Bush and Obama's Immigration Raids Were Outrageous Too (Reason Podcast)

Liberals didn't get pissed until Trump was doing it but...welcome to the party!


"There's a shocking level of continuity from Bush's policies to Obama's policies to Trump's policies," says Editor in Chief Nick Gillespie. "And that's what's so frustrating about partisan politics…if you don't want the government to be able to kick people out of the country who've broken no crime other than to come here without the authorization to work, you should really be a libertarian."

In the latest podcast, Nick Gillespie, Matt Welch, and Katherine Mangu-Ward discuss immigration raids, the "selective sense of moral outrage" over Trump, our surprisingly apolitical Grammys, Beyoncé's rebirth as a goddess of fertility, deep-state douche bags, and more.

Produced by Mark McDaniel.

Click below to listen to the conversation—or subscribe to our podcast at iTunes and never miss an episode.

Don't miss a single Reason podcast! (Archive here.) Subscribe, rate, and review!

Follow us at Soundcloud.

Subscribe to our video channel at iTunes.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

NEXT: Flemming Rose Against the Worldwide Suppression of Speech

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Who’s the cleavage?

      1. Beyonce dancing on stage while pregnant as if she’s a sex symbol is my Nikki/shoveling sidewalks moment. Pretending that pregnant women are legitimately attractive should be a crime.

        1. I think pregnant women are beautiful. They don’t need to be twerking though.

  2. Now this is a weekly podcast.

  3. Well the difference is that Trump plans to round them up by the millions and keep them in dungeons somewhere but otherwise, yeah. Time to check out this libertarian thing.

  4. We don’t need the government to ‘protect’ us from the immigrants as much as we need them to stop bombing their home countries so they don’t have to come here in the first place.

    1. Reason has certainly been lax in covering our bombing of Mexico and the rest of Latin America.

  5. What’s a good, snarky, hard-to-refute response when someone from the regressive Left suggests that the NAP would allow your small children to contract out as sex workers?

    1. You look at them for a moment and say, “Oh honey. Even if my kids were sex workers – they’d still have standards.”

      1. That’s a pretty sick burn, but the social dynamic involved would make it somewhat awkward 😉

    2. Um…consent.

    3. What’s a good, snarky, hard-to-refute response when [any individual] suggests that the NAP would allow your small children to contract out as sex workers?

      Is “I find your lack of understanding disturbing, and the places to which your mind eagerly searched for an inappropriate example to question the Non Aggression Principle are certainly worthy of having Child Protective Services pay you a visit.” a suitable answer, Karl?

      The individual presumably belies in the high calling of CPS.

      1. Yet another HTML failure on my part.
        Hopefully, Karl, you’re intelligence is sufficient to read the post as it was intended.

        1. Well, at least you didn’t italicize the whole thread like some other person that shall remain nameless.

            1. Yet another HTML failure on my part.

              For the very few inclined….

              Chipper Morning Wood stated Well, at least you and then I attempted to link that part of his statement to a scene from of a movie which said “So I got that going for me, which is nice.”

    4. How about: “A small child has yet to develop the physical or mental capacity required to give consent to a sexual act and if I ever catch you leering at my children *I’ll cut your fucking balls off*”?

      *I’m aware that doesn’t fall under the guidelines of the NAP but I only score a 92% on the philosophically libertarian’ chart. I’d say the scenario put forth falls into my 8% of hypocrisy. I can live with that.

      1. I think cutting the balls of those who would prey on the defensless definitely falls within NAP.

      2. That sounds about right. I don’t know to what extent, or at what age, the NAP assumes children are possessed of the requisite agency to sell their bodies, but I think it’s a pretty haphazard interpretation of the Principle to suggest that young kids should be able to consent to that sort of thing.

      3. Sorry for the violence approving rant. One of my nieces was molested by her father’s friend when she was only 9 years old so I’m a bit touchy about such things…

        Just thinking about the subject in general makes my blood boil.

        1. Karl and TH,

          the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense.

          Of the many children who have ever lived, or are living, and of those who will no doubt be born at a point in the future, have/will they be able to defend themselves?

          1. “Of the many children who have ever lived, or are living, and of those who will no doubt be born at a point in the future, have/will they be able to defend themselves?”

            I was basing my self-criticism on my reflexive reaction to castrate some sleazy ChoMo for mearly looking at a child in a lustful manner.

            Despite how grotesque and sick I find a person’s thoughts, they shouldn’t be assaulted or persecuted for them; as long as they don’t act upon said sick desires.

            1. What I actually find more disturbing in this subthread isn’t that someone would physically assault a nonaggressive kid-diddler; it’s that everyone here seems to assume that someone asking such a question would be a kid-diddler, rather than merely someone batting around an academic question. I had always counted on libertarians to have a more “academic” mentality, to generally keep level heads and understand that “outrageous” questions are good for getting a better understanding of one’s own beliefs. I’m a little surprised to see this here.

              Besides, is everyone forgetting that Rothbard, for example, believed that children should be given full rights and freedoms from birth–that, for example, their parents had neither the right to discipline them nor the obligation to care for them? That doesn’t seem to be a very popular view of parental rights in the Reason commentariat (and it certainly isn’t with me), but it’s important to know that it’s out there. I should hope that no one would have reacted with such violent disgust to poor Murray!

              1. “What I actually find more disturbing in this subthread isn’t that someone would physically assault a nonaggressive kid-diddler; it’s that everyone here seems to assume that someone asking such a question would be a kid-diddler, rather than merely someone batting around an academic question.”

                I may be mistaken, but I assumed most people here understood that the question was posed on the ‘Devil’s Advocate’ side of the argument.

                The point being, Karl asked for a pithy, snarky comment in response to an absurd hypothetical scenario, so I made an attempt at supplying one.

      4. Speaking of philosophy, that Neil Gorsuch Natural Rights commentariat forum yesterday was pretty engaging. You all give me so many new sources (thanks, Heroic Mulatto, for stealing a whole f’king weekend down that rabbit hole) for expanding my understanding of freedom.

    5. the NAP would allow your small children to contract out as sex workers?

      I guess if you were going full-on an-cap, then I *guess* that would be permitted, as in, not forbad by some external authority? But sheesh what a ridiculous argument.

      When I encounter people who come up with ridiculous hypotheticals if we were to ever suddenly zoom to Libertopia, then I say something like “there are about 9 million other pressing issues before that one would even surface to the top of anyone’s outrage meter, so why don’t we focus on one of those, hmm?”

      1. No it would not be permitted. An ancap society would still have law enforcement and children don’t have legal capacity to make contracts.

    6. ‘Not even wrong’ is my go-to answer for arguments that have a fatal logic failure.

      Then you can explain Age-of-Consent and that we don’t – not even libertarians – consider children to be able to consent. And the fact that the person you’re talking to *doesn’t know that* shows that he/she is an idiot talking out of their ass about a political philosophy they know nothing about – they are so far off base that their argument is not even wrong.

      1. Kind of one of the major defining attributes of a ‘child’ is that they don’t have the capacity to fully consent with the same level of understanding as an adult.

        1. Ah, OK. This is more like it. At least now we are supposing that our interlocutor is attempting to make libertarianism look absurd, rather than that he is interested in fucking our child.

          This is indeed a bizarre choice of move to try to embarrass the libertarian with, since he can very simply just say: I do not differ from standard social views of children’s ability to make these types of decision; I fully acknowledge that children are not fully free in my opinion, but I insist that all adults are, and differ from others in the strength of political rights that I therefore assign them. Something like that.

