Much thanks to others for picking up the links through the middle of the week. It hardly feels like Thursday. Anyhow, much to do. Statists and collectivists are busy laying blame elsewhere for things that happened recently…
“What part of filled with non-flammable helium do you not get?” T/W Autoplay
Camile Paglia is now my go-to black-leather jacketed opinionist. I always find what she has to say original and interesting.
This Qatar arms sale reminds me of a Bill Hicks joke from the (first) US-Iraq war: “When are we going in? As soon as the check clears. Are the banks open on Monday? Probably Monday.”
Google drive will back up (someone’s — not mine because I don’t trust the Google) entire computer to the Cloud. I still don’t trust Apple — whose encryption schemes are hard to break — with my stuff.
NYT‘s lawyers will probably have to make a better correction than this to stop Ms. Palin’s lawyers from walking around with giant visible erections.
NYT Editorial Board
It appears that Bill Cosby’s defense was pretty effective. Judge holds jury hostage to get a verdict.
Have a nice, mellow little afternoon with the Owl & the Pussycat
“Camile Paglia is now my go-to black-leather jacketed opinionist”
Yeah, Paglia is great, but a Weekly Standard link? Do you even ‘libertarian’, brah?
Also, first
Just read the article. It has some first class ranting in it.
She rants with the best of ’em. Somedays I wish I could channel a hybrid spirit of her and Chris Hitchens when I’m talking to people. I’d probably lose what few friends I still have, but it’d be epic.
I prefer to read Paglia’s rants than listen to her, because she has a horrible case of her brain going faster than her mouth.
Her selection of political role models left my mouth agape.
The Unholy Trinity of Pelosi, Feinstein, and Harris?
WTF?
She just really likes California
girls,women, Senators.Paglia also likes the new Star Wars trilogy more than the old.
Some of her appeal is that she’s a half-mad weirdo.
Yes, but like Chris Hitchens, even when she’s wrong, she’s fascinating.
If there is anyone in Congress today who is more repulsive than McCain and Schmoober, it’s Feinstein. In fact, she may be worse than both of them put together.
I kept coming back to her being a Democrat who supported Stein and Sanders, and said that she thought Pelosi or Feinstein should’ve run for president long ago. I had an extremely hard time reconciling those positions with the truckloads of rationality, sense, and eloquence on display throughout the rest of the piece.
Exactly, so confused.
Like Comey laying out the case against Clinton and then turning around and walking away.
It makes sense for her target audience.
I really never knew she was such a lefty. I’ve diasagreed with plenty of articles/essays of hers that I’ve read, but still always felt better to have gone through the exercise. And if I was half the writer she is I could have stated that in a more complimentry way. But still, hope u get what I’m sayin.
It is certainly ironic how liberals who posture as defenders of science when it comes to global warming (a sentimental myth unsupported by evidence) flee all reference to biology when it comes to gender. Biology has been programmatically excluded from women’s studies and gender studies programs for almost 50 years now. Thus very few current gender studies professors and theorists, here and abroad, are intellectually or scientifically prepared to teach their subjects.
So I take it she’s been disowned by the left?
That doesn’t keep them from doing it though.
Basically, yes.
I have an intellectual crush on her. She’s honest, and fierce. Nevermind she’s like 30 years my senior and a lesbian. That ‘interview’ was awesome.
Off to quite a start…
For the people she’s trying to convince, it’s absolutely necessary. In fact, there’s far less virtue signaling that I would have expected in that article.
Yeah, I know. I’ve read a lot of her stuff.
Still pretty off-putting, though.
There’s nowhere to go except up from there.
It may be that she’s going with the best option she thinks she has. It wasn’t like we were spoiled for options for libertarian candidates last election either.
Even in last year’s shit-show, an old commie true-believer wasn’t close to the best option and anyone that thinks so is as far from Libertarian as you can get.
I never suggested that Paglia was a libertarian. She is a leftie, albeit one that veers from a lot of leftist orthodoxy. So as a libertarian I can sympathize with having to vote for the least bad option, which for her is people like Sanders and Stein.
She has a pretty strong streak (albeit pretty selectively) of “leave-me-alone” classical liberalism. Mostly in the cultural realm, sadly. On economics, she seems to be a pretty standard issue gimmedat voter.
The disconnect between her classical liberalism and disdain for modern victimology/SJWism on the one hand, and her support of people who disagree with her fundamentally on those issues, is very puzzling to me.
Nonetheless, I enjoy reading her and generally agree with a fair amount of what she says. We had an exchange years and years ago about gun control – she thought it was stupid hoplophobia.
I forgot to mention she’s crazy. But good crazy in the sense that her politics from an economics perspective are uterly whak-a-do, but she’s always entertaining and doesn’t strike me as hateful, just honestly wrong.
Where did I hear that she’s a tranny? Is that true?
She considers herself transexual in the sense that she dresses and acts like a man. She’s really just a blue collar tomboy bull dyke in some ways who happens to be really smart and have a good classics education. So far as I know her OEM is a vagina and she has not done any major changes to that, though she may use a temporary bolt-on.
You heard it from your eyes.
Reading it makes you appreciate how few public intellectuals are worth reading. Paglia is one of the very few that can really deliver something original and thought provoking. It is refreshing.
Original from a leftist perhaps, I’ve heard those arguments outside such circles. She’s eloquent though, which I appreciate. Given her political history and distance from mainstream democratic issues, wouldn’t she now be technically a neocon?
I don’t think she has the requisite war boner of the NeoCon class.
Love me some Camile. I find she’s truly an independent thinker, though often mistaken. I feel the same about Erica Garner (Eric Garner’s daughter). I respect contrarians, even if I disagree.
NYT‘s lawyers will probably have to make a better correction than this to stop Ms. Palin’s lawyers from walking around with giant visible erections.
Sarah Palin’s lawyers formed a ballet company
I imagine Palin in a ballerina costume, ten years ago, in her prime, would have created the same impression
her prime was in her 40’s? That’s depressing.
Alright, thirty years ago. You can’t tell me that naughty librarian look didn’t do it for you.
I dunno, SugarFree kinda ruined naughty librarians for me.
[bites lower lip and looks up shyly]
I honestly didn’t even notice. Of course, I was in grad school banging undergrads during that era.
I was in grad school too, but I noticed. I convinced my girlfriend to dress up as a sluttier Palin and I’d dress up as McCain for Halloween in 2008. It was amazing
I hope you went as slutty McCain though. With a nametag over your crotch that said Maverick
The real McCain only dresses like that for Lindsey Graham
Or go as 2017 McCain and forget to put on pants altogether.
If you are doing a McCain costume, I hope you went in torn black pajamas, muddy sandals, finger nails torn off, and a wrist watch with shit on it. If not, you missed a “True Hero McCain” opportunity there.
Whenever I’m playing Master of Orion, I always think of my assistant as Sarah Palin, the Milfssisant.
President Palin was damn sexy.
This Qatar arms sale reminds me of a Bill Hicks joke from the (first) US-Iraq war: “When are we going in? As soon as the check clears. Are the banks open on Monday? Probably Monday.”
I read “Don’t cry for me Sargent major” this week and thought it was funny how the Argentinan army was armed with US, French, Belgium weapons and then at war with a NATO nation. Nothing really changes.
-1 USS Stark
Exocet is coming…
Vampire, Vampire, Vampire
Well, we don’t have to worry about a repeat of the Falklands War since Argentinian checks stopped clearing.
he “drugged” her with 1.5 benadryl pills?
fuck outta here
And a Cherry Coke?
Maybe she was allergic to jello pudding.
She had runny eyes.
When Bill Cosby says “Benadryl”, he means “Quaaludes”.
I once accidentally took two Benadryl before work (was 1/2 asleep and crampy and thought they were Advil). I had a tough day, but powered through.
Cosby didn’t give her any damn Benadryl.
Even if the rare individual has a more pronounced response to Benadryl, if you are a date rapist, are you going to take the chance that the woman you’re with is the 1 in 100 who responds that way to Benadryl? Or perhaps would you use something a little more likely to work on the average person?
Next time, you should turn on the lights before you take those, bright pink might be a clue, (:. I have occasional allergy issues and benadryl is still the only thing that helps me. I’ve been taking it so long I could easily take two and go to work, though I don’t usually do that because it makes me feel sort of space cadet.
NEEDZ MOAR ALT-TEXT!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV2wYiOaf7Y
You know that look you get when you realize you’ve lost? It’s on the Vice co-founder’s face at 45s.
Not sure I follow.
That’s the point where the little marksman girl describes what a huge celebrity she is and marvels at the craziness of it all.
maybe i’m being too hard on Suroosh personally but the firearm coverage at Vice has a control undertone. that clip was just a preview of their next episode.
Undertone? If sneer had a sound associated to it they would make it the freaking background music.
I’ve been desensitized to sneer by the screeching harpy media.
Funniest part is that it’s been up 2 days and it has a whopping 50 views. Vice makes Buzzfeed look like the New York Times.
Video is unlisted. Only those with the link can see it.
At least as of this time/date,
Wouldn’t the implication be that the video is part of some article and that the number of people who let the video run (especially if autoplay) is related to the number of people who read Vice articles?
You can tell he just wants to run the hell away as fast as he can. And the Dad is just so proud of his girl.
In it, he claimed Constand showed no ill effects from the 1 1/2 Benadryl pills he gave her to help her relax, and that she never objected to his behavior during the 2004 encounter at his suburban Philadelphia home
Benadryl? Really? I’ve not been following the case, but if that’s the “rape drug” Bill used, not guilty.
Yes, that’s an extremely mild over-the-counter sedative. It MIGHT help you fall asleep if you really want to sleep. Knock you out? I don’t think so.
It’s not outside the realm of possibility that such a dose can cause some people to really lose the plot; I knew a young lady back in Uni days whose reaction to a single Unisom pill was ten hours of heavily-drugged sleep, followed by a half-hour of near-catatonia when she finally woke up. Not all of us are wired identically, and little differences can have profound consequences.
