well as any other cost despite those costs being paid forcefully from current citizens.
"As for the 1.5M limit on legal immigrants, what limit would you like to see on new native-born white babies each year? I assume you have no objection to reasonable, common sense limits on the number of new native-born white babies?"
Citizenry and non-citizenry are, you know, opposites.
I did not see any comment by him on race. Whatsoever. Only you did that.
"Trade wars, xenophobic immigration policies, book bans, and that’s just off the top of my head."
I'm not convinced you have a head, Sarcasmic.
Give us some examples of actual book bans and xenophobia on the right. Just examples, you don't even have to give citations.
Sarc literally 2 days ago when someone disagreed with him:
sarcasmic 2 days ago
Flag Comment Mute User
You ever look in the mirror and wonder why you’re wearing Republican clown makeup?
I don't think you know what the word "cannot" means.
People East of the Mississippi: "The rest of you Americans are Western."
People West of the Mississippi : "The rest of you Americans are Eastern."
sarc: "Both cannot be true."
But only sarc can turn a retarded leftist claim into an attack on conservatives.
Reminded me of when Obama was president and the comments were filled with angry Democrats who insisted libertarians are all racist conservatives because they disagreed with the black president's policies.
"Libertarians are just Republicans who like to smoke pot" - My Bernie Sanders loving co-worker
I think of the Libertarian Party as a bunch of stoned anarchists who are too baked to disorganize.
That's KMW. That's not the Mises Caucus.
Looks like sarc finally realized that some of what's basically mainstream for the left-leaning media is absolutely bonkers.
Tyrants.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_7e11854a-fb3d-11ed-b5dd-b39608133919.html
Residents looking to sue the state of Illinois on constitutional challenges to state law would only be able to file lawsuits in Sangamon and Cook counties in a measure ready to be sent to the governor.
The Senate passed House Bill 3062 late last week. Thursday, state Rep. Jay Hoffman, D-Swansea, explained the reason Democrats are bringing the bill in the House.
“Over the past three years, the attorney general’s office has been forced to respond to, I would say in many cases, frivolous lawsuits that have strained the office's limited resources,” Hoffman said Thursday during floor debate. “Whether they were COVID-related restrictions, whether they were masks, whether they were vaccines, whether they were SAFE-T Acts, whether they were assault weapons bans, and the list goes on and on.”
Republicans said if the attorney general’s resources are spread too thin, the legislature shouldn’t have passed other bills allowing the office to sue the gun industry or to go after pregnancy resource centers that don’t offer abortions.
State Rep. Dan Caulkins, R-Decatur, who brought a lawsuit in Macon County challenging Illinois’ gun ban, said the bill is similar to the tyranny of King George III.
“The Democrats today are doing the very same thing. They pass unconstitutional laws to make law-abiding citizens criminals and then they make those same citizens travel hundreds of miles to go to a kangaroo court that they control,” Caulkins said.
"then they make those same citizens travel hundreds of miles to go to a kangaroo court that they control"
Hmm, that sounds familiar.
"reports politico"
That means nothing in the story is true
Seems like just yesterday Boehm was telling us inflation was slowing.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/inflation-rose-to-4-4-in-april-according-to-key-gauge-watched-by-fed
Inflation won’t come down until the inevitable crash.
Not just slowing but slowing to the point that we need to start worrying about deflation.
He linked to an article claiming "deflation" was pending lololololol
Imagine being as dumb as a "journalist"
He is Reasons economic journalist too.
Well it has started.
Dorrough, who the Daily Mail reports is a mother of three children, allegedly told Clallam County Jail staff that she identifies as a 15-year-old boy.
.
“She feels like teenagers ‘understand’ her better” and that “she ‘identifies’ better with teenage kids,” the report said.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/35-year-old-woman-accused-of-sexting-and-giving-drugs-to-teens-allegedly-told-authorities-she-identifies-as-15-year-old-boy
Not started, escalating. As stories like this continue, it simply highlights the absurdity of the entire trans cult. It will burn out as other fads do, but leaving a swath of disfigured kids behind, who will require a lifetime of medical issues.
The policies and laws created during the fad will never go away. That's why libertarians are reluctant to respond to every perceived crisis with more government. The crises pass. Legislation never goes away.
I'm not seeing the down side of legislation prohibiting the maiming and poisoning of children never going away.
You're falling for the political lie. They put out absolute worst case scenarios that rarely happen in reality and claim them to be the norm, and then pass laws that have nothing to do with what they got you angry about.
How many children being poisoned and maimed is acceptable to you?
How much more government is acceptable to you if it saves just one child?
We don't need more government to protect children from being maimed and poisoned by genderists. We just need to stop giving the genderists a pass on existing laws. And we're not talking about one child; it's thousands and rapidly growing.
Tens of thousands already.
Sarc is too dumb to distinguish between laws regarding intentional acts from other laws.
It would be like him arguing murder shouldn't be illegal because sometimes people die anyways.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”
― H.L. Mencken
Describes the Democrats and most their affiliated media rather well.
The maiming, poisoning, and psychological abuse of "trans" children is not imaginary.
Post modernist critical theory has been around since the 40s if not earlier. The belief system is pernicious and has always been. Biasing law to objective reality is not a non libertarian position. Youre discussing the maiming and sterilization of fucking children. I get you have to be against every position your enemies might have, but not sterilizing kids doesn’t have to be that. We have complete evidence of drugs being prescribed after just 2 hours of consultation with gender doctors leading kids to correct answers, see interviews of some liberal parents pushing back against this.