          That said, as I mentioned above it’s important to acknowledge that some libertarians have indeed insisted that the deeper principles of libertarianism preclude unfree status for children. They’re certainly a small portion of libertarians, but it’s a view with a very respectable pedigree.

  6. Welcome to New Somalia. Make yourselves comfortable, we might be here a while. 🙂

  7. Even Milton Friedman recognized there are problems with unlimited immigration into a welfare state. Pick one

    1. Well of course. The welfare state has to go.

    2. I think I read somewhere, forgot where, that having rigidly enforced borders actually makes it more likely that there will be a large welfare state, because citizens will be more likely to vote for it knowing that the benefits are much more likely to flow to themselves and their fellow citizens rather than the undeserving illegals.

      So if this hypothesis is true, having poorly enforced border controls might make it more likely to get rid of the welfare state.

      1. To adapt a phrase, sometimes the electorate can stay irrational longer than the nation can remain solvent.

        1. Yeah sadly that is where we are headed I fear.

          I mean, after the fizzle of the Tea Party protests of 2010, when a major theme was “we’re broke, we can’t afford all of this shit”, was so quickly co-opted and shut down by those who want to keep the gravy flowing, then it is hard to be optimistic.

          1. Wasn’t the fizzle after the 2012 re-election of Obama? Locally, that’s when the air went out of the Tea Party.

      2. “So if this hypothesis is true, having poorly enforced border controls might make it more likely to get rid of the welfare state.”

        Whoever wrote that assumes facts not in evidence. At least, not in the United States. Maybe there’s an exception or two on the border(Arizona, perhaps?).

  8. Study: Islamic State jihadis solidly middle class, better educated than average

    Obama official admits: “Violent extremism” is really “radical Islamic extremism”

    Most of the group’s propaganda was not violent at all. I saw thousands of tweets about how beautiful the caliphate was. There were videos of kids on Ferris wheels and jihadi fighters distributing cotton candy. I remember one tweet showing a shiny apple and the words, in Arabic, “The caliphate is bountiful.”

    It is a misconception that the Islamic State is focused on fighting us. I led the State Department’s agency that sought to counter the Islamic State’s propaganda efforts and saw this firsthand. More than 80 percent of the Islamic State’s propaganda is in Arabic. Russian is the second-most-used language, while English and French are tied for third. The United States is not the Islamic State’s main audience. We have always been the distant enemy.

    1. I saw a picture of an ISIS ferris wheel too. It looked like a prop from Saw.

    2. It’s true – America was ISIS’s distant enemy until Trump. Ironically, Trump will be the foil to incite the Muslim world to finally establish free speech and religion. It’s pretty funny to watch it play out. “This wasn’t supposed to happen!” – Trump whines and stomps his feet.

    3. When somebody tells you “you’re the last person in the world I’d ever want to hurt”, don’t get too complacent – remember even if you’re last, you’re still on the list.

    4. Eric Hoffer noted that the most ardent soldiers in an ideological movement tend to be from the ‘middle-classes’, recently disenfranchised

      It is usually those whose poverty is relatively recent, the “new
      poor,” who throb with the ferment of frustration…. In Germany and Italy the new poor coming from a ruined middle class formed the chief support of the Nazi and Fascist revolutions. The potential revolutionaries in present-day England are not the workers but the disinherited civil servants and businessmen. This class has a vivid memory of affluence and dominion and is not likely to reconcile itself to straitened conditions and political impotence.

      So long as those who did the world’s work lived on a level of bare subsistence, they were looked upon and felt themselves as the traditionally poor. They felt poor in good times and bad. Depressions, however severe, were not seen as aberrations and enormities. But with the wide diffusion of a high standard of living, depressions and the unemployment they bring assumed a new aspect. The present-day workingman in the Western world feels unemployment as a degradation. He sees himself disinherited and injured by an unjust order of things, and is willing to listen to those who call for a new deal.

      1. ** this sort of thing doesn’t bode well for millions of migrants into europe

      2. is that like how middle class kids in the suburbs are sometimes the weirdest ones?

        1. probably.

          middle class aspirations are generally very high = everyone sees themselves as the potential next ‘ruling class’ and are frustrated that despite being well-educated and having many advantages, the rewards go to only a few of their peers rather than to themselves. While most/much of the disparity is due to merit, there is also an awareness that much of it is due to luck and nepotism…

          ….consequently you find that the people who are the most “Radical” and most willing to overthrow and destroy the status quo aren’t the ‘lower classes’ = they’re the ‘losers’ of the middle classes. basically, the poor are among the least-revolutionary-minded, even less so than the very wealthy.

          Hoffer expanded on this point at great length. Its consistent with other smart observations he makes (or others have made)

          sort of like how the most dangerous people aren’t “the ignorant and stupid” – they’re the “half-educated”: people with just enough intelligence and just enough information to convince others to join them in some very stupid cause.

          1. That makes a ton of sense. All of the bernie bros / progtards / communists / socialists I know are all people who grew up in the middle class.

            At a talk about millennials at a work conference (I’m 30 and somehow considered one), they showed stats that indicate a good portion of millennials are heading on the right track, doing what you are supposed to do — career job, education, independent, hard working, etc. Then there’s the ones the media always talks about — living at home, no job, entitled, etc. You know the drill.

            All of the leftists my age I know of are the losers of the middle class, especially the bernie lovers. All they want to do is blame others for their lack of success. Not saying your life is 100% merit (there is some luck, bad circumstances, etc), but it mostly is. They can’t accept that so it’s all about privilege and evil capitalism and SOCIETY and others putting you down.

            All the moderate or right thinking people my age are the ones like me that bust their ass and work hard, and put it on ourselves to do everything. Guess that’s why we are a lot happier.

            1. That makes a ton of sense.

              that book (the True Believer) is just dripping with lots of very sharp observations that apply to a lot of things.

              its also, in my opinion (tho someone else here felt otherwise) very very well written. Its muscular without being hamfisted, and elegant without being pretentious.

              As for the phenomenon w/ your Bernie-loving peers… it makes sense. I think very few people in my generation (x) feel like “society failed us”, because we grew up in a comparatively dangerous and economically erratic time, but came of age just as the boom happened, so no one was wanting for a gig, regardless of how incompetent. We know that things can be bad, then get better, and tend to see the big- “post cold war”-world as a general improvement.

              whereas millenials never knew the pre-cold-war world, were kids during a long economic boom of the 90s/2000s, and came to adulthood just as the financial crisis happened.

              consequently there seems to be an attitude that “all the 20-something billionaires” have already come up with all the good ideas, all the opportunities of the american economy have been exploited, and that the boomers have saddled them with debts & crappy political system, and they see the world being ‘worse in the future’ rather than better

              its an easy step from general malaise to “we need to get rid of capitalism = what good did it ever do *me*?”

  9. Fuck Gill-whats-his-name. I am a libertarian, and I don’t want uninvited ‘guests’ in my home, nor in my country…

    1. Then STOP BOMBING THEIRS, you idiot.

      1. We’re bombing Mexico and Central America?



          2. This REALLY seems like a valid point to you when discussing Mexico and Central America?

            Certainly, I am all in favor of leaving the middle eastern cesspool alone and staying out of how Central and South American nations run their affairs.

            BUT, how South American nations, Central American nations, and Mexico run their affairs is a major factor in the inflow of people from there into our country and illegal aliens. Our policies and actions toward them is, at best, a minor factor.

            I am , by the way, not persuaded in the least, by the view of some of my fellow libertarians that borders should be wide open. In fact, I still believe in nations as they clearly do not. Further, a flood of immigrants that are, in general, a mixture of Fascists, Peronists, and Socialists, cannot be considered to be likely to support a libertarian leaning nation.