But yeah, for most people, the idea that an OTC sedative could “knock you out” is absurd.
Sure, but if she went to bills house and said “I get blackout fucked up on Benadryl” and then he offers her Benadryl and she takes it, still not guilty.
Under no circumstances could Benadryl reasonably be considered a date rape drug. Which is why his lawyers told him to say that.
I met a girl that passed out drinking half a Corona. A couple Benadryl sounds possible, not really plausible though.
Relax? RELAX??? Benadryl makes me irritable and itchy.
And no, that’s not what Cosby gave her. He has a 30 year history of drugging women with quaaludes.
He has a 30 year history of drugging women with quaaludes.
Have not been following this case, but according to who? And when did they make their accusations?
I’m not sure there’s a comprehensive list of accusers (or maybe there is and I’m unaware), but he admitted as much in a deposition.
He claims that it was all consensual, but that sounds a little… fishy. He has a whole pile of quaaludes that he doesn’t take himself, and only gives to women when it’s sex time? That sounds a little… Roman Polanski to me.
I’ll see if I can dig up some links later today. It’s not a search I want to do on this particular computer.
I also respond poorly to Benadryl
Who can even find quaaludes anymore?
Seriously. Asking for me…and probably Nicole.
Isn’t it about the same as Xanax?
They are still around. I believe South Africa is the only country that still makes them. Veeeerrry hard to get real ones. But you like to travel so….JoBurgh for your next vaca. See some sharks and Afrikaans and Africans.
We have to ban benadryl.
The Brave Little Toaster was one fucked up “children’s” movie.
What makes you say that?
or
What makes your mouth say that?
~~~magic edit fairy~~~
Diolch i chi, golygu tylwyth teg.
Considering it was written by Thomas M. Disch, I don’t know why anyone was surprised.
His first novel:
I mean, if there’s one great thing about the end of the world, its the end of restrictions on wooing barely pubescent women by much older men, right?
Don’t tell OMWC. He’ll kill us all.
He said “barely,” not “pre.”
That happens regularly in some parts of the world right now. Nobody wants to live in those places, but that is just an acclimation issue.
Same thing with a lot of Don Bluth’s work and the Dark Crystal. I read somewhere that Jim Henson made it because he thought it was unhealthy for children not to be scared.
I wish I had a job where I could justify scarring children’s psyches like that.
Seems like every movie I saw growing up (in the 80s) was like that.
Watership Down was one of the most depressing things I’ve ever watched, and that was when I was 7.
Become a social worker.
Grandkids!
I still don’t trust Apple — whose encryption schemes are hard to break — with my stuff.
I trust them hella lot more than Google or Facebook. The one thing Apple has seemed to always take seriously is personal security.
I thought marketing was the one thing Apple always takes seriously.
What’s wrong with that?
THIS.. So much THIS
I still don’t trust Apple — whose encryption schemes are hard to break — with my stuff.
I trust them hella lot more than Google or Facebook. Some pay lip service to personal security, but Apple has always taken it rather seriously.
I liked the second one better.
I trust squirrels even less.
I don’t trust anybody from Big Data. But I trust Google less than Apple. I don’t Facebook, so I don’t care that their security and privacy protections are utter shit.
I don’t trust the NSA, so I’m not sending my backups to a third party no matter how much security that have.
Dear DEA/FDA:
Fuck you for your fucking rules that mean that I can’t refill my fucking klonopin prescription yet when I’m fucking stressed out and having panic attacks because for some fucking reason we’re all children and if I don’t wait exactly 30 days between refills I’ll die of overdoses and sell all my pills to children.
Go fuck yourselves,
JB.
Just remember to start really low, like one or two grains, if you street supplement.
Get a load of the junkie getting the shakes and having a freak-out.
I will fucking cut you.
ZARDOZ SPEAKS TO YOU, HIS CHOSEN ONES.
ZARDOZ COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDS, BRUTAL BLUSTER.
“Ask Her For Adderall”
The War on Drugs is wicked, and the people fighting it are morally wicked people.
The band “The War on Drugs” however is wicked awesome.
They’re scum of the fucking earth wicked and all of them should die from a horribly painful and long lasting malady and only be allowed baby aspirin for pain.
I will bet that’s your insurance company setting that limit rather than the DEA or state. Ask the pharmacist if they will give you a refill now if you pay cash. Generic klonopin should be pretty cheap, too.
Yeah. The DEA rules allow you to fill even Schedule II more often than 30 days.
Pay cash or go to a different pharmacy.
My dog developed epilepsy while I was in the military. The military vet prescribed klonopin or phenobarb. The clinic ordered it for me and when it came in they gave me the entire 1000 pill bottle because ‘we don’t have a pharmacy’.
It cost something like $17 for the entire bottle. When it ran out in 3 years, the civilian vet was charging $12 for a 30 day supply.
Fucking pushers, getting you addicted and then jacking the price.
Heavy mind, have you signed?
Makin’ money all the time
This is the one I was thinking of.
1) Give a dog seizures.
2) Get 1,000 phenobarbital for $17
3) ????
4) PROFIT!
That’s how I read it. His “Dog” was sick.
A Jew with anxiety problems? That’s like a unicorn or something.
Come on man. Not only does nearly every culture on Earth try to kill them every generation or two, but if you read the Bible it basically looks like God keeps trying to kill them off too. I’d say that warrants a little paranoia and anxiety
Look, if hanging out with First Nations people taught me anything, it’s that the only solution to that is masses qualities of alcohol.
“The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.”
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2016/03/jews-are-planting-gharqad-trees-to.html
I thought Jews were known to be anxious?
Sigh.
Jinx.
I’m not good at picking up sarcasm in writing and stuff or something.
*psst…*
Have you tried yoga and a wheatgrass enema, man? It does wonders for your chi and it opens your chakras right up.
I had a prescription for 90 days of pills, and the local pharmacy made me come in every 30 days for a 1/3rd of the prescription. When the doc gave me a new prescription for another 90 days, I sent it to a mail order pharmacy and they sent me the whole thing. It may be a pharmacy policy, not a DEA/FDA policy.
Insurance.
Oh, shit, The Hat got hold of the Twitter account.
He’s not a smart man. The best thing that could happen to him is arthritis. No more tweeting
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA
The MAGA at the end was a nice touch.
Honestly, I’m not sure how that tweet hurts him. His followers will be fine with it, his enemies hate him no matter what he does, even for things he doesn’t do.
Plus, it has the benefit of being true. Mueller is hopelessly conflicted, his office is already leaking like a sieve to the media, and there is no possibility any more that the “independent” investigation will ever be broadly accepted as disinterested and nonpartisan.
I’m kinda with Trump on this one. The swamp creatures are attacking; why pretend its anything else?
Precisely.
It was the one before that one they they are talking about. But I don’t see it either. The obstruction story has been going around since this morning.
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice
He is absolutely right here. They have been trying to play this angle since comey memo.
The wapo contradicted itself in the article…first said now mueller is investigating trump for obstruction (what obstruction btw?) and then later says it started after may 9 firing and mueller picked up the work
Also coats and rodgers contradicted the anonymous sources in testimony last week
He has to get in front of it. Twitter in this sense can be his ally.
Every time he does something extremely stupid that benefits him in no way, I love seeing his followers twist themselves into all kinds of shapes trying to justify it as all part of The Golden Path. I mean, at least Scott Adams is kind of good at it, everyone else, not so much.
I’ve lost track of how many dimensions his chess board has at this point. I mean, I’m willing to go with “stupid like a fox” to a certain extent, but come on.
Between Trump and Obama, we’ve discovered like 12 new dimensions.
I mean, the reason he’s President is that he refuses to concede the premise of the leftists and the media, and he uses Twitter to connect directly to his base. He’s keeping his POV out there, which just so happens to be the correct POV: this is a witch hunt, it is entirely made up bullshit from career bureaucrats and media types. There’s nothing of substance to it. He’s counting on his base to actively counter the constant drumbeat of bullshit dripping from the media.
How is that stupid? Stupid would be the typical Republican move of pretending that the NYT and the WaPo are straight shooters and not Dem operatives with bylines.
He basically just admitted he was under investigation and then got reflexively defensive about it, poor form in general.
If he was actually smart about using his Twitter he’s just throw out some complaints about the NYT being fake news or something to appease his base, they’d eat that shit up without the damage of exposing yourself.
How would he even know? Those tweets didnt mention that he was…that is just their play since it is a new narrative?
What did he obstruct. Remember when he tweeted about russia probe folks thought this was also him admitting collusion
I don’t read it that way, because I think the “they” he is referring to is not the FBI, it’s the media.
Bannon said it months ago: the media is the opposition party. That’s what Trump recognized early on, that’s why he won the primary, and that’s why he’s got this high floor of support. He understands that the lodestone of opposition to him is not Nancy Pelosi or Mark Warner or even Beloved Popular Vote President, it’s the media amplifying anonymous sources into damming indictments of collusion.
I think the “they” he is referring to is not the FBI, it’s the media
Its unclear, and given the gargantuan volume of leaking from the FBI and the independent counsel to the media, I’m not sure it even matters.
The thing is if he was under investigation then these tweets will make no difference if something was there.
I dont get why it is stupid. Are the anonymous sources just going to stop if he doesnt tweet?
Like with comey his tweeting and firing got him to admit he wasnt under investigation. Where is flynn’s issue? There isnt anything there
Comey was using russian collusion rumors to keep his job
Admitting you’re under investigation for obstruction for no reason other than to whine about it, and then getting defensive about it is generally a bad move. Again, if Trump was using Twitter in a way that actually benefited him he’d be making more broad statements that don’t actually bite him in the ass. Instead he emoting onto the internet for everyone to see.
How will this bite him in the ass? If he was actually under investigation
The wapo is acting like he is.