Libertarianism does not require ignoring bad things you dishonest shit. Just like child fucking is frowned upon. Please find me a libertarian that is sane and is against child fucking laws. Or one who doesn't want laws against child abuse.
"I get you have to be against every position your enemies might have"
And this is how Desantis has completely owned the left with laws in Fl such as the parental rights law, and how libertarians that side with the left (sarc, Mike, jeff) have absolutely beclowned themselves. Simply being on the right and saying basic things like "stop being actually overtly racist" and "we shouldn't sexualize minors" has made them take completely insane positions to rationalize how those things are terrible, because all logic and reasoning goes out the window if it means having to agree with a conservative.
Just an expansion of what TDS did to their brains
You do realize that progressives consider libertarians to be ultra-conservative nazis, right?
The only derangement I see is in the minds of people who truly believe that anyone who disagrees with them on any level supports the entire agenda of the other team.
Yes. You call most libertarians here conservative. Weird self own.
The only derangement I see is in the minds of people who truly believe that anyone who disagrees with them on any level supports the entire agenda of the other team.
Or perhaps the problem is that people who defend harmful policies are defending harmful policies, and it really doesn't matter what team they're on.
how libertarians that side with the left (sarc, Mike, jeff) have absolutely beclowned themselves
I think you have no clue what I have actually said about DeSantis’s (and his legislative Allie’s’) anti-woke measures. I’m also sure there’s a Mike Laursen who exists only in your head who has said many things the real Mike Laursen never said.
I’m also sure there’s a Mike Laursen who exists only in your head who has said many things the real Mike Laursen never said.
I think he reads and believes the posts we have muted, and figures that when we don't dispute what is said about us, then what was said must be true.
If I responded to all the lies said about me in these comments I wouldn't have time to take a shit.
The biggest liars of you two is yourselves regarding past statements lol. You even cry when given citations of your positions you posted.
The mike laursen victimhood narrative strikes again.
“stop being actually overtly racist” and “we shouldn’t sexualize minors”
The problem is that your team dishonestly characterizes those terms.
Example:
Team Red: Stop sexualizing kids!
Everyone else: Okay, we agree.
Team Red: Therefore, let's ban drag queens from reading books to kids.
Everyone else: Umm, that's not a sexual event, that's just reading books to kids...
Team Red: BUT WE DEFINE CROSSDRESSING AS A SEXUAL ACT! WHY DO YOU WANT TO SEXUALIZE KIDS??
- or -
Team Red: WE FOUND THIS ONE EXAMPLE OF ONE DRAG QUEEN BEHAVING BADLY! THEREFORE ALL DRAG QUEENS ARE DEVIANT SEXUAL PERVERTS AND SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM KIDS!
And so the rest of us conclude - hmm, this issue really isn't about "sexualizing kids", it's about keeping the drag queens away from kids, whether or not they are doing anything sexual.
Now do bears in trunks.
Why is it necessary for a man who wants to read to kids to dress in Drag to do so? What's the motivation? What's their motivation for doing so in publicly support venues like public libraries?
Why do you care? Besides, that is not how liberty works. I don't have to justify the exercise of my liberty to you, and neither do drag queens.
I care because children are being used. I realize that you're a demented pervert who doesn't care about that.
I'm not a pervert and I don't appreciate the insult.
Last I checked, children only attend drag queen story hour with the permission of their parents.
You are in favor of children being sexually mutilated. That makes you a pervert.
Team Red: Stop sexualizing kids!
Everyone else: Okay, we agree.
Here's someone we know who doesn't agree:
https://reason.com/2023/05/24/no-one-will-become-an-american-untilthe-border-is-secure/?comments=true#comment-10078392
And another:
https://reason.com/2023/04/10/what-freedom-means-to-ron-desantis/?comments=true#comment-10011288
Oh look! Another.
https://reason.com/2023/03/06/at-cpac-trans-issues-dominated-but-do-voters-care/?comments=true#comment-9958294
Well here we go. It all boils down to your definition of "sexualizing kids", doesn't it? What precisely does that term mean to you?
I shan't improve on the dictionary.
Well, I ask because the dictionary only says "to endow with a sexual character". Commonly, "sexualization of kids" refers to treating kids as "sex objects". And I agree that this is in general a bad idea. (I would also point out though that this problem predates the whole drag queen controversy.) So I'm not going to defend those statements above, they are capable of speaking for themselves. I'll simply say that I'm not sure how drag queens reading books to kids constitutes sexualization of the kids. The kids aren't asked to wear drag or revealing clothing, after all.
Yes there have been other times when kids were performing as if they were adult dancers, and that is rather creepy. I would never encourage my child to do something like that. I think that is a much clearer case of "sexualizing children" than drag queen story hour.
Finally, a parenting decision that you or I might not agree with - taking kids to drag queen story hour, or even letting them perform as if they were an adult dancer - does not necessarily imply that the decision should be prohibited via government force. Should drag queen story hour be banned by the government? If so, why? What is the aggression that is taking place?
Why is it necessary for a man who wants to read to kids to dress in Drag to do so? What’s the motivation? What’s their motivation for doing so in publicly support venues like public libraries?
Do you support having go go dancers reading books to kids? Can you explain the NECESSITY of having drag queens do it? Does freedom cease if drag queens cannot read books to kids --- you know, when numerous other adults the parents (the only ones whose opinion matters here, mind you) do not find quite objectionable?
And let's not forget the precedent that legislating against transgender health care is establishing.