    2. I don’t want uninvited ‘guests’ in my home,

      Then don’t invite them into your home.

      nor in my country…

      What if I wish to invite them into my home? Would you stop me?

      1. If we’re rolling on the private property argument, unless you’re right on the U.S.-Mexico border there’s probably a great deal of people you’re going to need the permission from to get that person to your home.

        If public property exists, then the citizens get a say in what non-citizens get to use it.

        1. If I had property on the border, I would be like $10 to pass through here. Thank you, come again.

          1. “Sure.”

            “Why the fuck does this bill have an old veteran and some guy with goofy hair on it?”

        2. Why does this argument always come down to ‘those who say no get to control who uses public property’?

          Why does my yes not count as much as your no?

          1. Because we add up the yeses and the noes and see which side wins? And the no side seems to consistently win in the US?

            1. Oooo! Bazinga!

          2. What WTF said. I’m actually pretty ‘tall fence, wide gate’ but if it’s public land it comes down to democracy.

    3. Fuck Gill-whats-his-name.

      please, just 1 L

      1. You…you…you’re, Gilbert Martin?

    4. You own the whole country?

      1. No, but we own YOUR useless ass. (just kidding, you are on your own)

        But seriously, you ARE part of a nation and do not have unlimited freedom. There IS a difference between libertarian and anarchist.

  10. Hey guys, I’m taking up a collection of grievances against Obama. OK who’s first:

  11. Speaking of messicans, I just made carnitas and it’s phenom. Fuckin’ A, so good.

    1. I prefer the Guats. But yeah, good stuff.

    2. I made quesidillas with some leftover bbq pork. Cheese, salsa, sour cream, jalapeno. Was pretty good.

      1. Nice. Sounds like a menu item at Chili’s and I’m not even funnin’. I’d eat that.

        1. Yeah it was pretty easy to put together since the BBQ pulled pork was already made.

    3. How did you make it?

      Kettle style?

      1. I just heated the pork up in the mw for a minute. Spread it on a flour tortilla, layered on mexican blend of shredded cheese on top (should have put cheese on bottom too). Toasted in toaster oven on a sheet with a rack, taking out and flipping once (carefully) with a wide spatula to get a little brown on both sides, prolly 4 or 5 minutes total. Cut into wedges with pizza cutter. Served with a chopped up jalapeno, sour cream, and salsa. Nice easy weeknight meal. Delish.

        1. Yeah nice, the taste of Chili’s without paying out the ass and paying a server tip.

        2. You can’t fool me. You work at Taco Bell.

      2. It was my first go at carnitas ever.

        I did it fast with 1:30 pressure cooker time, gas burner, pork butt roast. A diced Vidalia onion, plenty of garlic cloves, a cup of fresh-squeezed Mineola and clementine juice, jullienned rind of half of a clementine, tons of ground cumin, crushed black pepper, filled the pressure cooker up further with chicken stock – just the right amount. Nothing spicy in the cooking phase since a kindergartener needed to eat too.

        Took it off the fire at the perfect time when the solids were starting to caramelise and most of the liquid baked.

        Pan fried the pork butt with a cumin and Goya adobo rub to burn on a crust. Pulled the pork after cooling.

        Pulverised the caramelised result and cut it with a kiss of agave syrup and some resting juices. Mixed thoroughly with the pulled pork.

        I tell you, I have got so much mileage out of this pressure cooker, it’s unbelievable, almost to the point that I don’t do slow cooker shit anymore.

        1. Sounds really good. Best Carnitas I ever made were slow braised in lard with a small amount or water.. Had a little orange rind and some peppercorn as well. Eventually water evaporated out and they got that nuce crusty fried exterior and fall apart tender throughout.. It was actually an emeril recipe. Quite wonderful.

            1. Braised in lard is the kettle method. All night long, baby.

              Jose Garces’ recipe calls for sweetened condensed milk in the braise. I tried it, and found it DISGUSTING. Bummer, since he cooked the best meal I’ve ever had. Somebody else probably wrote his cookbook.

              1. I’d probably have some reservations about keeping anything unsupervised on a running burner overnight.

            2. It’s been a few years but this looks like the exact same recipe.


              1. 3 hours isn’t bad, but good heavens man that’s a lot of lard.

                1. Yeah, which is probably why I’ve only done it that way once:) totally worth it though.

        2. Sounds like you did it right.

          If you’ve mastered it and you get bored, look into Lechon Asado (Puerto Rican name) or Lechon Cubano (Cuban name, obviously). You don’t actually need a suckling pig for it, butt/shoulder is fine.

          Goya makes 2 marinades of interest: Mojo Criollo and Naranja Agria. That, plus bay leaf and a lot of salt… mmmm. One of my favorite meals.

          1. I’m full to the tits at this point, but this is making my mouth water and I’m hungry again. *scribbles notes*.

            I’ve never had a go at anything even nominally Caribbean except for Jamaican jerk marinade.

            Bay leaf is an incredible herb that I often forget about, but I may try to grow some this year.

            1. Just remember to remove the leaf before serving. Laurel is one of the very few leaves that is able to survive 3 hours in the pressure cooker and still be sharp enough to perforate the bowels.

              I’m cooking for 3 kids, so I tie it off in cheesecloth.

              1. Fuckin A, bay leaf is so tough and gnarly that I’ve nary chewed one, no less swallowed. Pro tips abound tonight.

        3. I’m definately going to have to invest in a pressure cooker.

          1. Fagor. Bigger is better.

            Don’t try to pressure fry. I leaned the hard way.

            1. I had a very bad accident with a fryer when I was younger so yeah I wouldn’t even think about it. Yeah, I would want something big enought to do some canning with it as well.

              1. Mine is huge. Which is why my wife insists that I store it in the garage. It just won’t fit in any cupboards.

                1. We converted our first floor laundry to a pantry which helps a lot.

                  1. I just have laundry on one floor.

                    I’ll try harder.

                    1. You guys have laundry in your house? I just have a basket that the Chinaman picks up every morning and takes to his tent in the yard.

          2. Here’s the piece of shit my wife got off Amazon years ago, and it’s paid for itself several times over. My only complaint about it is the shitty fastener hardware used to attach the lower latch handle; poor quality steel that is already rusting. Worse yet, no pressure retainer and a single philips-head bolt doing the load bearing. Boo!

            1. Remedy: go to and order an aluminum bolt with a different fastener head and an aluminum lockwasher. Problem solved and base cost of the total pressure cooker increased by 10%, but you will have an essentially corrosion-free pressure cooking vehicle for many many years. That aluminum pressure cooker cleans up extremely easily too.

        4. Who was it that complained H&R comments turned into women’s week when food came up?

          I have an aversion to pressure cookers because they make too much noise, and child hood memories of walking in and hearing that thing and the house smelling like ass. My mother, bless her heart, could not cook fer shit.

          I am a big fan of my Oster Smoker/Roaster for pork butt. Mojo with lots of citrus, garlic and cilantro. I run the mojo through the juicer. It is like a juicy paste when applied to the butt. A couple of hours of smoke, and then slow going until done.

          1. You ever been pig hunting? I’ve never been hunting before but want to hunt feral swine. You reckon that recipe would work well on an animal fed acorns?

            1. My understanding is that the feral pigs are very lean. I want to learn how to butcher and clean and animal, and figure I might as well rent some commercial kitchen space wherever we go, to make some sausages; probably need to cut the result with domestic pig fat.

            2. If you have access to acorn fed pork, don’t season it at all, other than salt and sugar.

              Jam?n Iberico de Bellota.

              1. The feral pig problem is completely out of control in Texas with many sites offering acorn fed animals. I’m not sure how excellent cured lean ham would be, but I’m down with popping my cherry on cured meats if I already have the commercial kitchen space paid for.