Every thing he has done is within his office that i can discern
It bites him in the ass because it puts him on the defensive, and if you hadn’t noticed Trump is bloody awful on the defensive (his winning is a product of his offensive). Admitting you’re under investigation without knowledge of whether you’re under investigation is kind of a massive dumbass move.
Again, this is what I mean. Trump is emoting like a petulant baby onto the internet with no real benefit (he could have gotten the exact same results in his base with a “Establishment trying everything they can to get rid of me, but I’m still here! MAGA”) but somehow it’s fine.
He didn’t admit that though. He was making these same claims about russian collusion being a witch hunt and look we go to find out they were full of chit….specifically because of Trump firing comey.
It bites him in the ass because it puts him on the defensive,
I dunno. Reads to me like more of a counteroffensive.
He basically just admitted he was under investigation
I don’t read it that way, either. He is reacting to media reports that he is under investigation, smearing the media and the Deep State together, and saying its a witch hunt by bad people, or he is saying that the obstruction accusations have no more substance than the discredited Russian collusion accusations.
Close parsing is pointless, though. He is supporting the narrative that his followers need him to support. I don’t think its anything more than that. It doesn’t bother me because I basically agree with his premises here, so we can all let our confirmation bias flag fly.
It isn’t as if this will hurt him as DC hates his guts anyway. If he is under investigation and there is something there (needs to be way more there)…then these are the least of his problems.
Trying to kiss ass and play nice would have gotten him nowhere. It is pretty clear at this point he isn’t interested in being what politicos consider presidential.
I find it highly amusing.
It’s not 4D chess, but it’s not stupid, either.
Think about it, if you’re Mueller and you’re quietly putting together an obstruction investigation, are you happy about this tweet? No, you are not.
And if you’re Mueller, and you’re not putting together an obstruction investigation, maybe you start thinking about letting everybody know that obstruction is not the focus of the investigation.
Eh, this helps not hurts him. Everyone including the one’s staging it are getting tired of it all.
Yea i think so too.
Going even farther afield than usual, I bring you today’s teevee review.
I have been watching a show on Amazon called “Banshee”. It is ludicrously, outlandishly preposterous, but it’s entertaining, unlike “House of Lies” which I found to be stupid and creepy.
Banshee I think was originally Skinemax, with gratuitous nudity in every episode! And yeah, I thought it was pretty good mindless entertainment.
My go to Cinemax show is Co-Ed Confidential.
They waste almost 50% of each episode on attempted “acting”.
Make with the boobies already.
Lots of s[t]imulated boning and violence.
What’s not to love?
Banshee was solid work. Preposterous, yes, but fun as hell.
Is It Legal to Shoot Bigfoot?
http://mentalfloss.com/article/87148/it-legal-shoot-bigfoot
South Park did it!
“He’s coming right at us!”
STEVE SMITH SHOOT WHEN FINISHED. NOTE TO HIKERS, MORE THAN 10CC.
Also more 10cc:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtBHfxU2wmc
STEVE SMITH CONSIDER SMALL ARMS FIRE TO BE FOREPLAY.
Well, this is a paradox of sorts. Can it be illegal to shoot a mythical beast? I mean even if it is, there’s no chance of you ever getting charged for something it’s not possible to do.
STEVE SMITH LIKE HAN SOLO ALWAYS SHOOT FIRST.
One of the best articles written about just such an endeavor
Ask the pharmacist if they will give you a refill now if you pay cash.
*pulls up chair, puts popcorn on the stove*
In Florida, and I’m only mildly exaggerating here, the pharmacist and everyone who works in that pharmacy is half-hanged, drawn and quartered, and their remains scattered to the four corners of the state as a warning to others.
Given how draconian our laws are becoming, I’m not even sure you’re exaggerating at all.
And that doesn’t discuss how badly the legislature fucked up the medical marijuana bill. John Morgan’s suing already.
Of course he’s exaggerating. Florida only has three corners, not four.
Cash here meaning as opposed to billing the insurance company, not referring to sliding a C-note under the table to the pharmacist. I learned this with the prescription scheduled pain meds I’m on — there’s no (yet) legal restriction on the refill time, just that the insurance companies set durations until they will pay for a refill.
One time I was nearly out of meds and the pharmacy told me there had been a mistake on their part in the billing, but oops! that meant I’d have to wait two weeks to get a refill. When they told me it was insurance company policy, I asked how much if I’d pay myself. Cost a lot, but better than being in horrible pain for two weeks, that’s for sure.
I had this happen with generic Pepcid, I think, and found out the meds were cheaper than the co-pay.
And avail over OTC.
/Still Pissed.
A link someone posted earlier had a guy pointing out that Charles Blow wrote an editorial in 2011 debunking the entire idea of ‘political rhetoric’ having influenced Jared Loughner.
here, this
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2017/06/fake-news-watch-or-live-from-the-media-coccoon.html
its like the editors have no institutional memory.
i’m pretty sure a lawyer could show that’s proof that the NYT knew their own claims were false, but made them anyway
But they might deploy the devastating “we’re idiots, everyone knows that” defense.
I assume that’s what they’ll do. “When we, people who write for a living every day, realized how others might interpret that totally innocent turn of phrase that in no way implied Ms. Palin conspired with Loughner, we immediately changed it.”
It’s hard to establish malice a forethought when the defense had firmly established themselves to be blithering idiots incapable of forethought.
they might deploy the devastating “we’re idiots, everyone knows that” defense
Ah, the Gawker gambit. Unfortunately, even idiots can be malicious and/or recklessly negligent. That defense works if there is a requirement that people actually believe their lies. Could go to reduce damages, I suppose.
Educating women causes brain tumors?
https://www.livescience.com/55131-brain-tumors-linked-to-education-level.html
nope, the uneducated are just too stupid to realize what is going on.
alternate, If this was the US it would be that the uneducated do not have access to healthcare so the cancer does not get noticed.
Educated women are much more likely to be exposed to third-wave feminism in college, which is known to cause (and be) cancer.
That’s not a tumor. It’s feminism. Feminism just looks like a tumor on an MRI or a PET scan or whatever.
It’s a LINK!!!11!!1!
Iowahawk:
https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/875437341795508224
https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/875393532013551618
The employers of Walter Duranty should be smart enough to know when to shut their mouths about ‘fake news’.
A crime that the NYT has never paid for
I like how he doesn’t have a blue checkmark.
TW: Vox
Comparing People who Move after graduation to those who do not (and how they vote)
Those who stayed in their hometown tend to be less educated, less wealthy, and less hopeful. They tend to be less open to other cultures and less open to immigrants. Ultimately, they tend to be more likely to support Donald Trump.
*snip*
People who stayed at home tend to be younger, whiter, and more male. This is a group that has gotten their fair share of privilege in this country. And in broad, sweeping statistics, it’s a group that holds more regressive views toward marginalized people, including immigrants, minorities, and women. And yes, these factors likely played a bigger part in Trump winning the presidency than economic reasons.
How does this privilege thing work again?
It is your privilege to shut up and die young for the glorious revolution.
Praise the glorious leader or lose your family’s food privileges.
I was confused at how someone could repudiate their own point so badly, but then I noticed Vox.
You understand that Vox is made up of a bunch of paste-eating morons who believe themselves to be as edgy and intelligent as Ms. Paglia and missing entirely both the depth, integrity and originality of her offerings, right? Its Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias who make up the brains of that outfit. Which as best I can tell has only continued to ratify Jeff Bezos’s business acumen at gut laughing when Ezra told Bezos he needed $10M and more freedom at the Washington Post.
To be sure, Robby said that Vox was more unbiased. To be sure
I wonder if he ever looks at the mirror and thinks “Even with the hair, you’re not good enough for Vox. Vox!”
He’s got the garbage clickbait writing style down, but dare I say it, people at Vox may be smarter than him.
The Soave Seal of Approval is basically the perfect indicator of whether something is stupid and full of bullshit.
Did Rico Suave really say that? Jesus fucking Christ, my opinion of him keeps dropping.
I think they’re trying to get this young white cishetoro shitlord to vote for trump next go around. They may actually succeed. And I didn’t even stay at home.
I love the way they equate a group that is “less educated, less wealthy, and less hopeful” with “a group that has gotten their fair share of privilege”. Seems like you should have to pick one or the other.
the privilege is skin color b/c this pink/yellow thing “white” people have going on is the same color everybody wants to paint on their walls. it’s just so cool!
See, they inherited their privilege debt from their parents and grandparents. It was all spent before they were born, but now the debt is due, and they have to pay up.
Forget about it, CPA. It’s Voxtown.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/powder-filled-letters-with-threatening-notes-shut-down-georgia-republicans-neighborhood/
#RESIST
I’m sure we can blame this on violent Republicans somehow!
Tomorrow’s NYT Opinion Piece:
“If Republicans didn’t want to be terrorized by liberals than maybe they shouldn’t live in their communities”
I know I should not have been, but I am a little surprised by all the victim blaming coming from the left after yesterday…
They gotta blame someone, and it sure isn’t going to be the drone who did it.
That reminds me of one of the funnier comments I got this morning in discussing yesterday’s shooting. The person tried to argue that the reason Republicans got shot at is that Donald Trump’s policies made the shooter mad. So, it was Donald Trump’s fault.
You really can’t make this shit up.
I wonder how many votes she gained from this little stunt in the special election.
from the previous thread =
people were talking about the post-facto “rightness or wrongness” of colonialism.
a thought i had:
how would a purist “open-borders” libertarian square views like =
– ‘govts have no right to interfere in the free movement of people across national boundaries’
– ‘govts have no right to interfere with people’s political contributions/organizing
(*both things i mostly agree with)
with an “Anti-colonialist” view that suggests that its wrong for lots of people to relocate to another country and then demand that country implement a govt which is subservient to their own former country of origin
I understand that someone would say that colonialism is essentially an action of 1 government over other sovereign states, not that of individual people acting en-masse; but i think its sort of a cop-out.