The Team Red rationale for why it is acceptable for the government to ban gender-affirming care is that "parents are deluded" and "doctors are ideologues/motivated by profit" therefore they cannot be trusted to make the wise decisions necessary to act in the children's best interest. Hmm, where have we seen that type of argument before?
Who said:
"The people are being fed a constant stream of disinformation, therefore the government must force them to do the right thing". Was it:
A. Anthony Fauci, about COVID mask mandates and vaccine mandates
B. Ron DeSantis, about gender affirming care for transgender kids
C. All of the above
transgender health care
The most demented and pernicious euphemism I've ever encountered. Putting your 8 year old child on hormone blockers prepping him for a day of mutilation in 10 years is NOT 'health care'
The same people who believe abortion is Healthcare believe stopping normal biological development is health care.
And let’s not forget the precedent that legislating against transgender health care is establishing.
That's what I'm talking about. You don't have to agree with the treatment to oppose making laws about it. Because those laws will build and build. When you demand that the camel put its nose under the tent, don't be surprised when it shits on your bed.
Where persuasion fails, legislation prevails.
we are already living under complete totalitarian set of laws that control literally every decision a doctor can make, including what they can even SAY to you.
It can always get worse. Believe me. Just like you can't reach peak stupid or peak retardation (no matter how hard the trolls try), peak totalitarianism is also out of reach. There's always more to control.
Stopping children from being sterilized when they don't have the mind to make a decision for a lifetime of drugs is worse?
You dont have to agree with murder to oppose laws against murder.
What an intellectual stance.
Hmm, where have we seen that type of argument before?
Again, if you find yourself typing out "Hmm," you are being a mendacious twat. There is really no way to justify that kind of behavior.
Here is the dishonest thing sarc and Jeff are doing here. Both have admitted some laws are needed. They have admitted there is a line. But they declare any law they personally disagree with past that line and being non libertarian. Of course any law they agree with is perfectly libertarian. They believe their libe to be the perfect libertarian line and deny others having a different line than them, attacking others even in the case of not sterilizing children.
I mean just look at their J6 defenses of arresting non violent actors. They defend it often. Yet cutting off a child's dick is a step too far.
I should say laws against cutting off a child's dick.
"legislating against transgender health care" - gaslighting, propagandistic doublespeak noted. It's not healthcare, it never was. Taking medicine that puts your body in a state opposite of your natural homeostasis for a mental condition is not health care, its the opposite.
"let’s not forget the precedent" - already lots of precedent for not being allowed to give kids harmful substances...alcohol, drugs, shit even same-sex hormones (a buff 10 year old who identifies as a ripped 10 year old couldn't be prescribed anabolic male hormones legally). This is what we in the past have called "common fucking sense"
"The people are being fed a constant stream of disinformation, therefore the government must force them to do the right thing”. Was it:
A. Anthony Fauci, about COVID mask mandates and vaccine mandates
B. Ron DeSantis, about gender affirming care for transgender kids"
Person A was the provider and manufacturer of disinformation, while person B has been the person dispelling it. These aren't the same thing.
Taking medicine that puts your body in a state opposite of your natural homeostasis for a mental condition is not health care, its the opposite.
Wait wait, so anti-depression and anti-psychotic medication are “not health care”? Then what are they?
And suppose a child claims to be transgender. Is this child mentally ill? Suffering from gender dysphoria? How do we know? Who should decide? Should Ron DeSantis or Joe Biden decide? Maybe parents, doctors, counselors and therapists should decide. What do you think?
And if that child IS suffering from a mental illness, then that child deserve medical treatment, no? Again, who should decide what form that treatment should take? Ron DeSantis or Joe Biden? Or, maybe, parents, doctors, counselors and therapists? What do you think?
What I am getting from your team, is that people like Ron DeSantis should be deciding these things, because doctors, parents, counselors and therapists can’t be trusted to act in the best interest of the child, because they are either deluded, ideologues, or financially motivated. And if that is the case, then how do we know parents and doctors can be trusted AT ALL to know what is in the best interests of the child? Maybe the government should be making a lot more decisions about kids’ health care because the parents and doctors are just so untrustworthy. What do you think?
That’s the precedent that I am talking about.
already lots of precedent for not being allowed to give kids harmful substances…alcohol, drugs, shit even same-sex hormones
But it is absolutely legal to prescribe certain drugs to kids as a part of a valid standard of care to treat a diagnosed medical condition. Who should be the one writing the prescription? Ron DeSantis or Joe Biden? Or doctors and pharmacists?
Lobotomy were valid standard care. Amputation is valid standard care.
If you start doing them to kids for bad reasons people will start to question your medical beliefs. This isn't fucking hard jeff.
He doesn't have a script to deal with the lobotomy argument, so he won't engage. I already brought it up twice this week. The thing he doesn't see is that it would support his position. Lobotomies really do mitigate mental illness.
I don't read ML so I have no idea what he is blathering about.
Yes, lobotomies do mitigate mental illness. It's true! And did you know that they are also still legal?
https://psychcentral.com/blog/the-surprising-history-of-the-lobotomy#legality
"so anti-depression and anti-psychotic medication are “not health care”?"
By the comparison I made (and reality), they would absolutely fit into health care. The theory behind both is that the bodies natural serotonin (depression/anxiety drugs) is out of whack (recently found out that maybe this is not completely the case and these might not have been fantastic). With anti-psychotics, dopamine is the target, but same principle, the goal is to return the body to a functional, within-normal-limits state. Depending on the exact psych condition, it may not actually not be prudent to jump to a medicine, which people are seeing specifically with the SSRI family. Regardless, the intention is to return the body to a normal functioning state.