                1. I got a whole bunch of Texas wild boar cuts as a gift. Meh.

                  Feral pigs eat whatever. Probably more out of the dumpster than acorns.

                  1. Feral pigs eat whatever. Probably more out of the dumpster than acorns.

                    Ya I would bet that as well if there was a dumpster in their neighborhood. As would any animal. I have only had wild boar once. I liked it. I couldn’t tell you how it was prepared other than cooked on an open pit.

                  2. I guess the places offering acreage of acorn-fed pigs aren’t strictly feral, but I’d rather kill and butcher a hog that tastes good and was less likely to have feasted on rancid skunk and tampons than the thrill of a reals feral pig I guess. I want a functional result, not a trophy after all.

                  3. Were they uncooked and uncured cuts? Frozen? Farm-raised?

                    1. Frozen. Non-cured, raw.

                      Just tough, lean, and gamey.

            3. Naaa, I have never been pig hunting. I knew a few rednecks in SW FL who did that sort of thing when I lived there, and it seemed to be a big pass time for most of the Kiwis I have met. There aren’t any feral pigs here.

              1. Yeah, I don’t recall any feral pigs when I lived in CO (born and raised – no longer resident – mother’s clan is from Montrose). Out here in NH there’s a small preserve in the mid-west edge of the state where some feral pigs have escaped a preserve and are probably poised to cause problems. I do imagine that the cold weather slows their sprawl.

                1. Aaah, no shit. I know Montrose well. I was there this morning in fact. All the guys I know who were pig hunting fans loved it. They said they could get mean and come at you. I am not a big fan of hunting things that try to attack you, but given the chance I would go just for the experience. That, and I like eating pigs. Good luck. Let us know how that goes.

                  1. Last I was in Montrose, ca. 2002, it had, uh, gentrified quite a bit since the time previous to that I had visited. Lotsa development, large housing development, and not quite the pure white trash dump it was as I remember it being whilst a kid. I’d say the development was an improvement, and I’m sure the property owners with skin in the game would agree.

                    1. And it’s funny too, out east here I ran into another guy from CO that had left in the early 1990s. Him and my my mother both recount incidents where either they or their friends had the shit kicked out of them by “Mexicans,” and I just never had a negative experience like that once during my childhood. Never had a problem with roving “Mexican gags” randomly kicking the shit out of people.

                    2. Well I don’t hang in Montrose at night. So I don’t know about roving gangs of mexicans. I spent the first six years of my life in trailer parks from Grand Junction to Olathe and Montrose. We then moved to Gunnison where we became middle class white trash and is where I grew up. I never had any problem from the brown kids. It was always other white kids that were the pricks. Granted that was all 40+ years ago. All those towns have changed a lot.

                    3. You sound 5-10 years younger than my mother. Also trailer trash. Trailer parks are great stepping stones out of poverty for people with unfucked heads. I upgraded out of trailer trash status at age 11, but once trailer trash, always as such.

                2. Pigs with lots of acorns can have a tannin accent. If that is what you want it can be okay. Better is to speak with farmers who are trying to keep the pigs out of fields of ripening produce. One of the best pigs I ever had I killed was coming out of a vineyard.

          2. Shit, my wife just bought a roaster oven for Thanksgiving. I didn’t know they had a smoker version. I guess one of the kids is about to get a twice used roaster oven.

            1. Ya, I like mine. The only problem is it won’t smoke at low temps. I have found it will only get the chips smoking at 325-350 or so. I use the Bradley electric, or the old reliable Brinkman barrel for serious smoking operations.

              1. I use the A-Maze-n.

                Cold enough to smoke cheese.

                1. Do you use pellets?

                  1. Yeah, that’s the only thing that’ll work.

                    And you have to have a proper draft or they’ll burn out.

                    1. I’m assuming gas grill. Ok, I will try this. I have never tried the pellets. Thanks.

                    2. No grill necessary. You can smoke in a mailbox.

    4. I just did a couple of COSTCO Polish dogs in my George Frogman. Very nice. No technique, but damn fast and good.

      1. Jesus! George FOREman, not Frogman…

        1. Frogman is the tactical version. With the thingie that goes up.

      2. Costco Beef Polish is a solid meal. I know it well.

        I don’t NEED 1/3 lb of ground beef for a snack, but I won’t kick it out of bed.

        1. You know why it’s so cheap, don’t you?

    5. Grilled cheese and bacon, bitches. Grilled cheese and bacon.

        1. Velveeta and microwaved Hormel. Wonderbread.

        2. Thick and smoked. Oh, and on rye. Colby jack cheese.

  12. If we’re going to sell our fellow Americans on letting anybody into the country who just wants to work, so long as they aren’t convicted felons, are immunized against certain diseases, don’t have ties to terrorists, etc., then we’re probably going to need a reliable mean to keep people out of the country that we reject–because they’re convicted felons, aren’t immunized against certain disease, or because they have ties to terrorists, etc.

    Even then, letting people cross our border legally will mean kicking out the people who cross illegally.

    There’s a big difference between saying that our immigration policy should be expansive and saying that we shouldn’t have an immigration policy–and yet they can both be described as “open borders”. I think some of us are hurting the cause of letting people cross to look for work without a visa by insisting that we shouldn’t enforce any immigration laws. When we insist that open borders is necessarily about letting any terrorist or cartel march across the border with impunity, we’re probably hurting the cause of free movement.

    Again, because we should be free to cross borders legally doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t enforce immigration law. Just like legalizing marijuana doesn’t mean people should be free to sell it to minors at your local elementary school.

    1. and yet they can both be described as “open borders”.

      IMO the phrase “open borders” has lost much of its meaning. It’s just a slur now hurled by those who don’t want a 5,000-foot fence along the southern border, patrolled by tanks and drones and sharks with lasers.

      Rigorously, “open borders” means “no immigration restrictions at all”. I doubt there are very many people who would rigidly hold to such a position.

      To me, “open borders” rather defines the attitude that one has towards the border. Should America be jealous of what it has and wish to keep people out in order to conserve what little scraps we have left? Or is there enough to go around, at least as long as we choose wisely in how we approach the immigration problem?

      1. * It’s just a slur now hurled by against those

      2. Should America be jealous of what it has and wish to keep people out in order to conserve what little scraps we have left? Or is there enough to go around

        Nothing says ‘libertarian moment’ like the immigration version of the wealth redistribution argument.

      3. IMO the phrase “open borders” has lost much of its meaning. It’s just a slur now hurled by those who don’t want a 5,000-foot fence along the southern border, patrolled by tanks and drones and sharks with lasers.

        Really? Because it seems to me that any attempt to enforce immigration law is met with cries of bigotry and racism.

        1. Because it seems to me that any attempt to enforce immigration law literally everything is met with cries of bigotry and racism.

      4. Also, the migrant workers used to go home. It’s too hard to get back in, now, so once they’ve made it here, they stay.
        However, i must say that sharks with lasers sound really cool. If we’re not going to use them at the border, maybe we could deploy them to schools.

    2. Depthless raids are deporting people convinced of felonies. Reason thinks it’s outrageous that we deport people who came here illegally and commuted crimes once they did. Bit ot is everyone else who is unreasonable

      1. Depthless raids

        That’s deeeeeeeep, maaaaaaaaaaaan

    3. I find it pretty disingenuous for congress to bitch about the President enforcing laws that they enact and don’t have the balls to change, and for the media to pretend like it’s not all on Congress to begin with. Being lying little bitches does not engender people to your side.