Most of the places where colonies are/were set up didn’t have any preexisting government or clear sovereign identity prior to colonization. Many were simply unboundaried territories, where some ‘tribes’ welcomed colonists and benefited from the colonization, and other tribes didn’t (and didn’t). Basically, its hard to make a case that all colonization occurred against the backdrop of a unified opposition by the natives; that simply isn’t the case. And it also wasn’t always the case that colonial governments ‘overthrew’ pre-existing forms of self-rule. In many cases they didn’t exist in the first place.
Anyway, i’m just curious what a Libertarian historian would make of the idea of “anti-colonial” arguments while also trying to rationalize that “people and their money” should be free to roam wherever they want and wield as much influence as they desire. because at first glance, it seems to me (tho i could be wrong) that they’re basically entirely incompatible – that open-borders/weak-sovereignty-libertarianism has basically zero basis from which to argue that Colonialism is a bad thing, or wrong.
Great •
I understand that someone would say that colonialism is essentially an action of 1 government over other sovereign states, not that of individual people acting en-masse; but i think its sort of a cop-out.
A lot of British colonialism, as I understand it (caveat: not an expert) was basically private British people or companies going overseas to settle or do business, and the government arriving later to bail them out or just keep them under its thumb. The initial waves of colonizing in the US went that way, I think. Also India? But like I said, I’m not an expert.
or to protect their interests and valid-contracts, since the british govt still collected taxes on their businesses.
again – that just seems to me to be something perfectly in line with a libertarian view.
I’m not sure where the purist-libertarian would find reason to object to one country wielding its wealth and power to eventually directly subvert the other, provided enough citizens from Rich Country A relocate there.
Theoretically, problem with colonialism is that it was done at the point of a gun. If it was just a bunch of Brits moving into India, say, then Indian governments are in the wrong if they try to stop them.
Only, that’s exactly how colonisation of India went. First, trade posts come up on the coast. Then, traders start moving inland. Then they start making deals with some against others. Eventually some rulers get pissed and react with either laws or straight violence, at which point East India Company reacts and sends its army. They beat the ruler, maybe put the new one in, and arrange a more favourable deal. Move onto the next raja. Then there is a big-ass revolt, government steps in and claims all the EIC possessions, which I guess puts them in the wrong.
well, then isn’t that sort of consistent with my point?
I don’t see where a libertarian objection to colonialism comes from.
I would assume it would have to require something like, “Imperial country A rolling up and pointing guns at Weak Country B and telling them, “be our slaves or else”
but that’s just not how the vast majority of colonialism ever occurred. it usually occurred like you describe – in progressive stages where individuals and businesses relocated to the colony and gradually demanded more support and representation in the local administration
I don’t see where a libertarian objection to colonialism comes from.
Against the pattern describe by Pan, its hard to see.
Even against a more state-driven form of colonialism (say, a country basically runs a coup and replaces the old ruler with one of their own), it kinda depends on the relative libertarian merits of the deposed regime and the new one. Assuming the deposed regimes couldn’t claim democratic legitimacy via elections, etc. doesn’t it come down pretty cleanly to which is a better government?
Even if the deposed regime is democratic, I’m not one of those who thinks democracy = libertarian, so it probably comes down to the same comparison either way.
Note I am talking about a coup here. An outright invasion, war, etc. is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.
wouldn’t that just be injecting some utilitarian excuse for initiating aggression?
wouldn’t that just be injecting some utilitarian excuse for initiating aggression?
Assuming no war, just a coup by one group of rulers over another, its hard for me to say that teh coup and colonialisation are unlibertarian if they make the country more free. That may be utilitarian ends-justifies-the-means stuff, but I’m looking around for anyone whose rights were violated by the coup, and unless you think the deposed regime had the right to rule the country, I’m not seeing one.
Yeah, I was not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that most Libertarians have the same level of understanding of history, international relationships, uses of power and human psyche as Socialists have of economy and human rights….
Speak for yourself
I don’t see where a libertarian objection to colonialism comes from.
I would think “the constant NAP violations”.
but that’s just not how the vast majority of colonialism ever occurred.
Actually, that is how the vast majority of colonialism occurred. South and Central American colonization, Scramble for Africa, Far East colonization were all under that model. Cortez didn’t show up to start a convenience store.
India, Australia and regions that were depopulated by smallpox in North America are exceptions to the rule.
I would think “the constant NAP violations”.
Sure, the “land an army and enslave the locals” model (widely used, as you point out).
But the, call it the Anglosphere, model, does it have any NAP violations that are distinct from the run-of-the-mill NAP violations by any government? Any non-routine NAP violations would arise either in how the old regime was replaced, or perhaps in how the new regime ruled. And I still struggle with the scenario where the new regime results in a more libertarian country as being uniquely bad because the new regime is colonial rather than home-grown.
And I still struggle with the scenario where the new regime results in a more libertarian country as being uniquely bad because the new regime is colonial
Colonial regimes by their very nature are not libertarian. Central planning is always a key part of their function.
You (JT) don’t seem to actually answer this point
‘Central planning’ is a key function of any govt. not sure why that’s a sin unique to colonial powers.
Colonial regimes by their very nature are not libertarian.
They can still be more libertarian than the old regime. I’m not operating in a binary world here, of “libertarian” or “not libertarian”, because I don’t think the world is binary. I’m asking a question about whether a colonial regime can never be considered more libertarian than what it replaces because it is a colonial regime. You seem to be saying that, “by their nature”, they cannot.
I’m looking for the answer, not in the genealogy of of the regime, but in how it governs. I really don’t see how (again, hypothetically), a colonial regime that provides some protections for property and individual rights is less libertarian than a native regime that doesn’t.
In a thought experiment, if the Aztec empire had been replaced by a colonial government run on minarchist principles, would that colonial government be non-libertarian solely because it was colonial? I just can’t get there.
^^What RC said
In a thought experiment, if the Aztec empire had been replaced by a colonial government run on minarchist principles, would that colonial government be non-libertarian solely because it was colonial?
Is the government still harvesting resources and shipping them to the mother country without paying the market price for it, while imposing tariffs on all imports not from mother country? Because if not, how the fuck is it a ‘colonial’ government?
Pan, that may be typical behavior for colonial governments, but I’m not sure its necessary. I couldn’t give you an example of a colonial regime that didn’t act that way. I was trying to get more at a thought experiment to see if colonial governments were always and everywhere, by their very nature and inherently, less libertarian than what they replace.
Would you rather live under the Aztec Empire, or under a colonial regime that acted the way you described? Which is more or less libertarian? Libertarianism isn’t a binary status that you either live in or don’t, its a continuum.
You (JT) don’t seem to actually answer this point
Fair enough. In terms of how they’re managed they tend to be, on average, far more brutal and repressive than some other forms of government. So yes, their NAP violations are distinctly more common than violations by ‘any'(read: better) governments.
‘Central planning’ is a key function of any govt. not sure why that’s a sin unique to colonial powers.
Traditionally colonial states had a fair greater control of the local economy than other forms of government, and also had the nasty habit of creating far more famines.
if the Aztec empire had been replaced by a colonial government run on minarchist principles,
Wouldn’t happen, because that’s not what a colonial government is. A colonial government exists to exploit resources from environment through any means necessary to fuel a greater empire. I.E. The idea of ‘natural rights’ cannot exist in a colonial state, you’re all just numbers/resources to be used to further the colonial production schedule.
And before you start to pull out America, Canada or Australia, those were not colonial governments ruling over a subjugated people, they were effectively new societies being built from the ground up. Not the same thing.
Because if not, how the fuck is it a ‘colonial’ government?
Fucking thank you. Europeans weren’t rolling around the world to spread civilization, colonial states were explicitly economic units. How libertarian can any society be where if you stop funneling your resources to your overlord, or god forbid trade with someone they don’t like suddenly you’re on their shit list?
again – and i don’t mean to hammer this – this is basically saying that its not something inherent in colonialism per se, but simply a phenomenon that “many colonial states” ended up that way.
iow, you’re basically conceding that if they’re NOT more brutal and repressive… then there’s nothing wrong with colonialism as a concept.
Which is why i asked above (which i don’t see you having addressed) whether the so-called “British model” provided any-better a point of discussion than what you characterize as the preponderance of colonies.
So Gibraltar was not a colony?
You seem to be making up definitions for the sake of your argument.
but simply a phenomenon that “many colonial states” ended up that way.
Colonial states exist to enrich the overlord at the expense of the locals. They are, by what their actual nature, guaranteed to be more oppressive and brutal than better alternatives. “Many colonial states” did not end up that way, they all did. Because that is how a colonial state functions. Colonialism always ends up that way, because that is what it is.
you’re basically conceding that if they’re NOT more brutal and repressive
I’m not conceding anything, because they’ve never not be more brutal and/or repressive. It’s a requirement for them to function. You’re basically playing the same semantics game communists play about how their system doesn’t have to be repressive.
Which is why i asked above (which i don’t see you having addressed) whether the so-called “British model” provided any-better a point of discussion than what you characterize as the preponderance of colonies.
What’s there to address? The ‘British model’ still existed as a way to enrich the colonial overlord and still engaged in all the horrors of the typical colonial states. Just because the means of how they got there is different in a few exceptions doesn’t change that they were still fundamentally as terrible as any other colonial state in operation.
So Gibraltar was not a colony?
Gibraltar was a military installation given by treaty. It was not administered by a colonial government, it was administered by the British Navy, and later its occupants were given self-government. Not a colonial state.
You seem to be making up definitions for the sake of your argument.
No, what’s happening is that you don’t know what a colonial state is.
Colonial states exist to enrich the overlord at the expense of the locals.
Not exactly unique to colonial states.
They are, by what their actual nature, guaranteed to be more oppressive and brutal than better alternatives..
Assuming the conclusion here, aren’t you. The question I have been asking is, can they be better than what they replaced and/or anything likely to be on offer, locally, at that place and time.
they’ve never not be more brutal and/or repressive. It’s a requirement for them to function.