Taking cross sex hormones or puberty blockers is interfering and stunting a normally functioning, healthy body and creating dysfunction. It is the opposite of medical care, and the opposite of giving a schizophrenic antipsychotics. It's completely in opposition to allopathic medicine in general.
Taking cross sex hormones or puberty blockers is interfering and stunting a normally functioning, healthy body and creating dysfunction.
But *the dysfunction already exists*. The child's conception of his/her gender identity disagrees with his/her biological sex. And I am NOT saying that the correct treatment for resolving this dysfunction is to go straight to puberty blockers. That is the point - for a given individual situation, I don't know the correct treatment, and neither do you, and neither does Ron Fucking DeSantis or Joe Fucking Biden. Neither you nor I nor any of them are qualified to decide what is the best course of action (if any!) to resolve this dysfunction. The people most qualified and knowledgeable to decide are the child's parents, doctor, counselor and therapist. So just let them decide. The role of government here should only be to ensure that for whatever treatment is decided upon (or lack of treatment), that all parties consent, all parties are fully knowledgeable of both the risks and the benefits, and that a strict standard of care is followed.
The dysfunction is idiots like you going along with a mental illness. It would be like telling a schizophrenic person that you too see the people. Or the anorexic that yes they are fat and should lose weight.
In fact most liberal countries at the forefront of trans medicine have greatly pulled back on treatment involving kids. Because suicide does not become reduced, medical care and harm is obvious and ge really permanent once treatment has begun, and most who claim to be trans end up growing out of it.
Every argument you make is a lie pushed by an activist such as your reliance on WPATH.
I've used anorexia as an example for a while now. There is absolutely no difference in the two...just that people are not likely to call an anorexic "fatty"
"The child’s conception of his/her gender identity disagrees with his/her biological sex."
Then you treat the mental part that is the problem, not the physical part that is not. By your own admission here, the issue here is not a physical one. If I think I hear voices, the treatment is not to deafen me. If I hallucinate visually, removing my eyes is a terrible treatment.
"The theory behind both is that the bodies natural serotonin (depression/anxiety drugs) is out of whack"
I await the citation eagerly of this.
"that a strict standard of care is followed."
It does not.
An activist group draws up the "guidelines". It's not strict. Not even a standard.
"And suppose a child claims to be transgender. Is this child mentally ill? Suffering from gender dysphoria? How do we know? "
Yes, probably, and because some of us still have functioning brains.
Also, very likely to be suffering from Munchhausen's by proxy, depending on how frothing at the mouth the child's mother is to get them on the tranny track.
Well, I don't know. It could be "just a fad". It could be the child feels weird based on going through puberty and was heavily influenced by what his/her peers were saying on social media. It could be nothing at all and the child will just "grow out of it". Isn't that what your team essentially believes anyway about transgender kids - that it's just a "social contagion" and they will eventually just grow up more or less normally if they are left alone? That could very well be. OR, they could be very mentally ill and near-suicidal. I don't know, and neither do you, and neither does Ron Fucking DeSantis or Joe Fucking Biden.
An injection of hormones makes a child feel weird. We have known this for millenia. Jeff's solution is to introduce surgery and more hormones.
" Isn’t that what your team essentially believes anyway about transgender kids – that it’s just a “social contagion” and they will eventually just grow up more or less normally if they are left alone?"
YOU called doing that denying them health care.
“And if that child IS suffering from a mental illness, then that child deserve medical treatment, no?”
Not necessarily medical treatment. Many psychiatric conditions benefit from therapy, specifically cognitive behavioral therapy. Jumping right to medical treatment is not great. In this case, people are not only jumping to validating their mental illness as brave, stunning, and great, but they are giving them medical treatment that will further them down the path of this mental illness, while also destroying their body.
The equivalent would be telling a paranoid schizo that yes, those voices are real, they are coming for you, and occasionally having people follow them around or jump out of bushes at them. Then, placing them on Sinemet (dopamine), which would increase their delusions.
So, double bad
Well I should have clarified, I consider mental health treatment including counseling to be a part of medical care. The brain is a part of the body after all.
Many hospitals and countries are prescribing drugs after just 2 1 hour sessions dumdum. You apparently don't support mental health treatment.
"And let’s not forget the precedent that legislating against transgender health care "
Nobody is losing health care. We are just trying to stop irreversible damage to CHILDREN. Adult trannies can slice themselves up and drug themselves up (as long as I do not have to, in any way, pay for the utterly and completely elective procedures) as they so wish.
Not.
A.
Leftist.
Sure, uses leftist talking points exclusively, but totally not one
"The Team Red rationale for why it is acceptable for the government to ban gender-affirming care"
Gee, more leftist talking points. Truly stunning.
Sex change operations and removing reproductive abilities of pre-adolescent kids is not "gender affirming".
"“parents are deluded” and “doctors are ideologues/motivated by profit”"
Tragically, some parents abuse their kids. We do not permit that.
And, no, doctors are not motivated by profit. People frequently spend as much time as they do in being educated to not make money at all.
"Who said:
“The people are being fed a constant stream of disinformation, therefore the government must force them to do the right thing”. Was it:
A. Anthony Fauci, about COVID mask mandates and vaccine mandates
B. Ron DeSantis, about gender affirming care for transgender kids
C. All of the above"
One targeted adults. One targeted children.
You'd know that...if you were not a leftist.
Which you totally ain't.
Don't worry, though. In 15 years times, Democrats will insist that it was Republicans who were demanding the trans-ing of kids and noble Democrats who stood up to them. The parties switched again or something.
