Search results

Y'know what's even better? Life without parole. But the death penalty isn't intended to be "better" or "worse" than a long stretch as a guest of the state. Think of it as returning a defective (semi)human to the producer. The recidivism rate of those who've experienced the death penalty is...

Don't forget "and everything else."

His very own YouTube channel? Wow, that's badass. For Briddish values of badass, anyhow.

Well. . . some of them look kinda-sorta normal. For Briddish values of "normal," that is.

I was thinking more along the lines of "Papers, please!" But one leads to the other.

Lock 'em up and "therapize" 'em until they start giving the answers you demand. Then talk about how "free" your society is. Straight out of the Soviet playbook.

In which a bunch of White guys who owned land, in a stunning moment of blind ignorance to their breath-taking hypocrisy, added the Virginia Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Most of them owned slaves. One of them kept his wife chained in the cellar. Every swingin' dick amongst 'em firmly...

Yep. Declaring people mentally ill is the very best way of shutting them up. In asylums. Involuntarily. The Soviets did that a lot. I'm sure you approve.

There y'go. Straight out of the fascist playbook. "I need your ID so I can tell if I have cause to arrest you!" Fuck you. It's all just "Papers!"

Yep, and all righties. . . oh, excuse me. . . "conservatives." Simple fact is that both sides have tried to restrict speech.

Yeah, I know. Like the feelings of those who insist "there are only two genders" and want to apply coercive power to force everybody to agree or shut up. When you reach for a gun, or handcuffs, or the keys to a cell, you're nothing but a damn thug. Even if your excuse is "protecting THE...

Yup. Because calling speech you disagree with "lies" and banning it under coercive power is the oldest trick in the fascist playbook.

I would suggest that some sort of "freedom of speech" principle might cure this, but like most Canadians, you want freedom of speech only for those who agree with you.

You're right, of course. People have no rights until they prove conclusively they're in the country legally. The burden of proof lies on whomever agents of the state feel like snapping up.

I favor calling it the "thumb tax." It's honest, because everybody's got thumbs, and everybody's gonna pay it. It's also a not-very-clever play on words, and therefore suitable for a not-very-clever government.

Of course. As long as they get somebody, the Constitution doesn't apply.

Yes, of course. You need somebody to hate.

True. Only the Dear Leader can SAVE us! It's not even you country, dude. Why don't you save your concern for Canaduh?

I agree completely. I wish Obama had done this. . . I think it would have been done better. But Trump won, fair and square, by the time-honoured method of appealing to the basest feelings and motivations of Da Peepul. We're stuck with it for four years or until the Grim Reaper casts his veto...

Now that I'm old and grey, I've been mistaken for Hispanic. I've had a cop start his thing with me in Spanish, obviously very proud of his skill. I looked at him, and emulating the "Ugly American" tourist, said slowly and loudly "DO. . . YOU. . . SPEAK. . . ENGLISH?" Fucking moron.