This is a comparison against a null set, as far as I can tell. I keep going back to the Aztec Empire. Its hard for me to imagine that it utterly impossible for any colonial government to be less repressive and brutal than an empire founded on constant warfare, theocracy, and human sacrifice. Now, the Spanish probably failed to be an improvement, true.
A better historian than I could probably compare, say, Mughal India (which featured slavery, the caste system, high taxation, etc.) with the British Raj and give some insight into which was more respectful of rights and property. I don’t know enough to say definitively which was more libertarian, but I don’t think its as simple as “colonial = worse than anything else ever in the history of mankind.”
Remember, I’m not comparing colonial rule to an ideal; I’m comparing it to what else was on offer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gibraltar
but not a colony. because all real colonies are only about resource extraction. why? because you say so.
the original point of this conversation (or, why i brought it up in the first place) was actually looking to explore =
“how libertarian ideas about weak-sovereignty (e.g. call it “open borders”) interact with the concept of colonialism
read: ‘concept’. Not some debate about whether the historical record justifies your personal absolutist definitions.
my curiosity here was more to do with how/whether/where libertarian ideas fall apart, as they sometimes do in issues related to international affairs.
e.g. if states ‘should’, according to libertarian views, maintain de-facto open borders to any outsiders… and there is no basis to restrict the political influence that those same outside groups, on what basis does a libertarian argue that its wrong for one state to purposely populate a foreign country in order to eventually control it?
i think if you re-read my original post, you’ll see i wasn’t actually saying, “Every colony was a paradise”, or whatever it was you think you’re arguing about.
but not a colony. because all real colonies are only about resource extraction. why? because you say so.
I didn’t say colonies, I said colonial states. At least use words I actually use when you strawman me. And it’s not ‘because I say so” it’s because historians say so. If you want to argue the nuance of settler vs. exploitation colonialism that’s fine, but you consistently use words broadly and then accuse me of making things up because I disagree with your vagueness.
read: ‘concept’. Not some debate about whether the historical record justifies your personal absolutist definitions.
And thus why you consistently ignore every point I make about how the concept of colonialism itself is anti-libertarian.
i think if you re-read my original post, you’ll see i wasn’t actually saying, “Every colony was a paradise”, or whatever it was you think you’re arguing about.
If that’s what you think my argument is you haven’t been reading what I wrote.
Not exactly unique to colonial states.
But a core part of their function and operation.
Assuming the conclusion here, aren’t you.
Uh, no? A minarchist government is superior to both a communist state, or a colonial one. It’s not assuming any conclusion to recognize some state models are better than others.
Its hard for me to imagine that it utterly impossible for any colonial government to be less repressive and brutal than an empire founded on constant warfare, theocracy, and human sacrifice.
Then you don’t know much about the Aztecs. A ‘middle class’ member of an Aztec client city is a hell of a lot better off, freedom wise, than, as Pan likes to point out, a Pole in communist Poland. Or a member of the casta in early New Spain.
A better historian than I could probably compare, say, Mughal India (which featured slavery, the caste system, high taxation, etc.) with the British Raj and give some insight into which was more respectful of rights and property. I don’t know enough to say definitively which was more libertarian,
Millions didn’t die under the Mughals because of famines engineered by their government.
Fifty million died under the British. Major famines went from one every hundred years event to one every decade.
but I don’t think its as simple as “colonial = worse than anything else ever in the history of mankind.”
Who’s saying that? Communism is still far worse. But like communism, colonialism is at its core fundamentally evil.
Its more that you’ve changed the subject completely.
maybe colonialism wasn’t even the right word, since its sent you off on a pedantic tizzy.
My question was one of how one squares open-borders libertarianism (plus some other ideas) with the idea that its inherently wrong for one nation to effectively gain control over another.
History is littered with examples where countries are wiped off the map when another conquers them. that’s not really what i’m talking about. I’m more interested in the theoretical idea that a nation can simply lose its sovereignty by “infusion” of outside populations + power. Which i’m sure has happened in a few cases, whether you call them colonies or not is sort of irrelevant to me.
The question isn’t whether or not past examples should or shouldn’t be ‘approved of’ by libertarians, but rather whether there’s any basis to object to that process to begin with.
hope maybe that’s clearer. tho probably a waste at this point since its too boring to pursue it further.
maybe colonialism wasn’t even the right word, since its sent you off on a pedantic tizzy.
It’s not a pedantic tizzy, this is part of my former field and education background. These words actually have definitions and meanings. You’re doing the equivalent of wondering why your mechanic is confused and annoyed because you keep telling him to fix the carburetor when what you’re pointing at is the camshaft.
The question isn’t whether or not past examples should or shouldn’t be ‘approved of’ by libertarians, but rather whether there’s any basis to object to that process to begin with.
I think the general libertarian argument is more based on the outcome of the scenario than the actual process itself. Purists probably wouldn’t care about the outcome at all.
that’s pretty much the definition of a pedantic tizzy. you’re more interested in rehearsing arguments made in history-papers than engaging the issue as i framed it.
It’s not pedantic to expect you to use words correctly Gilmore, but god forbid you take any responsibility in your inability to articulate what you wanted to say.
(And yes you can spare me the ‘lol that proves your butthurt’ response)
Actually, the OP was pretty darn clear.
Upon which, we say that the system itself is flawed, as we do with Communism.
And seriously, what’s “colonial” about your thought experiment? There’s a difference between some foreigners coming in, displacing the ruling class and running things from now on, and colonial government (one is subset of another).
The other side of the argument, “what if colonial government is less oppressive than previous one” is really only relevant one generation in at most. Afterwards, you either let in the locals, at which point it stops being a colonial government, or you set up a system of oppression in perpetuity/until they wipe you out. I mean, what’s the Libertarian scale here – what’s “we sometimes sacrifice few people” on that measure to “we enserf the whole lot of you and trade you like property”? Compare tax rates as tiebreak?
Neither of which has much to do with original Gilmore point, and exciting new colonization method, where the colonizer turn up and expect the locals to pay them and house them without putting in any honest effort into conquest, scheming and/or purchasing.
And seriously, what’s “colonial” about your thought experiment?
The native regime displaced for a colonial government.
You will note from my increasing use of the terms “hypothetical” and “thought experiment” that I knew this was coming unhinged from actual practice. Bolded for emphasis. This became more of a philosophical inquiry: if a colonial government is more protective of rights and property than the native regime, wouldn’t it be more libertarian. I have a strong suspicion that, at least in the anglosphere, a better historian than I could come up with more than one decent example of the British colonial government being better than what it replaced.
What I don’t buy is (a) colonial governments, because they are colonial, are inherently less libertarian than any other form of government, and (b) libertarianism is a pure binary, not a continuum.
I’m also struggling with this:
The other side of the argument, “what if colonial government is less oppressive than previous one” is really only relevant one generation in at most.
To my way of thinking, this assumes that during that generation the deposed native regime would have transformed into a (much?) more libertarian regime. My Aztec Empire was never going to let in “the locals” (other than the usual apparatchiks), and were pretty much running a system of oppression in perpetuity. One generation in, I should be able to compare my colonial government with the (probable) state of Aztec Empire governance at that point in time.
By looking at whether the locals are involved, I think you are falling into the fallacy that democracy = legitimate and/or protective of rights and property.
No, I’m saying that 20 years after a murderous regime is displaced, you can no longer use it as an excuse for your legitimacy.
Here’s a variant on your thought experiment: post-45 Communist Regimes in East Europe were far better than Nazi German regime. Post-56 regimes were miles ahead of Stalinist post-45 variant. So I guess technically you can argue that Communist takeover can end up in more libertarian result. So, Communism is compatible with libertarianism?
I’m saying that 20 years after a murderous regime is displaced, you can no longer use it as an excuse for your legitimacy.
What do you mean by legitimacy? Its usually used to mean a government with a certain genealogy (these days, an elected government). But I don’t care about that; I care about how the government acts. My question was, is the colonial regime twenty years in more libertarian than the native regime would have been? Legitimacy isn’t really part of it for me.
Your variant on my thought experiment is an interesting one. The Nazis were worse than the governments they displaced, and actually fit the colonial model of puppet regime + resource extraction pretty well. So do the Soviet successor states. So you’re really arguing that one colonial government can be compared to another on the libertarian scale, which is very close to my argument that a colonial government can be compared to the old regime on a libertarian scale.
There are some confounding factors here, as well – namely, the Nazis never ruled their colonies in anything other than a state of total war. Would I be willing to say that communism is “compatible” with libertarianism? Not really, no. Would I say that the communist puppet regimes were more libertarian than the Nazi puppet regimes? Yeah, I think so. I think there’s a difference; neither was compatible with libertarianism, but the Nazis were better at violating the rights of their colonial subjects than the Soviets.
still doesn’t address the fact that the “british model” seems to mostly avoid your criticisms.
Is British colonialism OK (for reasons mentioned), while the “Spanish model” is not?
Fine, but again, you’re just skipping over all the points i already went to the effort to type. Many of those places had no governments, sovereign borders, etc. in the first place. If there was use of force to establish its claims, it wasn’t done so against any “country” but rather against tribes that happened to be located in the same area. I have a hard time seeing this as inherently “anti colonial” so much as just disagreement with the method of violencee.
still doesn’t address the fact that the “british model” seems to mostly avoid your criticisms.
What do you think “my criticism” are? Colonialism is bad because it’s a brutal regime that crushes dissent, imposes rules on populations without their say, promotes racial segregation and has dysfunctional centralized planning that leads to the deaths of millions. Which the ‘British model’ did. If you can find an example of colonialism where that didn’t happen it’s fine by libertarian standards. But you won’t.
aka “government”
Colonialism is bad because it . . . imposes rules on populations without their say,
I’m not one of those who thinks democracy really confers legitimacy or is a marker for “libertarian”; I think legitimacy comes mostly from how the government behaves, not whether it has the approval of the mob. We’ve all heard the defenses of totalitarian regimes “but they were elected!” by useful idiots (yeah, joe from lowell, I’m looking at you).