“Dorrough was not charged with any sexual offenses and was released on bond on May 14, just 10 days after her arrest.”
Whelp. Maybe next time, I guess.
https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1661814602974330885?t=Y7wDVfndC7JS235vcNmUgg&s=19
In light of today's 18-year prison sentence for a guy who said scary things in group chats, let's see what other sentences are being handed down in the nation's capital...
6 years for a career criminal who stabs a stranger midday outside Union Station:
11 years for a monster who shared live nude photos of his 2-year old female relative
Not even 4 years for a stalker who sexually assaulted women
A 10 year sentence for repeat armed carjacker who sent police on a wild chase--but sentence reduced to 8 years under "Youth Rehabilitation Act." The criminal was 20, LOL
AND THERE YA GO
18 years for murder
[Links]
So I would love to hear from Reason why they think 18 years for a non violent crime is deserved. And why false IC investigations to alter an election is fine. What the left and state did to Trump was much worse than anything that happened on J6.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/oath-keepers-head-rhodes-sentenced-for-seditious-conspiracy
this is genuinely frightening.
A spouse found guilty of attempted murder of a spouse getting 18 years should cause no 'eyebrows' to rise and in most cases it's circumstantial evidence presented to show the wife's participation, i.e. she hired someone who turns States evidence. In this case the direct evidence presented in this case over several weeks, is breath taking. Videos, written communications detailing the planned violence is rarely, if ever, available in cases of these types. When it was proven they did a reconnaissance of the Capital, the defense said it was to find porta poties and then it goes all downhill from there, i.e. Trump's rhetoric caused it.
The Rosenbergs were executed for a non-violent crime.
Who says I am for their execution? But at least there the argument was their actions put soldiers in harm. Did the oath keepers?
Yeah, but they were commies, so it's not like they were human or anything.
Heritage Foundation has a long thread with videos of groups funded by DHS to criminalize and associate all conservatives with nazis (including a helpful pyramid). Videos include federally funded activists admitting how they likely commit crimes going after peoples jobs and families to support these views.
https://twitter.com/Heritage/status/1661731463983669248
More here:
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2023/05/25/dhs-watch-fox-news-and-prager-u-and-youll-end-up-a-nazi-n1698249
More of the word being funneled to universities to work with GDI here:
https://thefederalist.com/2023/05/25/state-funded-university-of-texas-managed-censorship-project-targeting-conservative-outlets/
The FBI apparently has video and license plate for car that dropped off J6 pipe bombs but isn't acting on the information.
https://thefederalist.com/2023/05/25/the-fbi-knows-what-car-was-used-in-j6-dnc-pipe-bomb-but-refuses-to-identify-prime-suspect/
They need time to add up all the years they are going to slam that guy with. They’ll probably have to get the IRS involved, since they are (sometimes) good with numbers.
I'm leaning towards creating a patsy. The bombs never made any sense. Very early on we were told the bombs had no possibility of being set off. It never made sense.
The "suspect" is probably still employed by the FBI, so they have to respect his workplace rights.
"The FBI apparently has video and license plate for car that dropped off J6 pipe bombs but isn’t acting on the information."
The "Federal Bureau of (withholding) Information"
Can we reverse Chevron and Wickard next?
https://nypost.com/2023/05/25/supreme-court-strikes-blow-against-bureaucratic-tyranny-in-epa-case/
The Supreme Court on Thursday finally ended one of the most brazen examples of bureaucratic tyranny in modern times.
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972 to prevent pollution of the nation’s waterways.
In subsequent years, federal judges decided the law also applied to adjacent wetlands, since they could contribute to pollution.
But “What is a wetland?” is the DC version of “How many angels can dance on a pinhead?”
Since 1972, federal agencies have changed the definition of wetlands jurisdiction 13 times.
Thursday’s decision settled the case of Michael and Chantell Sackett, who started building a home on the small vacant lot they purchased for $23,000 in 2005 in a residential subdivision near Priest Lake, Idaho.
After they began backfilling the lot to build a house, the Environmental Protection Agency shocked them by preliminarily classifying their property as a wetland and threatening a $ 75,000-a-day fine unless construction ceased.
The Sacketts were prohibited from challenging the EPA edict until the agency issued a final ruling — which EPA endlessly delayed.
President Donald Trump groused in 2017 that Obama’s EPA wetlands rule could apply to “nearly every puddle or every ditch on a farmer’s land or everywhere else that they decide,” which he labeled “a massive power grab.”
In 2020, the Trump administration issued new wetlands regulations that the Biden administration nullified in 2021.
Despite the 2012 Supreme Court rebuff, the feds kept hounding the Sacketts, and their case returned to the highest court late last year.
The Sackett decision is a landmark in the restoration of Americans’ due process and property rights — but there is far more work to be done.
"A Supreme Court ruling yesterday in Sackett v. EPA narrows the federal government's control over wetlands."
Thank you, President Trump and all you TDS-addled shit-piles can fuck off and die.
Aside from the constant use of Twitter links and shitlibs that ENB follows there, a quick look at her cites reveals why her views are so anti-libertarian and why she sides with progressive authoritarians.
- notes The New York Times
- reports Politico.
- asks Aja Romano at Vox.
- CBS News reports.
- just signed into law - CNN politics
- according to CNN.
Jesus, what a terrible list of biased sources
Look, someone needs to tell other people what CNN is saying, since people barely watch it. It's a dirty job, but ENB's gotta do it!
Twitchy has the same links, but mocks them.
You could stop subjecting yourself to writing you don’t like.
Then why do you come to the comment sections?
So could you. You mute everyone else already.