      1. I find it pretty disingenuous for congress to bitch about the President enforcing laws that they enact and don’t have the balls to change

        Yeah that is a really gutless part about Congresscritters. They delegate authority to the executive branch, and then complain when the executive branch doesn’t use their delegated authority the way Congress wanted them to. Well duh, if you didn’t want them doing that, then don’t give them that power in the first place!

        1. well … yeah

          Progs: Believe Government should have all the power it wants

          / Bitches Trump is using that power because he isn’t the ‘right’ person so have that power

          You insufferable fucks. You don’t get to complain about how your power isn’t being used ‘the right way’

    4. I think some of us are hurting the cause of letting people cross to look for work without a visa by insisting that we shouldn’t enforce any immigration laws.

      I would add Ken, that the cause is also harmed by not focusing enough on the fact that the labor market is severely distorted by tax regulations, (even for those with visas) and other government programs which have distorted the market to the point that no one even knows what the real price of non subsidized labor is in the US.

      1. $15 per hr, unless you’re female, in which case it’s $10.50.

        1. $10.50 plus they have to bring a sandwich.

      2. The minimum wage is a buttfuck too. The illegals will pick the fruit & vegetables at an illegal rate, and I don’t see domestic labour anywhere near willing to work at present minimum or sub-minimum wage levels sullying their hands picking produce from California fields. Just my take, the minimum wage is a massive price signal distortion.

    5. It is strange how any will to enforce even the most minimal immigration laws is met with “racist!” and far right extremism.

      I don’t think there should truly be open borders (a country does have a right to set boundaries and be sovereign), but I think just about everyone who’s not a terrorist or hard criminal should be let in. Yet I keep hearing how racist and xenophobic I am.

      1. racist!

  13. I just saw a commercial that involved Melissa Mccarthy being sodomized by a rhino. That is really disturbing

    1. I’ll be in my bunk

    2. Is this it?

      The alleged sodomy is about 45 seconds in, but I thought the rhino was just snagging her clothes with its horn. I guess I don’t have a dirty mind like some people.

      1. As if you’d know anything about proper sodomy.

      2. That is it. And that rhino is getting it on with her NTTAWWT

        1. Obviously, they wanted perverts in the audience to *think* that’s what was happening.

    3. Must have been French rhinos

  14. Heat Street: Black Lives Matter Leader Says White People Are ‘Sub-Human’ and Suffer From ‘Genetic Defects’

    BLM leader shares thoughts on wiping out all of those “sub human white people”.

    1. “Whiteness is not humxness, in fact, white skin is sub-humxn,” she wrote.

      I think she’s talking about Hummus, or something.

      Only last week during a protest in front of the US consulate Khogali shouted into a microphone that “Justin Trudeau is a white supremacist terrorist”

      now that’s just funny.

      1. I think it’s nice that she’s not smart enough to be embarrassed.

    2. Kill all the white people, but buy her record first.

    3. She says…while taking part in a movement largely inspired by the ramblings of a mostly elite class of the almost entirely white intelligentsia.

      1. It’s like the entire left is stuck in the 70s but with none of the good parts, only the awful parts.

        1. More like the 60s. Well, technically the 10+ years between the JFK killing and Nixon’s resignation.

    4. “sub human white people”


      1. I was expecting juggalos

        1. No, no. See, WHITE Zombie, MORE human than human…I’m a White Supremacist.

          Get it? 😉

          1. Nice:). White Zombie links always appreciated.

  15. Enforcing the law is reprehensible!

    1. At a certain point, the only thing left to say is if you don’t like it, change the damn laws. I don’t want to say Reason has an incoherent editorial position here, but they have an incoherent editorial position here. You can have in the same day Ron clutching his pearls over Trump using his pen and phone to undo an Obama executive order allowing an oil pipeline as if it is a threat to the rule of law while in five other articles writers will screech incessantly about a president who dares to suggest we enforce immigration law in any way whatsoever.

      The Democrats, with Reason supporting, refuse to do anything to increase border security, but want pathways to citizenship. The Republican establishment would probably give that pathway or would have pre-Trump if they actually thought they’d get border security. But if Reason thinks its relying on principles here, the Democrats are most certainly not. They simply see an influx of brown people who vote for them in very large numbers. Republicans, for their part, simply have pressure from the private sector/the lobbyists and live in the Washington bubble.

      Reason deludes itself into thinking that it is adopting a popular position here when it is an electoral loser. Which would be just fine to me if their writers weren’t willing to compromise on so many other things.

      1. At a certain point, the only thing left to say is if you don’t like it, change the damn laws.

        Same thing with, e.g. hate crime laws. Enforce it until people get sick of it. If people get sick of it, they’ll demand change.

      2. Re: Brochettaward,

        the only thing left to say is if you don’t like it, change the damn laws.

        Or you can stop enforcing them, i.e. NULLIFY THEM. For instance, Colorado does not enforce Federal Drug laws anymore.

        And remember how it took a GODDAMNED MURDEROUS WAR before slavery laws were ‘changed’?

        The Democrats, with Reason supporting, refuse to do anything to increase border security, but want pathways to citizenship.

        The Democrats have been stringing immigrants along for decades and you have the gall to say they want a ‘path to citizenship’ for immigrants? You know nothing, B.

        1. Colorado never enforced federal drug laws. They enforced their own state laws and the federal government enforced the federal laws.

          They didn’t like arresting people for smoking weed, so they changed the law. They didn’t just stop enforcing it.

        2. You are talking about nullifying the Constitution here. Immigration is firmly a federal matter. Not some power usurped by the feds and then rubber stamped by the courts, but a power designated by the founding document of the country.

          I have stated here that I will favor positions that enhance liberty, even when said enforcement is uneven (hate crime laws). I tend to think there’s kind of a big issue that develops when we are talking about basic fundamental powers designated to government being usurped, which is what you are talking about. Or when the only response to the enforcement of some laws is to cry racist.

          The main point, though, is that if you are wanting open borders, you aren’t going to get it how you envision. You are going to get increased border security along with a pathway or nothing. You can take your pick.

          The Democrats have been stringing immigrants along for decades and you have the gall to say they want a ‘path to citizenship’ for immigrants? You know nothing, B.

          Well, Old Mexican, I’m willing to listen. You can explain to me how the D’s have and continue to string immigrants along (their party platform has changed a lot over the years, but I think my description is pretty accurate over the last 8-12 years).

          1. You are talking about nullifying the Constitution here.

            That’s a good start.

            1. If I understand your take here, you are endorsing nullification of powers clearly left to the states or parts of the Bill of Rights that have been incorporated?

    2. Re: JayU,

      Enforcing the law is reprehensible!

      Tell that to the Alcohol Runners!

      Or the Hair Braiders!

      (Those who hide behind the curtain of “It’s the Law” are usually the most intellectually lazy dolts, so please refrain yourself from imitating them.)

      1. Civilized society operates within the realm of laws. You cannot simply pick and choose which ones to enforce.

        If a law is bad, you change it. You don’t just ignore it.

        People who ran moonshine were involved with crime rackets that killed thousands of people. And ultimately Prohibition was repealed. Because it was a bad law. The people who broke it while it was still a law were also often bad people.

        1. You cannot simply pick and choose which ones to enforce.

          Just to add to your point, JayU, selective enforcement of laws is one species of rule-of-man. If the laws change when the next administration comes in, rule of law is effectively dead. I do not understand those that would rather have their favorite hobby just be ignored at the expense of rule of law.

          There really isn’t a way around it. If people want un-libertarian laws, they will have them. Otherwise, you have to enforce libertarianism, which is oxymoronic and leads to Nick Land/Mencius Moldbug theorizing on the virtues benevolent dictators.