I’d rather live under a monarchy that kept its hands to itself than a democracy that did not.
aka “government”
Spare me the snideness. What happens when you complain about Trump or quit your job Gilmore? If the answer isn’t “I disappear into a prison or get publicly punished/executed, and the government forces me to work anyway or cuts off my hand” there many be some kind of nuance here.
I’d rather live under a monarchy that kept its hands to itself than a democracy that did not.
Note that I said ‘imposes rules’ not ‘gets rid of rules’. I expect Americans, historically well known for their issues with rules imposed by colonial overlords, to understand the problem here.
You seem to be saying that all colonies are inherently repressive states, while non-colonies are somehow free of these same things.
they’re obviously not. Your argument above then pivots to, “well many are”, which basically gives up the ghost.
Colonialism isn’t “a regime” at all. You seem to be conflating your selected historial examples with the very idea of ‘sovereign expansionism’. As though there’s never been a single colony which didn’t adhere to your worst-case scenario/
I think maybe you’ve completely missed the reasons for my asking questions about this subject in the first place, which was more to do with libertarian notions of “how sovereignty works” and not some defense of historical colonialism.
I find it interesting that some people evaluate whether a government is libertarian or not based on things other than how that government acts. It is possible, theoretically and I suspect there are examples I don’t know enough to cite, of colonial governments being better from a libertarian perspective than the ones they replaced. To me, that means the colonial government would be more libertarian.
Others seem to be denying that it is even possible to reach that conclusion. Its the arguments on each side that I find interesting. I don’t buy, for example, the idea that local rule or democracy is necessarily more libertarian. Would you rather live in the Aztec Empire, or in, say, colonial America pre-Revolution? If you say colonial America, then I think you are agreeing with me.
You seem to be saying that all colonies are inherently repressive states,
Because colonial states exist to enrich a foreign overlord at the expense of the locals, i.e. their function and very existence is to repress and exploit. Yes, they’re inherently designed to do what they’re designed to do. Now you can snidely declare that’s just “the government LOL” but that entirely ignores how a typical government functions in comparison to how a colonial government does. It’s as unproductive as viewing a modern Western democratic state and a communist state as the same.
while non-colonies are somehow free of these same things.
And now you’re just putting words into my mouth.
which was more to do with libertarian notions of “how sovereignty works” and not some defense of historical colonialism.
You asked what libertarian objections to colonialism are, I don’t think you’re defending it. What I think you don’t get is that colonial governments are not just copies of typical governments, they’re worse because of the fundamental attributes that are a systemic part of how they operate.
To me, that means the colonial government would be more libertarian.
Again, to say a centrally planned state that exists to exploit and repress the locals for the economic benefit of people elsewhere is ‘more libertarian’ is to render the word meaningless. It’s like saying the Soviet Union was ‘more libertarian’ than Cuba. Great, that’s very helpful.
Would you rather live in the Aztec Empire, or in, say, colonial America pre-Revolution?
Not an honest comparison. Again, America is a piss-poor example in this, it’s a society that was built from the ground up, not a colonial state that was managing a subjugated people. So yes, if you murder everyone on a chosen piece of land (and I’m not saying the early Americans did this) and build your own society from scratch it’s ‘better’.
Would you rather live in the Aztec Empire as a mācehualtin (basically a farmer/peasant caste, not sacrificed because that was Flower warriors’ role) or an agricultural slave in Spanish Mexico?
You’re actually rephrasing that for your own convenience
What i specifically said was =
I was not asking “why some libertarians might object to the history of colonialism” ….which seems to be what you’ve turned this into.
to say a centrally planned state that exists to exploit and repress the locals for the economic benefit of people elsewhere is ‘more libertarian’ is to render the word meaningless.
No, its not. Note that this is a comparison – hence the word “more” – a classic colonial extraction government that you describe is not the worst possible form of government ever in the history of mankind. Its possible that it would be better than what it displaced.
Let’s not forget that for most of history, a lot of people experienced their non-colonial government as “existing to exploit and repress the locals for the economic benefit of people elsewhere”. Hell, as we watch Imperial DC metastasize into the wealthiest area in this nation, its starting to feel like the US government fits that definition.
No, its not. Note that this is a comparison – hence the word “more” – a classic colonial extraction government that you describe is not the worst possible form of government ever in the history of mankind.
Yes, and my point is that the comparison is stupid and unproductive.
Ok Dean, the Soviet Union is more libertarian than Cuba…so what?
@Gilmore
I was not asking “why some libertarians might object to the history of colonialism”
Quote: I don’t see where a libertarian objection to colonialism comes from.
I didn’t address your open borders stuff because I’m not an open borders guy. But what I was arguing against was your generally flawed idea of what colonialism entails.
as i said, you changed the subject.
the only reason my generally flawed idea was generally flawed (in your opinion) is because you were interested in debating history
i was interested in talking about the nexus between libertarian open-borders ideas and “how sovereignty is either gained or lost”.
you seem to think that if i describe the thing between those quotes above (“how sovereignty is gained or lost”), as “colonialism”…. then that gives you carte blanche to “correct” everyone and derail the discussion into a debate about your own historical hobby horses.
it hasn’t really helped my original question at all.
if you read the OP where i explained what i meant by the use of that term (asking too much, i know), it should have been clear i was talking about =
“populating a country, and using your growing collective influence to change that country to be more amenable to your country-of-origin”
not your very-narrow-defined-idea of parasitic exploitation by imperial power, or whatever it is.
it would possibly be an interesting topic. too late now, i know, but it might have been leading somewhere.
e.g. i’m sure you’d never consider the migration of millions of muslims into Europe “colonization”, because – duh! – there’s no imperial power, nor program of resource extraction, etc.
However, it would have probably fit within the original idea i was talking about.
*for the record, no i don’t personally think the importation of millions of moozies into europe is going to result in any de-facto takeover, or even of any significant change to the national structure of Europe. but i suspect it will probably make Europe incapable of getting into any hot-war with Muslim countries, out of fear of the violence it might bring to their own streets. i think this is probably already the case.
so while mass-migration might not fit your chosen definitions of ‘colonizing’, i think it raises some interesting questions about how open-borders affects sovereignty.
I was also thinking about how that same open-borders thinking should theoretically work in a more outward-looking sense.
e.g. what would be objectionable with groups of Americans moving en masse to some smaller, more impoverished country, buying up lots of property and businesses, and gradually coming to take the place over. and why not do so intentionally as part of US policy? you can call that “colonialism” if you want (or not). Why would open-borders libertarian object to, say, a US corporations undermining foreign governments, provided they do so with nothing but their wealth, and it mostly benefits the foreign citizens in any case?
iow, i’d think that a proper application of open-borders logic would have some interesting implications for the way “the west” wields influence abroad. It might not fit your conception of colonizing, but i think it would actually make sense to the average kooky lefty who thinks American culture has ‘Colonized’ the world.
As I said above, Aztec Empire or 1963 Krakow? It says little about Communism, doesn’t it?
Jesus, I’ve been Gilmoring this subthread without mercy…
Sorry, G – I think I helped highjack your initial, rather interesting question about open borders.
no worries. you’ve added the most that at least gave me stuff to think about within the same general area.
Ooh, I was just listening to When Diplomacy Fails podcast on Boer Wars, and I remember, this is literally how British planned to take over Transvaal:
-gold is discovered, migrants from UK, America, Germany etc pour into the state
-soon they outnumber to local Boers
-Boers demand four years of residence before migrants can vote
-British decide to stir up a local revolt then march in as “peacekeepers”
Only they fuck it up and send the peacekeeping force in before the revolt starts, get captured and turned over to the British government, and the local organizers are imprisoned, sentenced to death and hanged.
Empire than piles up the troops, demands voting rights for migrants and invades.
During Colonization, the British Empire were very brutal to the locals anywhere they went, those people were/are actually nasty little Fuckers,
I’ve always said this. A purist open borders libertarian can not have a consistent objection to Jamestown and Plymouth. Or to Zionist immigration to Mandatory Palestine.
“8-Year-Old Drag Queen Lactatia Is Giving Essential Drag Advice”
http://www.papermag.com/8-year-old-drag-queen-lactatia-is-giving-essential-drag-advice-2441672511.html
What the fuck….
There is no way that 8-year-old decided to do that on his own.
Is calling child services always antilibertarian because I’m thinking maybe someone should be calling child services.
I really have no idea in a situation like that. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t seems like.
In Ontario, they’d call child services on you if you DIDN’T let a kid do that.
What about a dog in a car? Windows cracked, in the shade, 80 degrees plus. my Son and I saw that yesterday and I wanted to do something, but I thought, is this right? Should I have called someone?
I despise people who would ever do that to a dog BTW
Not sure what Child Protective Services would do about a dog in a car.
Maybe I was a little slow on the uptake, but at 8 years old I didn’t have much of a conception of sex or “gender”. I’m pretty sure I wasn’t entirely alone in that. My guess is that this is almost certainly something the parents are pushing.
My youngest cousin is in that age range and he has no conception of it either. He is flamboyantly feminine even as young as he is and he always wanted to be a Disney princess but I cannot imagine him thinking this up on his own.
Didn’t read but good God, the parents should be run out of town on a rail.
Is it weird that I don’t have a problem with this? I mean, it’s just acting.
+1 Dressed to Kill
+1 Angie Dickinson’s body double loving up a bar of soap.
I was 15 when that came out.
/phrasing
I’m relying on my own bias and complete ignorance here, but it seems like a kid in that situation is being shaped more by their parents views than a healthy curiosity in theater. It feels like there are a lot more ways this can turn out poorly for the kid than being a healthy growing up experience.
Our parents fuck us up and that’s legal.