He just claims to.
Now that I think of it more, totally makes sense as to why ENB didn't cover the tranny shooting at all. It probably didn't come up on any of the platforms she gets her news from and does her "research"
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/27/us/nashville-school-shooting-audrey-hale.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/27/suspect-dead-shooting-nashville-private-school-00089006
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/politics/2023/3/27/23658533/nashville-school-shooting-covenant-school
Well, Mike's not afraid to admit that the NYT, Vox and Politico is where ENB does her "research".
Also missing from all his cites is any mention that the shooter was trans, which underlines Parson's point for him. Mike's passionate in his defence of ENB, but not very bright.
https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/video/nashville-school-shooter-identified-as-28-year-old-audrey-hale/
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/28/us/audrey-hale-nashville-school-shooting/index.html
Huh, you're right! I guess ENB had plenty of access to coverage. I wonder why she deliberately skipped it?
Any thoughts? You think she would have skipped sandy hook coverage if a tranny did it?
Any thoughts?
Yes, thank you for asking.
Every day, there are hundreds of current events ENB and the other Reason bloggers don’t mention at all. Including a lot of the mass shootings that occur.
You can’t conclude anything from Reason writers not mentioning some current event.
Reason isn’t a newspaper. They expect you to go to other sources to get complete daily news. And nobody here, including you, has any problem finding plenty of news sources to keep up on current events.
You think she would have skipped sandy hook coverage if a tranny did it?
No, I don’t think she would have skipped talking about Sandy Hook just because a transgender person was the murderer. But she might well skip it if she felt she had nothing to add to the conversation or she wanted to write about something else that day.
Yes. Sacred trannies can do no harm in ENB's heart.
White Mike driving away viewers.
Gonna lose your intern position.
Do you have a list of acceptable, unbiased sources?
Let's see if I can guess. FOX News, FOX News, FOX News, FOX News, FOX News and FOX News. I think that's about it, right?
I don’t know if it’s because of the fallout from the lawsuit, but a few days ago I saw a liberal editorial on Fox News. They are ruined!
So, I guess my brother Mike has to stick with Breitbart, The Federalist, OANN, etc.
Fallout? What do you mean? According to the comments the conspiracy Tucker talked about is indeed real, even if he didn't believe it, and the lack of evidence is proof.
Have you two chucklefucks actually seen anyone post Breitbart, The Federalist, OANN, etc. here? At most it's Zerohedge and PJM.
Meanwhile you and your ilk are constantly linking to CNN, Salon, Jacobin, MSNBC, Vox, Slate and other BlueAnon conspiracy sites. What a pair of hypocrites.
I post the federalist. But it is because they post federalist principles and anti state information. Thinking they are far right though is hilarious. They also criticize the right all the time.
Also noteworthy that ENB doesn't mention the video her own site did exploring the Durham Report. It's all priorities.
When you call the police, there's two things they can do for you: arrest someone, or shoot someone. If you don't want anyone present arrested or shot, don't call the police. And remember that if you call them, the person shot or arrested might be you.
“I can think of no state of human misery that could not be made instantly worse by the arrival on the scene of a policeman.” - Brendan Behan.
I mean, I think the kid probably wanted the dude threatening his mom arrested. Sadly, he got shot instead.
The police don't show up to do what you tell them to do. When they arrive you have no control over what happens. That's what makes calling them so dangerous.
One hundred years ago this weekend, the U.S. attorney general legalized women wearing pants.
What a shitty mess of an article. Starts off by stating the US attorney general legalized pants for women, and never states who or what authority he had. First off, the US attorney general has and had no such power. That would be state legislatures, local elected bodies, court dress codes*, or private institutions such as churches. Secondly, the arrests seems to be more in the 1850s, not the 1920s with women like Emma Snodgrass and Harriet French in Boston.
*Helen Hulick in L.A. was arrested for contempt of court for wearing pants instead of a skirt to court in 1938. Apparently, it was a decision by the judge and not supported by a law or dress code. Subsequently, the judge's decision was overturned by an appellate court.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa, lets not look into the details very much.
The purpose of the article is to have a rage baiting headline so intersectional feminists can scroll by it and say “SEE! Everything is terrible and unfair and the patriarchy is the WORST!”
Evaluating the actual situation with a calm collected mind wouldn’t allow for basically any of that rage, so best to just take her at face value. It was basically the handmaids tale
Feminists are all out of things to complain about, but their entire purpose is complaining, so they keep scraping up the dregs looking for any possible thing to pretend outrage over.
The purpose of the article is to have a rage baiting headline so intersectional feminists can scroll by it and say “SEE! Everything is terrible and unfair and the patriarchy is the WORST!”
Yeah, I just assumed the line was so preposterously stupid that nobody except ENB would've believed it. Like in the time between hanging cattle rustlers in the 1850s and busting up speakeasies and gunning down mobsters in the 1920s, the FedGov's primary concern arresting and charging women for wearing pants. As opposed to some he said/she said where "somebody" was too big for their britches.
…..so terrible and unfair.
"Stewart Rhodes, the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, was sentenced to 18 years in prison on Thursday for leading a far-reaching plot to keep then-President Donald Trump in power after he lost the 2020 election..."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/25/politics/oath-keepers-sentencing-stewart-rhodes-kelly-meggs/index.html
Sentenced to 18 years, not for doing something, but for planning to do something which is not possible.
Thoughtcrimes
So someone planning to show up and shoot everyone attending the Superbowl should go free because it's not possible?
Probably. Especially if he didn't even have a gun.
Sarc or stupidity?