          1. Actually, yes you can. Every libertarian should believe in Jury Nullification. It’s one of the last defenses against Tyranny.

            1. Jury Nullification is an entirely different concept from the executive branch simply ignoring laws.

              Like you said, it’s a last resort. The executive ignoring enforcement of selected laws is inherently different.

              1. I understand. The government should not pick and choose what it enforces, but you as an individual on a jury can, and should.

                1. Of course! No disagreement here. My argument was purely toward selective enforcement by enforcement agencies.

        2. You cannot simply pick and choose which ones to enforce

          its funny, but you hear this comment being made most often when what people are actually recommending is *exactly that*.

          the fact is that “Rule of law” does in fact include discretion and prioritizing of what laws to enforce. and it always has, even when the laws were few.

          There is no such thing as “total law enforcement”. There will always be a percentage of law which is ignored/laxly enforced or barely so. You might say, “well it shouldn’t be illegal if they can’t enforce it”, but that’s naive and probably wrong as well.

          e.g. think about “shoplifting”. Is it wrong? undoubtedly. Retailers do what they can to prevent it, but frankly with razor-thin margins, there’s only so much security they can affords, and ‘leakage’ is just a fact of life.

          should the govt post police officers at the doors of every store in America to help reduce shoplifting? Of course! its *the law*, right? we’ll just need to enlarge our police forces…oh, by 10X or so. I’m sure you won’t mind paying the extra taxes for that, right? I’m surprised local “law and order” politicians don’t run on this platform.

          the fact is that we prioritize enforcement judiciously, and we enforce only based on what voters feel is a priority and are willing to pay for. Pretending that the law is equally/blindly enforced is a myth.

          1. *sorry, the term i was thinking of was “inventory Shrinkage“.

            Leakage” is something else entirely, and yes, both sound like things that happen to old-men’s dicks, so its understandable that they get confused.

          2. yes but if you catch a shoplifter, shouldn’t you prosecute? leave it up to a jury to decide

            1. yes but if you catch a shoplifter, shouldn’t you prosecute?

              Of course. The point was about the level of resources devoted to different laws. with shoplifters, its mostly a matter of ‘you prosecute the ones you catch’, but very very very little effort is really spent trying to ‘catch’ them*

              (*with the exception of professional shoplifting rings)

          3. What you seem to be talking about is allocation of finite resources.

            Even the most staunch anti-immigration person out there won’t say that we should dump 50% of the GDP into border enforcement. In other words, prioritization. That’s why nobody would consider posting a cop at every storefront. Not that nobody wants the law enforced strictly… It’s just too expensive to justify.

          4. Prioritizing murder over shoplifting is not equal to actively choosing to not enforce laws against shoplifting.

            In your example of shoplifting as it relates to this discussion, it would require a cop to see someone shoplifting and simply look the other way. Something they should not do.

            1. Prioritizing murder over shoplifting is not equal to actively choosing to not enforce laws against shoplifting.

              did someone say there was an “equality” being presented? no, i was just suggesting an analogy to clarify that point that there’s always ‘resource allocation’.

              And re: prosecution/”looking the other way”… well, that happens too, btw.

              Just as we don’t tie up our finite police forces tracking down litterbugs and scofflaws….

              …we don’t tie up our courts with certain classes of crimes either. it doesn’t necessarily require the individual police officer looking the other way, but citations can replace arrests, and courts issue slaps on the wrist to many-time-offenders …

              basically, you are saying that immigration is a priority. to you. and that “more enforcement” (not “total enforcement”, because its not possible) is needed and justified.

              Sure. and i bet many other people agree, because they voted for that sort of thing.

              But there is always a limit. When the ICE comes into restaurants and starts arresting dishwashers, and sending whole landscaping crews and field hands and construction teams into the already-clogged deportation system…. at a certain point you have to pour more and more resources into it. and those resources ultimately come from someone else’s “priority”, and at a certain point trade offs are made. That is “picking and choosing” which laws are enforced.

              1. You have quite an imagination.

                I said you can’t pick and choose which laws to enforce. Somehow that turns into I prioritize specific laws in your mind when I’m actually saying the exact opposite, that you can’t pick and choose.

                And you clearly have drawn a line. The discussion was about government policy on enforcement. You have turned it into a discussion about shoplifting.

                Obviously budgets exist. Congratulations. Nobody ever claimed otherwise. As it specifically relates to immigration, there is an entire agency devoted to handling it. They should do their jobs unless the law is changed.

                1. You have quite an imagination.

                  I’m actually describing how the law works.

                  If there’s something you disagree with, quote it; otherwise it doesn’t seem like you actually understood what i said.

                  They should do their jobs unless the law is changed.

                  My point was that there’s no such thing as doing “all” their jobs; everything is a matter of how hard they want to enforce the laws that exist, and which they prioritize.

                  And the fact is that the ‘easiest to enforce’ lowest-hanging-fruit of enforcement is probably NOT the stuff most people think should be enforced the most rigorously.

                  meaning, the law probably says ICE/INS should find every US employer who has undocumented employees on the books, and fuck them with fines, strip them of the ability to do business, etc. and it would be easy to do that.

                  of course, they’re probably spending far more of their time chasing after illegal immigrant criminals/gangs/smugglers etc. because that’s the sort of enforcement which doesn’t actually hurt voting citizens in the process.

                  should the laws be changed? of course. but i don’t think it should need explaining that its much easier to pass “tough on crime” laws than it is to get people to pay for the enforcement of those laws, much less repeal those laws.

                  1. “I’m actually explaining how the law works.”

                    As I said, you have quite the imagination.

                    1. This memorandum provides U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel guidance on the exercise?of prosecutorial discretion to ensure that the agency’s immigration enforcement resources are focused on the agency’s enforcement priorities. The memorandum also serves to make clear which agency employees may exercise prosecutorial discretion and what factors should be considered

                      While ICE may exercise prosecutorial discretion at any stage of an enforcement proceeding, it is generally preferable to exercise such discretion as early in the case or proceeding as possible in order to preserve government resources that would otherwise be expended in pursuing the enforcement proceeding… the universe of opportunities to exercise prosecutorial discretion is large. It may be exercised at any stage of the proceedings. It is also preferable for ICE officers, agents, and attorneys to consider prosecutorial discretion in cases without waiting for an alien or alien’s advocate or counsel to request a favorable exercise of discretion. Although affirmative requests from an alien or his or her representative may prompt an evaluation of whether a favorable exercise of discretion is appropriate in a given case, ICE officers, agents, and attorneys should examine each such case independently to determine whether a favorable exercise of discretion may be appropriate.

                      blah blah blah.

              2. Obviously budgets exist.

                Well, there’s more than just budgetary issues involved here. There is actual discretion used by law enforcement and prosecutors. And I’d imagine there could and should be a public discussion of some sort on how laws are enforced and which are prioritized, and that’s not entirely based on resources.

                But I personally don’t think that discussion should just boil down to the idiocy it does when the subject is immigration.

  16. Well, to reiterate what others have said – once you have your policy of admitting every person who has been vetted for crime and disease, or whatever minimal list of disqualifications you have, and you tell the felons and sick people that they can’t come in…what’s to stop the felons and sick people from coming across the Mexican border, or flying in on a tourist visa, etc?

    I suppose that catching these felons, etc. would require *some* immigration enforcement.

    Just to take one example at random, making it tougher for felons to cross the Mexican border.

    Any suggestions?