Dear New York Times: When even CNN is calling you out on your bullshit, you know you done fucked up
Also:
It entirely invalidates the main part of the piece, dumbass.
Godfuckingdammit I really need that klonopin now.
I think you just need more high capacity semiautomatic rifles in your life. I would be happy to sell you some.
I like that everyone is assuming the parents pushed this instead of him having caught a few episodes of RuPaul’s Drag Race and going “fuck yeah, that’s me.”
I guess the second outcome is possible, but the first seems substantially more likely.
I don’t see why. At the same age my friend’s nephew demanded to wear a tiara to school. His parents told him he could but explained that people might give him a hard time because tiaras were usually associated with girls. He wore the tiara and the parents got a call that afternoon that their son was not allowed to bring the tiara in again. “Were the kids roughing him up over it?”
“What? No. The boys kept fighting over who got to wear it next. It was very disruptive.”
I think we jump directly to reading our own childhoods onto contemporary kids but they’re not growing up with the same set of pressures against transgressing “established” gender roles/presentations.
“I think we jump directly to reading our own childhoods onto contemporary kids but they’re not growing up with the same set of pressures against transgressing “established” gender roles/presentations.”
That is a very good point. Now that I’m thinking about it I do have a tendency to blame parents based on my own experience.
Not what I meant by that. Rather the opposite, as in woke parents wanting to impress their peers through their kids.
Reread the anecdote in my post and then interpret that snippet as me not reading you correctly.
I’ll wait here.
Hmmm. What time of day is the Ru Paul show on?
5, 7 and 8pm depending on which channel (had to google that, it’s not my cup of tea). Also whenever someone feels like watching it on their TiVo or streaming on Logotv.com or from VH1.
VH1 still exists?
I think MTV and VH1 are now sister stations in the same media conglomeration, along with LOGO and Nickelodeon.
all because the tabloid media decided to turn some celebrity’s 40 year old sex-habits into a National Story.
What will Asawin Suebsaeng say if the guy turns out to be found innocent? Burn down the business w/ the mural on it anyway?
sigh.
yeah, that wasn’t supposed to go there.
tho i liked this line
“”As the rhythmic drumming continued, Victoria Valentino, a former Playboy bunny from the 1960s who says Cosby assaulted her decades ago, danced to the music on the courthouse steps.””
It’s a way to garner attention as well which may be what the boy needs or desires.
Lactatia? Isn’t that an osteoporosis drug?
No. She’s the muse that Ed Wood claimed showed up in his dreams to give him the special milk that gave him all his good ideas.
You’re thinking of Reclast.
Or Boniva, which I always though was a bit on the nose.
I was at a burlesque show in NOLA once and the MC (a cis-woman) Introduced herself as “Blanche Debris…it means ‘white trash’ in French” I died.
Thats pretty good. I’m storing that away. Some time b4 I die it’s going to make an awesome zinger that 10-20% of the room gets, and the rest of the room will pretend to get it and laugh along pretending like they do.
I thought it promoted bigger Boobies
Here, something I’ll praise Trump for
It says a lot about government that it’s 2017 and they’re still requiring Y2K impact reports (of course, figure in a few years they’ll start requiring impact reports for the Year 2038 problem…)
Isn’t the Year 2038 problem obsolete with 64-bit computing?
I remember when I downloaded the Perl compiler ages ago the even older FAQ had a question: “Is Perl Y2K-compliant?” The answer was, “Yes, but so is your pencil. You can use either one to create things that aren’t Y2K compliant.”
A good laugh…
It gets funnier the more times you watch it.
That’s delightful.
Ferraris, always good for a laugh.
Eddie Griffin + Ferrari also good for a laugh.
I LOLed
I can’t decide if it’s sad or hilarious that a washed-up pornstar has more sense than a senior editor at The Atlantic.
https://twitter.com/jennajameson/status/875085964028149760
Probably fairly typical in this day and age.
Idiocracy is here and now.
I should probably watch that at some point in my life.
Me too. I’ve only seen memes of the movie.
It’s worth watching once. But it’s nowhere near as good as Office Space.
Idiocracy is here and now.
Yeah, but unlike the process envisaged by Judge, the decline of intellect wasn’t pushed by the growth to uneducated rubes, but by a collapse in the intelligence of the educated classes.
We now have a system of “higher learning” that purposefully makes people dumber and more susceptible to really stupid ideas.
Jenna is not stupid. It takes more than tits to turn a porn star into a legitimate celebrity.
Then again, Kardashians, but wait till KK is in her mid 40s and let’s see if she is still making news.
My SIL was doing cosmetics surgery stuff in LA and met her once. In person she is completely different than when on camera. Evidently she is pretty sharp in real life.
KIM K. I mean.
True. She also had a pretty good ass.
BBC – Baltimore: This is what poverty in America looks like
BBC – Baltimore: This is what
poverty in Americaseveral decades of virtually one-party rule by Democrats looks likeOMG, move the fuck out of Baltimore then.
Moving can be expensive, to be honest. Maybe there should be some relocation charity that helps poor people who want to go someplace else get there.
37 players under par right now.
Seems like the whining was premature.
“Camile Paglia is now my go-to black-leather jacketed opinionist. I always find what she has to say original and interesting.”
My sister introduced me to paglia’s work about 25 years ago when she was a women’s studies major (don’t worry, she wizened up a couple of years later, got an MBA from a very high-rated school and is now a marketing executive making tons of money).
I don’t think Trump is under investigation for a number of reasons.
1. Wapo article
– first para mentions that Mueller is NOW investigating trump for obstruction and the scope of probe has changed…whereas later it specifically says it started shortly after May 9 and Mueller picked up the work….which is it?
– the meat was in regards to coats/rodgers being allegedly told by trump to intervene (wapo original story was just say no collusion)….they testified LAST WEEK saying no in a statement and during testimony
– the wapo mentions you typically dont indict and obstruction would be really hard
– the special counsel is a cloak of secrecy so where are the leaks coming from? If the special counsel they are jeopardize their own investigation. If not then they are full of crap
2. What would be obstrution?
– no crime he committed or knew about being covered up i can tell
– Firing comey is within constitutional authority for any reason. McCabe testified that there was no impedance due to firing
– The flynn thing “i hope” is not obstruction. Comey stated he thought it was for what flynn was fired for. It was reported nothing illicit found and no charges for that.
3. Mueller apparently met with Trump to be FBI director 2 days BEFORE he was assigned
4. Why would he let Comey testify if comey was to be his witness?
Mueller’s law firm represents Manafort, Ivanka and Jared K.
I think there is something going on and it doesn’t involve trump
Does anyone remember that wapo article where they claim Comey was using fake intel for the Lynch/DNC?
http://circa.com/politics/comey-privately-told-congress-about-second-confrontation-with-the-former-attorney-general
Are you saying that this “Sensitive piece of evidence” doesn’t actually exist?
Funny, i haven’t heard anyone leak about this to the NYT
What are you responding to? link to the WaPo piece please.
Which one? The Comey using fake intel or their changing coats/rodgers story?
Here is the comey one
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-a-dubious-russian-document-influenced-the-fbis-handling-of-the-clinton-probe/2017/05/24/f375c07c-3a95-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.92d5842e8503
Update from the Potrepreneur front lines:
I think my last update I mentioned how we’d gotten our revenue stream going from our first med harvest, and from a sideline in cloning. I was also waiting on the sell of some property to infuse more capital for the move to recreational.
Welp, we’re out of bud from our first harvest. We’re out of shatter and hash. Later this week we’ll be doing some more processing of the larf and trim to make some RSO oil from our higher CBD strains. We’ve ramped-up the clone game and are turning those at about 1k / 2weeks. The property closed, and I and the Ms. are now debt free except for the house we live in which thanks to idiot housing policies we’re already up about 25% in a year and a half of ownership. It makes taking this gamble even easier.
So, I have a huge chunk of change burning a hole in my savings account and our next biggest obstacle for the Farm is finding land. We’ve had three deals fall through.
1. owner said they were willing to finance. We made an offer at full price with a substantial amount down and a nice interest payment. They tried to triple the interest rate, quadruple the amount down, and ask for 20% over asking price as their counter. We explained to the dumb Russian fuck that while we in Russia the land might negotiate you, that is not how we do things here and he could go take his property and shove it up his ass. He’s been sitting on the land for 9 months unable to sell because it is mostly in a flood plain and nobody else has any use for it.
2. We put in a bid on some nice farmland, an over asking price bid as we knew there were multiple bidders. The sellers had told us that they were taking offers until COB on a given date, and that they’d let us know what position we were in the morning of that day in case we wanted to try to up the offer. They sold it to another bidder without doing that. No biggie, I get it, better offer, you go for it.
3. This one hurts. We were negotiation on a 101 acre property with a house, barn, and shop already on it. Recently cleared timber. It’d have been perfect to plant our own kind of trees there, and with that amount of property…well, that takes this from 7 figures to potentially 9. I’ve spent the last week and a half negotiating the deal with the four sellers and we had it all verbally hammered out, but they hadn’t signed the offer or sent in a counter-offer despite more verbal negotiations. Found out that 1 of the 4 sellers was nervous about the risk of self-financing for 2-3 years and queered the deal after stringing people along.
So the hunt continues. At least the current med grow is humming along and I’m still having the time of my fucking life growing weed, processing it, and trying to build a company. The more I learn about the industry the more convinced I am we are going to kick a bunch of ass as soon as we find the right spot. We’ve hired a grower who has 20+ years experience and he’s really increasing our yields and he and are working together to reduce our input costs. The more of the other operations i see, the more I see that many of the growers are good growers, but they aren’t business people. And even the ones that are well-funded just have angels and VCs that are shoveling money at them w/o doing much heavy lifting, at least on the production end of things.
As always, ask any question you like.
Best of luck in your business. It sounds like you’re making a great go of it.
Thank you!