Please tell us, oh ignoramus, how anyone could prevent congress from certifying Biden as POTUS.
Are you asking based on libertarian or legal principles or are you asking because you want to be certain before you irreparably set fire to your notebooks and wipe your hard drives? Asking for... uh... sarcasmic! Yeah, sarcasmic is the one who's really interested in your internet plans for mass murder. I mean your *hypothetical* internet plans for mass murder.
“Sentenced to 18 years, not for doing something, but for planning to do something which is not possible.”
Fixed: Sentenced to 18 years, not for doing something, but for being accused with no actual evidence of planning to do something which is not possible.
There was absolutely no evidence of seditious conspiracy by Rhodes. The prosecutor invented the charge and the judge knows that.
The only actual seditious conspiracy occurring that day was previously coordinated by the FBI, DHS, Secret Service and the Speaker’s Office.
Where do the proletariat go when the law has become lawless?
straight to gulag
The Court held that the Clean Water Act (CWA) applies only to "wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are 'waters of the United States' in their own right" and "indistinguishable" from those waters
It’s welcome news that the reach of Federal bureaucracy has been cut back. Having said that, the entire approach to defining the “waters of the United States” seems scientifically off in that it ignores all the water that is in the ground.
The enormous Ogalalla Aquifier that lies beneath the Great Plains, for example, is not part of “waters of the United States”?
Why don’t you look it up?
That would take actual curiosity and work. Laursen does neither.
"How did the internet become so puritanical?" asks Aja Romano at Vox.
Without a hint of self-awareness, I'm sure.
Don't call the police unless you want somebody to get shot. Even then, no guarantees who gets a bullet... or two... or 30+ .
Agreed. Calling cops should be the very last resort in a string of last resorts. And yet we have people calling the cops on kids playing alone in a park.
In a lot of areas, doing ANYTHING yourself can lead to severe penalties.
Not worth the risk.
If somebody is being murdered in front of me in NYC, rest assured, I won't be getting involved.
For the same reason, there's no way I would assist a child in distress. It's too risky. I would try to find a woman to help.
As I've said here before, all decent men need to get out of NYC. There's no place for you there.
Indeed. Doing the right thing is usually a fool's errand. Break up a rape? Stop a murder? Save a child? You'll likely get more jail time for stopping it than the perp would have gotten for doing it.
Especially if someone invades your house. Better to just ventilate the intruder and dump their body in the sticks to feed the local wildlife.
Poor kid was only 11 so he couldnt really know that you NEVER, EVER call the cops over a domestic disturbance.
He knows now.
He def fucked around and found out.
Interesting. Reason had it's livestream disection of the Durham report yesterday, and it isn't mentioned here.
That's a bummer, but I guess expected from ENB who said that the Durham report was merely just a big waste of time.
On the other hand, Eli Lake, Nick and Zach all seemed to conclude that the report gave a pretty fucking scary description of how the FBI was engaged in an obviously partisan and political witch hunt against one of the political parties.
On the other hand, Eli Lake, Nick and Zach all seemed to conclude that the report gave a pretty fucking scary description of how the FBI was engaged in an obviously partisan and political witch hunt against one of the political parties.
Nevertheless, it was a big waste of time, because no one will suffer any consequences for what went on. Except maybe Durham's staff, who will likely be blackballed from any future federal or legal employment.
"Eli Lake, Nick and Zach all seemed to conclude that the report gave a pretty fucking scary description of how the FBI was engaged in an obviously partisan and political witch hunt against one of the political parties."
ENB, Sullum and Boehm must be furious with them.
One hundred years ago this weekend, the U.S. attorney general legalized women wearing pants.
This is absolutely not what happened. The state of journalism, my goodness.
President Joe Biden is embracing mandatory minimums for drug crimes again.
Scorpion, meet Frog.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz vetoed a bill that would have upended the rideshare industry by setting a minimum wage for drivers. Walz's veto comes "after Uber threatened to halt its operations in greater Minnesota — outside of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area — if the bill had been signed into law," CBS News reports.
hahah this always happens. The elites are like "whoa! this is going to affect ME? better slow down here bucko"
Palo Alto recently issued an exemption to it's electric stove mandate so that a michelin star chef would agree to open his restuarant though. They never change. The Communist Party Leaders are elite and expect to live that way while we all eat bugs and ride bicycles.
Obamas installed a massive propane tank in their Martha’s Vineyard estate, large enough to supply a restaurant.
Burning carbon absolutely needs to be cut, according to them. But the elites also need to keep their private jets, propane tanks, and gas stoves. Those things are evil and need to be banned for the peons. But it was never meant to be applied to the chosen commies
The misconception that electricity is the most ecologically friendly energy source is to blame. In reality, propane, which was named an alternative fuel in both the 1990 Clean Air Act and the 1992 National Energy Policy, is better than electricity for the environment.
Environmental benefits of propane
When propane is used to create the same amount of energy, it produces far fewer greenhouse gases than electric power. More than 40% of the electricity produced in the United States comes from coal-fired generation plants. Electricity generation is the second greatest source of greenhouse gases in the U.S., behind only transportation.
Propane is more energy-efficient than electricity in terms of the total amount of energy consumed (extraction, production, processing, and transportation to the point of usage). Propane is 87% efficient while electricity is a paltry 32% efficient.
Propane-fueled homes produce 30% less carbon dioxide and 50% less greenhouse gas emissions than comparable homes powered solely by electricity.
Using propane appliances such as heating systems and tankless water heaters allows you to have a smaller environmental impact than if you used comparable electric equipment, as propane appliances are more efficient and use less energy....