    1. Stop criminalizing everything. Then you no longer have ‘felons’. Get it? No, because you’re an idiot.

      1. Should we criminalize violent crimes?

        1. I’m far more scared of you than an illega

            1. You may be an imbecile, but you make up for it by being functionally illiterate.

              1. You terrify me. Fortunately hopefully even you would agree that you can’t kill someone for misspelling.

                1. No, I’m pretty sure that it’s some phantom in your head who terrifies you, not me.

                  The problem isn’t that you’re thinking about hobgoblins and monsters, it shows that you have a healthy imagination. The problem is when you start confusing the reality *outside* your head with the fantasy world *inside* it.

                  1. Thank you at least for demonstrating how people in the past who fought for peace and justice were attacked and insulted and targeted. Of course, your tactics are less effective in the internet age.

                    1. I have no idea what you’re talking about, perhaps if you could explain, in plain English

                      (a) what constitutes peace and justice

                      (b) what you’re doing to fight for same and

                      (c) how I’m stopping you.

                    2. You’re helping me – that’s why I thanked you. I’m just saying that a hundred years ago you guys (the Trumpkins) would have long since killed me.

                    3. I asked you specifically to explain what you were talking about.

                      What kind of peace and justice are you fighting for, and in what way am I seeking to thwart your noble efforts?

                    4. I’m fighting to prevent people from killing each other due to misspellings.

                    5. In your mind you just told a hilarious joke, but to me it sounds more like gibbering lunacy.

                    6. I’m fighting to prevent people from killing each other due to ‘gibbering lunacy’.

                    7. Keep up the good work, then.

                    8. Thanks and don’t you worry I will. 🙂

                    9. This is fantastic stuff. Please keep going.

                  2. “The problem isn’t that you’re thinking about hobgoblins and monsters, it shows that you have a healthy imagination. The problem is when you start confusing the reality *outside* your head with the fantasy world *inside* it.”

                    Eddie. Speaking from past experience, I’m guessing Weigel is currently in the ‘peripheral shadow monsters’ stage of his coke binge.

                    Cut the guy some slack. 😉

                    1. C’mon guys.
                      Feed cockroaches and you get more of them.
                      The turd dajjal isn’t really up to cockroach quality, but we’d really rather the slimebag didn’t show up.

  17. The danger isn’t illegal aliens, but our own people who we send overseas and train in tactical snipery. These are the ones we should be more carefully vetting before they come back into the country. Also I have no problem with rounding up and imprisoning illegals indefinitely by the millions – as long as you stop selling arms and providing ‘military aid’ to their home countries.

    1. Uhm, we don’t send anyone overseas to train in ‘tactical snipery. We have schools devoted to that *right here* that a very good, thank you very much. Good enough that people overseas send their guys *here* to train.

      1. No feed, please.
        Correcting a constant and willful liar does not affect its conduct.

  18. Sorry but telling me that you will stand back and laugh as the terrists and illegals rape and kill us – doesn’t exactly make me feel safe under your ‘protection’.

  19. Stupid, stupid anarch0-frankentrumpkencucks. What were you thinking??

  20. They came in and worked hard for decades and learned American values of hard work and freedom. Why wouldn’t we embrace them with open arms? Having said that, they have a responsibility to export these values back to their home countries. But otherwise, I feel far safer with them than any Trumpkin.


    1. Speaking of cocaine, I could never really figure out if AddictionMyth was pro-drugs or anti, or just ranting about psychiatric professionals they have obviously dealt with throughout their life. Mainly because I could never get more than a few words into one of its comments before I became incredibly bored and my mind wandered off. Another sentence or two before I just gave up on the exercise entirely.

      1. before I became incredibly bored and my mind wandered off realized I was completely wrong


      2. Judging from tonight, he’s pro-drug, and doesn’t like being told he has a problem.

        It definitely doesn’t matter to me, any more than the ants that are crawling on my patio.

  22. Interesting bit about tax incentives.

    Plus: What is a cow doing in a gated community on residential land? Well, that is the point. Without the cow, the land gets taxed as residential land. With the cow, the land gets taxed as ranch land at perhaps a tenth the rate. The homeowners association helps those of us with raw land to split the cost of the cows.

    1. What if my wife is just really fat? Does that count?

      *Brochettaward is not actually married or go for fat chicks.

    2. Dunno if it is still around, but there was a magazine named “Fine Homebuilding”, featuring articles on construction techniques, siting structures on land, intelligent planning (like sticking the latest comm wiring in all your walls, even if you didn’t need it yet; boy, am I glad we did that. Cat 5 all over the place), etc. It was published in the North East.
      I remember one article entitled “Tax Shelters”. One NE state taxed your home on various criteria, one of which was outside finish; brick got one rate, rustic siding another, and finally, tar paper.
      The article wasn’t telling you what to do, just pointing out some alternatives; if you were building the edge of your budget, you might save some tax money for several years until you got around to putting up the sidine

      1. See: Hollister Ranch. Ag zoning. Same thing with vacation houses in Hawaii. They all have an acre of “coffee plantations”.

        I have Cat 5 everywhere. If the walls are open, run it.

        1. One of McPhee’s books has him on a mid-west river tow boat. The captain is interested in a good retirement; one of his mantra is “MSI” (multiple sources of income), and that includes buying some marginal land, plopping a cow or two on it, and getting the ag subsidies.
          I don’t know if it really works, but with the federal ag regs, I’m sure there are more ways to game them than I can figure out.

  23. Beware the people who are quick to compare their adversaries to insects.

  24. I would like to point out the irony that even though I’ve invested 2 years into defending vulnerable groups such as illegals, muslijms, and blacks – none will defend me. Not a single person of any racial or religious group. That bothers me but certainly won’t stop me. I’m so close I can taste it! (Looking forward to Flynn’s departure and a debacle on Israel this week.)

  25. You know who else was bat-shit insane?

    1. The British. They sided with the Jews when they had a real chance to break free from their tyranny only to embrace the tenants of National Socialism in 2016 when the struggle had ended.

  26. Beware people who are quick to accuse others of drug use when you are living under a regime where the leader uses phrases like “drugs poisoning the blood of our youth.”

    1. They’re accusing you of drug use. I’m accusing you of being nuttier than squirrel turds.

      1. And I’m accusing you of being far more dangerous than a felon illegal alien.

        1. Damn straight. And don’t you forget it.

          1. Glad you admit it. Which is my point – keep the illegals and throw out the Turmpkins.

            1. Oh you don’t understand. I’m actually on my way to your location as we speak. I’ll be there in less than an hour. You might want to call people you love to tell them goodbye.

              1. I’m joking, of course. Sociopaths don’t really have anybody that they love.

                1. “Like a madman who throws Firebrands, arrows and death,
                  So is the man who deceives his neighbor, And says, “Was I not joking?”
                  Proverbs 26:19

                  But hey, thanks again for demonstrating again why you can’t win this. If only you’d learn from your own lesson.

          2. DON’T FEED IT!
            *smacks your fingers with a ruler

  27. Beware the people who are quick to accuse others of being ‘insane’ when you live under a regime where the leader claims that ‘the problem is we have sickos all over the place.’

    1. He’s not wrong.

      1. Fortunately the American people are starting to realize how wrong he is.

      2. What did I just tell you?

    1. Russian leaders have already soured on the radicalization of American politics under Trumpamania.

      lol, who used that term? the Russians or the writer @ FP?

      and christ, the second i clicked on the ()#*@()# link, it wants to lock up my browser. FP’s website is internet cancer.

      (apparently its a firefox thing because opera has no problem w/ them)

      “The search for a key to Trump’s mind-boggling and miscellaneous gusher of policy directives has tended to focus on his disturbingly erratic, vindictive, simplistic, narcissistic, insecure, and occasionally delusional personality, “

      This sounds like the writer is simply window-dressing his own POV by pretending its ‘what someone else thinks’.

      Russian policymakers, obsessed as they are with the fear of “color revolutions,” may understand better than Americans and Europeans the radical nature of the political change that has descended on Washington.

      that’s actually a good point

      What the Kremlin fears most today is that Trump may be ousted or even killed

      that’s not. that’s just sort of ridiculous.

      As with all FP stuff, there’s usually a little good, and a lot disposable.

  28. Americans benefited for decades from illegal aliens doing jobs that Americans didn’t want to do. Trumpkins cheered to “Round ’em up!” but they will be crying when the price of fries doubles due to the loss of cheap labor.

  29. Trumpkins benefited for years from subsidization of their healthcare by millenials. They cheered to ‘repeal Obamacare!’ but they will be crying when they have to pay the full cost when it is repealed.

  30. Trumpkins got cucked so hard it’s not even funny.


    1. who are you yelling at?

      or rather – who is the pond scum (this time)?

      1. Are you maybe using a blocker that you don’t see it shitting all over the thread?

        1. yes; just curious which one it is.

          i thought it was buttplug and unbanned him to see what the fuss was bout, but no.

          1. The dajjal, it seems to be on meth or something, hitting submit with every random thought.

          2. I assume it’s a sock; the name translates into ‘liar’, It never makes an honest argument regardless of what ends up being posted.
            During the Pacific campaign in WWII, various Japanese garrisons were bypassed and thereafter used for bombing training. It’s easy to understand how someone might want to drop a logic-bomb on the slimebag, but since it isn’t here to do other than stir the pot, nothing is accomplished.
            ‘Scuse my shouting.

            1. During the Pacific campaign in WWII, various Japanese garrisons were bypassed and thereafter used for bombing training.

              Not doubting this, but could you provide a few links? I’d like to read about it.

              1. I can recommend some books, but give me a minute…
                Here’s one:

                But Rabual was the archetype, lemme try again.

                You could also search Truk.

                  1. Hmm.. what books? Those links were general WWII history. Not bad or dishonest, but I’ve read it before.

                    1. Shame on me. To be honest, I didn’t read them, just presumed from the subject lines they would have covered it. So on to some books I have read and can recommend:

                      “The Pacific War: 1941-1945Oct 20, 2009
                      by John Costello
                      Some factual errors; putting Japanese Admirals where they weren’t, but good other than that.

                      “The Conquering Tide: War in the Pacific Islands, 1942-1944 (Pacific War Trilogy) Sep 21, 2015
                      by Ian W. Toll”
                      Wonderful! Still waiting for the third

                      “The Fleet at Flood Tide: America at Total War in the Pacific, 1944-1945 Oct 25, 2016
                      by James D. Hornfischer”
                      Looks at what specific players did, but covers the big picture anyhow.

                      And as always:
                      “A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II Mar 28, 2005
                      by Gerhard L. Weinberg”
                      A bit jumpy trying to cover too much in one volume, but it does get covered.

  32. Why will no one (other than me) say that comparing people to insects is unacceptable? I’m genuinely curious:

  33. I was wrong about the cocaine earlier.

    It’s definitely rat poison.

    1. Squirrels SFed the link.

  34. Why do you think that comparing me to pond scum will silence me?

  35. Trumpkins cheered at ‘bomb the hell out of them!’ but they will be crying when the price of oil doubles due to ‘supply disruption’.

  36. Trumpkins – if you don’t build prisons to house millions of illegals, then you don’t have to worry that you’ll end up in them. Capish?

  37. Trumpkins – repent now. Before it’s too late. For your own good, you understand.

  38. I’m running on a platform to utterly abolish safe spaces for trolls. Can I count on your vote?


  39. OK, so it’s decided, then? Nobody is going to tell dajjal/addiction myth where the new thread is.

    1. You issued a criminal threat, DenverJ. Saying “I was only joking” is no defense.

      1. So, call the cops. Convince them to get a warrant for Reason to turn over my info, etc., etc.
        Oh, and stop shitting all over the threads, you moron.
        If you want attention, make a valid comment. “Look at me look at me look at me” is the behavior of a socially retarded 6 year old, and profoundly annoying.

        1. My point is that you are far more dangerous than an illegal alien. And if you are saying that the cops won’t protect me from you, then yes I agree.

        2. DJ, you’re only encouraging this slimebag to show up here.
          There is no reason to engage the piece of shit; it has no interest in honest discussion.
          Please do not respond to any of its comments.

          1. Sorry. He does have a certain skill in drawing people in though, doesn’t he? Like some kinda idiot savant, or troll Svengali. Ooh ooh how about “Sventrolli”?

  40. I hope the monorail was returnable…..ivers.html

  41. I know someone who treats AM/daj and said that he has large, hanging tumors emanating from his perineum and tucks them into his anus as a result of some psych disorder.

    1. How is this at all acceptable? I’m honestly curious.

      1. You fling shit all over the thread like a goddamned monkey and you’re somehow shocked that people are making fun of you?

        Go. away.

        1. Please, please, please, please do NOT feed it.

        2. I come here to defend libertarianism and then I am attacked and compared to insects and subjected to criminal threats. And then when I defend myself – how is that ‘flinging shit’? And again, why does no one say anything? I’m genuinely curious. I really am.

    2. That’s probably a generous interpretation.

  42. “Jerry Brown: If Trump is elected, we’ll build a wall around California”…..892193.php
    (there are plenty of other links with moonbeam telling Trump top shove it, but there’s a 2-drink max at this place)

    Uh, well, I really didn’t mean all that stuff!
    “California Governor Jerry Brown Asks President Trump for Help”…..-for-help/

    1. i dont understand – how is this a federal matter? it’s a state dam impacting just California. Why is this any business of someone in Florida or Alaska?

      1. Katrina, dude. All natural disasters are now national disasters, lest the president and members of congress get labeled as uncaring/incompetent.

      2. ‘Cause moonbeam spent all the dough on his choo-choo and teachers’s pensions. There’s none left, so he’s begging.

  43. Darling anarch0-frankentrumpkencucks – why do you forsake your own APOTHEOSIS?

  44. Darling anarch0-frankentrumpkencucks – when your ‘best laid plans’ suddenly require you to issue criminal threats against your CREATOR – you might want to take a step back.

  45. I extend my hand to anyone who would like me to lift you up. If you are interested, then you know where to start.

  46. So, I’m still watching Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States. How much salt should I take with it? Genuinely curious what other people think of his interpretation of post WWII US behavior.

  47. There’s a shocking level of continuity from Bush’s policies to Obama’s policies to Trump’s policies,

    Is this a great county, or what?

  48. Flynn Resigns as National Security Adviser

    Flynn abruptly resigned as President Donald Trump’s national security adviser Monday night, hours after it was learned that the Justice Department informed the White House that it believed he could be subject to blackmail.

    Whew! Good thing Hillary wasn’t elected, huh?

    1. Out like Flynn.

    2. Flynn’s status was considered perilous after it was disclosed that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and other senior officials about his communications with Sergei Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the United States.

      If it’s out the open now, how can it be used to blackmail him?

  49. “if you don’t want the government to be able to kick people out of the country who’ve broken no crime other than to come here without the authorization to work, you should really be a libertarian.”

    Or even if you do want the State to keep citizenship meaningful, you should be a libertarian.

    I don’t recall Hayek – or any core libertarian principle as such – demanding open borders or World Citizenship or whatever.

    That’s a local, contingent (though defensible, even if I don’t share it) value, not definitional of libertarian beliefs.

    (Tl;dr: libertarians can like borders just like they don’t have to be isolationists.

    Carthago Delenda Est. er, I mean, Bring Back Postrel.)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.