Worst case scenario is I have to get a regular job again in a year and a half and I’ve got the experience of starting up a company on my resume.
Are you really the head of the Kwik-E-Mart?
You selling equity yet?
No. We’re trying to avoid that at this stage. We /could/. We have people lined up and willing, but at this point our problem isn’t truly capital. We’d need any partners to bring more than cash to the table to be worth it.
The land is the thing, and with it is more about finding land that is the right size and zoning that we can get w/o dumping too much money into the land itself.
You guys want to cry?
Many years ago, a 16 year old kid was given a wonderful car. His parents took the car away from him and gave it to his sister so that she could drive across country. The car broke down, and she sold it for scrap.
50 years later the son of that kid fulfills a promise he made to get the car back to him (it’s not the same car – but same make, model and color).
Nope… no tears at all.
I think.. I think someone is cutting onions in the next cube though…. woo, I can smell it from here… anyway.. I… I have work to do… I gotta go!
How did a father so slim create a son so…not slim?
nvm, watched the video, dad’s got a gut
My position is i find trump highly entertaining, agree with some things (guns, regs, taxes, foreign policy, energy), and hope the lure of the presidency gets less serious due to him. I really don’t understand the never trump cons (who don’t actually get anything done) constantly whining about him and his optics. Who gives a chit about optics?
I like the quote if national review had their way, Jeb would be the nominee and Hillary would be potus. Trump for all his faults helped us dodge a bullet and he is driving the progs beserk such that i can’t see how people dont start getting turned off by their antics. He has gotten a bunch of well off people to reveal their mental instability while doing a lot of things i find agreeable.
Fascinating times.
I’m not a Trump fan, although I do have to say, whatever bad optics he brings to the table, on strictly libertarian grounds of does he leave people alone and not tax them a lot, so far he’s probably in the top third of people in DC. The thing is, from a view of intellectual consistency and integrity of my thought process, I do find it more necessary than not to defend the guy. I hear a lot of accusations, but no evidence. I hear a lot of assertions that either contradict themselves or contradict things I know. It’s like a lot of his opposition is more interested in getting me to sign over my brain to them than convincing me that Trump is a problem.
Had the same problem during Bush the Younger. Except it was even worse. I genuinely hated most of his policies, but for the opposite reasons that most of his critics did. I finally blew up at one girl who just wouldn’t take the hint.”No goddamnit we’re not involved in a racist blood for oil scheme. The biggest problem with Bush is that he’s too much like you, and assumes government can shape society in whatever image it wants…”
A large portion of the GOP’s dream is to one day give a fantastic, well received, statesmanlike Presidential concession speech.
Ed Gillespie cannot wait to concede the gubernatorial election. It’s gonna strike all the right notes. National Review will love it. They’ll even toss him around for Senate, despite the fact that he already fucking lost once to Mark Warner.
How can you possibly agree with him on some things and not on others? That’s a real optoin? Holy Shit.
Russian Hacking So Insidious, they are trying to surrepticiously break into people’s computers to get info that is ALREADY JUST LYING AROUND IN THE OPEN IN PUBLIC DATABASES
“surreptitiously”
meh
I like it as a portmanteau of “surreptitious” and “delicious”.
If my last name was Mantu, I would definitely want to own a port. It’d be frikkin awesome.
That’s translated as syruptitiously for our Canadian readers/contributors.
Booooooo….. Hissssss
Sirreptitiously others our female Glibs; fortunately, they don’t exist.
Mr. Lizard will sometimes behave surreptiliously.
My people are not exactly a bastion of subtlety
Oh, bravo, Zero.
Oh. Em. Gee.
*geeksplosion*
Probably too late, but signed up.
Saw N106AS at the Carolinas Air Museum last month! If you go to Tokyo, you’ve got to do ANA and JAL’s hanger tours at HND.
ANA and JAL have some nice planes! Tickets go on sale June 18, so you’re good. They said they sold out very quickly last year, though.
Did I ever mention I have a key chin that is a piece of the Gimli Glider?
If you did, I must have missed it. There’s something about airplane disasters I find fascinating if a little disconcerting. I was in a hotel one time watching this and realized I was flying the next day.
Love that show! Pretty sure that’s where I heard about Gimli. The scariest one to me was the episode on Aeroperu 603. A piece of fricken tape.
I flew this route in April, as AS223. I know it’s silly and there have been probably 5000 flights since then without incidence and it’s a 737 now not a MD80 but I was happier than usual to be on the ground safely.
“AAviation”
Is this NOT the meeting for flying alcoholics?
This can’t be true. Somebody please reassure me this isn’t true
Parents my age are the fucking worst.
I’ve seen along the lines of “do you want up?” and similar but I always took that as a way to teach babies to communicate their needs than anything permission based.
Also, “I want everyone to know how much I respect my child’s wishes…here are a thousand pictures posted on Instagram without his consent”
I’m pretty sure everyone knew how much my parents respected my wishes. Which was, not at all, and they didn’t care who knew.
I remember those days.
Things I never heard…
What do you want for dinner?
Do you want to sleep in?
Don’t worry about those chores.
We were all so abused back then. Why, my Mom would kick me out of the house and tell me to go find something to do until the streetlights came on.
If you want dinner, be home for it.
Do you know what they call you? Late for dinner.
Sorry, but infants are too young to actually have wishes. And especially too young to have wishes informed with any worthwhile value. That’s why parents are supposed to act as their agent.
My pediatrician asks permission to touch my kids. I find it odd, his lawyers probably find it necessary.
My pediatrician asks permission to touch my kids.
Utterly unnecessary, unless when he says “touch your kids” he means it the way OMWC does.
If they really wanted to combat rape culture they’d ask em if it’s ok to fuck em. But that sounds kinda gross.
If anyone would like to overdose on derp, read this tweet from Stephen King and the replies to it
The media’s as much behind these shootings as anything. For example, the Sandy Hook shooter was deliberately seeking the publicity and notoriety he knew the liberal medial would happily grant him.
Does that mean we should get rid of free speech? Fuck, no.
This coming from a guy who wrote a novel about a guy who was an unrecognized hero for killing a politician.
really?
I thought he was just fucking nuts. i don’t recall any “i wanna be famous” stuff.
You apparently cannot be in any type of entertainment anymore, even writing, without getting permanent brain damage and a total inability to put it on display. I really do like the comments like ‘I live in the UK, I’ve never seen a criminal with a gun’. Gawd, these people are stupid.
Y2K?
NOTHING LEFT TO FUCKING CUT! THE CUPBOARDS ARE BARE!
Mulvaney said he hopes that by publicly eliminating the rules, departments and agencies will be inspired to review their own policies and procedures to reduce inefficiencies.
Bwaaaahahahahaaaaaaa…….. You’re killing me Smalls.
Yeah, that was quite hysterical. They really just want so much to eliminate their totally worthless job so that they have to find a job that requires them to actually do something productive where they might be held accountable for something. And there you have one of your main reasons for the ‘resistance’.
Headed into denver to pick up a used weber 38 off a fj40 that is having a full restoration.
I shouldask if the engine is coming out.
I hope that you’re not raped by the reefer zombies in that den of iniquity. Only Sessions can save them.
So I arrived at the owners home a few minutes before he did. He texted me saying he’d be a little late, i was as well. Theres a truck in the driveway, so i figure he just got home. I ring the doorbell, and only hear a dog barking.
So i hang back for a few.
5 minutes later, he and his wife pull in. We shake hands and he opens the garage. Great looking seafoam green fj there, half apart.
We get to talking and walk back outside the garage
Two cops walk up and asks if hes the homeowner.
Asks if he has a roommate. “My wife and son?”
His 16 year old heard me ring the bell, then heard the door open. Got scared, called the cops and opened the gun safe.
There were 5 cop cars, 7 cops, and one on a motorcycle.
Jesus. Why didn’t the kid answer the door? Where they freaky people of the SJW variety?
The mom might be. The dad was a retired army guy, maybe 50. Seemed pretty libertarian/right.
No idea on why the kid didn’t answer. I know i answered the door at thag age while home alone. It was what, 545?
RE the NY Times correction: I have been stewing on this all day since the morning links. So that dick weed went to shoot a bunch of people who have different political views than he had. The dude was a 99% vs the 1%’r. He thought he was due something because he was what he was by his choices in life, or whatever, shit happens he had the short end of the stick. He believed the words of those who said the evil people on that baseball diamond where going to deny people healthcare (Bernie Sanders said those things) so, he went to kill them. Nobody in this country is denied healthcare. The debate is who should pay for ones healthcare. You pay your own bills or someone else pays your bills. It is as simple as that. Fuck the NYT and fuck any progressive/Bernie/all of the Democrats in Congress/media who say, “people are going to die”. We all are going to die you assholes. Hopefully not at the hands of someone who wants our money too. And for the record, I have no money. I am of the 99%. But I pay my own bills. I would just like to pay my bills and not the bills of assholes like that motherfucker who went to kill people over politics and not getting enough free shit. Fuck him.
/end rant
*raises glass*
A day care owned by a state representative left a kid in a van all day. The kid died and because the rep is a Republican and opposed a rule increasing the required number of CPR certified staff in day cares, the local progs are calling for blood.
Not sure leaving kids in vans is covered in CPR training, but there is prog logic. Also, apparently the only stopping child genocide is laws against murder.
You saying you’ve never wanted to kill a kid, but then stop because you remembered it was illegal.
A day care owned by a state representative left a kid in a van all day.
Jesus. They’ll be sued out of existence.
That’s a major pillar of “prog logic”. Even if some proposed law would not have had any effect whatsoever, it’s still imperative that we pass it anyway. It’s the same reason that after a shooting, they call for expansion of background check laws even though the shooter had nothing on his record that would have prevented him from purchasing a gun.
WHAT’S YOUR PROPOSAL!? “DO NOTHING”?! TYPICAL! AT LEAST THIS IS TRYING
/literally the response i’ve gotten every time i point out a stupid lefty idea