....The world’s energy future is being revolutionized by renewable energy. It allows us to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas.
Renewable propane is even more ecologically beneficial than traditional propane. It’s a by-product of renewable diesel manufacturing. Biomass, animal fats, vegetable oils, and other triglycerides are being utilized in Europe and the United States to develop methods for generating renewable propane.
https://www.hometowneenergy.com/why-is-propane-considered-green/
This is just more evidence of the systematic racism that still exists in America. Is there anyone who thinks Aderrien would be alive today, if the shooter had been white? Rev. Al Sharpyton.
is Sgt. Greg Capers the new face of White Supremacy?
it's a very diverse movement. they accept people of all colors into the fold.
Eternally relevant.
Larry Elder is the Black face of white supremacy.
Sure, women can have pants, but if I’m around a woman and start panting, they put me in prison.
And then you should identify as a woman, then you can be put in a women's prison.
The pooner who attacked the STEM school in Highlands Ranch got put in a woman's prison even though she "identifies" as a dude. And that's because even the Democrat dingdongs running the state of Colorado know that she'd be a cum receptacle for every inmate in the place if they had put her in the men's wing.
The bit about the US attorney general in May 1923 on the legality of women's wearing pants in public looks made up...of whole cloth.
Yeah, I started down the rabbit hole of this research this morning, and finally had to divert elsewhere... but I have found two articles on this, one written in 2019 that looks like the one linked in the reason post was almost cribbed from, and there's a lot of meandering stuff about mandates "by custom" and mainly in Europe.
The idea that there was some pan, US illegality of women wearing trousers seems to be horseshit, or something very unusual and unenforced is parlayed into a 2000 word think piece.
Who knew that 100 years later, these stereotypes of what clothing is 'proper' for men vs. women would come back into full force and would be considered forward thinking and progressive?
Donald Trump, Jr.: “Trump has the charisma of a mortician, and the energy that makes Jeb Bush look like a mortician.”
Yes, he actually uttered those words. Oops!
One hundred years ago this weekend, the U.S. attorney general legalized women wearing pants.
"Remember this Memorial Day weekend to honor the men and women who laid down their lives on the Western Front defeating Archduke Franz Ferdinand's gender-specific bifurcated garment tyranny." - Elizabeth Nolan Brown
I’m not saying the thing about women being allowed by the Attorney General of the U. S. to wear pants in 1923 is just some made-up practical joke, but…
I used Google Books to find “Official Opinions of the Attorneys General of the United States …, Volume 33,” covering the Gregory, Palmer and Daugherty years (Daugherty resigned in 1924), and including opinions by acting Attorneys General, and I did searches for “woman,” “women,” “clothing,” “pants,” “pant,” and “dress.”
I found stuff about immoral foreign women marrying American citizens, hours of work for women in the Government Printing Office, irrelevant references to clothing, nothing about pants for women being legal or illegal.
I looked in the Library of Congress’ newspaper archive, but couldn’t find anything.
I tell you what, if you can prove this story is true, I will either give you either (1) a million dollars or (2) recognition in this comment thread. Which of the two I give you will be up to me.
Update – I found several several sources through a search of Google Books, one-sentence assertions about women, the Attorney General, and pants in 1923 – without contemporary (1923) sources cited. The claims go back to at least 2005, but I couldn't find anything earlier.
OK, fair enough, I'll replace "pants" with "trousers," the technical legal term...
OK, there seems to have been a trousers controversy in Washington *state* in 1921, culminating in a *state* attorney general opinion that women could wear trousers.
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/data/batches/wa_kittitas_ver01/data/sn84022770/00200291347/1921092301/0771.pdf
The origins of the dispute were when the town marshal of Zillah complained about women agricultural workers wearing pants at work and not changing after work.
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/data/batches/wa_kittitas_ver01/data/sn84022770/00200291347/1921091601/0765.pdf
I found some articles from 1923 which seemed to refer to this Washington state controversy from 1921.
I would imagine that someone read one of these 1923 articles, saw the word "Washington" and assumed it meant Washington the capital of the USA.
It's, all the way around, a thoroughly AWFL "stupid bitch" take. In a more passive, modern conception it could just be chalked up to "wet roads cause rain" but this one obfuscates history and denigrates common sense in order to insult her own gender and advance a victim narrative, bordering on a deliberate retcon.
There are pictures of FDR wearing a dress as a young boy. This was done because young children: a) have trouble with buttons, b) have trouble controlling their bladders, and c) frequently outgrow clothing and dresses are faster and easier to manufacture. Women were absolutely allowed to wear pants alongside men where flowing clothing would get caught in machinery and kill or maim someone, not to mention stop production. There were isolated sects of uppity people, men and women, who felt it was uncouth for all sorts of reasons. The same way Amish, Mennonites, various sects of Islam, etc. still do today. There was no law forbidding it. The idea is abjectly retarded.
In the stupid AWFL bitch conception of the stupid AWFL bitch's own narrative, men have yet to be legalized to wear pants.
Don't call the cops, they will shoot you.
Don't call the cops for a "welfare check" on a loved on, they will shoot your loved one.
Don't call the cops if you have a dog, they will shoot your dog.
Basically for your health, safety and life, don't call the cops.
Not a lot of details. Obviously the cop was imprudent. But, as long as the officer is properly punished then he clearly wasn't acting "with impunity," either - and the clown who tried to portray it that way ought to be sued by the cop.
People are human, mistakes get made. Until we know all the facts nobody should jump to conclusions - the kid may have had a toy gun in his hands for all we know.
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM