SHARE
We're not sure that's how shotguns are put together
The Dark Knight has a lot of problems with you people

The American Civil Liberties Union has decided it will no longer defend the right of extremist groups to parade around with guns, because while the ACLU is all about free speech, even for nasty horrible ugly speech, the ACLU sees no reason to defend people walking around ready to shoot people with anything more lethal than a dirty look. The ACLU’s Virginia chapter had helped the organizers of Saturday’s “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, to get a permit for their march, and also fended off a city attempt to move the event a mile away, arguing in court that the city was motivated by opposition to the rally’s message, not primarily a concern for public safety.

The ACLU might be regretting that today.

The ACLU is of course famous (or infamous) for defending the rights of free expression for those with hateful or extreme views, like the 1978 case in which the ACLU sued for the right of a neo-Nazi group to march in Skokie, Illinois, where a large number of residents were Holocaust survivors and their relatives. The organization has long held that the First Amendment would by weakened by any restrictions on free speech based on the content of that speech. It hasn’t always made them popular with their usually liberal supporters; about 30,000 people dropped their memberships after the Skokie case. During WWII, the ACLU defended the speech rights of pro-fascist groups, and during the ’50s, it defended communists.

ACLU executive director Anthony Romero explained the decision to no longer take cases involving groups that want to pack heat to the Wall Street Journal:

“The events of Charlottesville require any judge, any police chief and any legal group to look at the facts of any white-supremacy protests with a much finer comb,” said Mr. Romero […]

“If a protest group insists, ‘No, we want to be able to carry loaded firearms,’ well, we don’t have to represent them. They can find someone else,” Mr. Romero said, adding that the decision was in keeping with a 2015 policy adopted by the ACLU’s national board in support of “reasonable” firearm regulation.

Romero said the ACLU wouldn’t automatically refuse to deal with any particular group, but would continue to assess requests based on the free speech issues at stake, saying “It’s neither a blanket no or a blanket yes.”

Officials from California ACLU branches elaborated in an online statement,

If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution[.]

Romero argued that a display of firearms at a protest march is likely to intimidate those who disagree, thus suppressing open expression of ideas. If Nazis want to march, they can march, but they’ll get no litigation help from the ACLU if they’re planning to create an uneven debate stage. No bringing guns to a free speech fight.

The WSJ piece notes that courts are divided on whether the Second Amendment ensures any rights to carry weapons in public:

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at University of California, Los Angeles, said federal judges may deem protest areas to be sensitive places, like schools, where the U.S. Supreme Court has said governments can impose firearm restrictions.

Or like convention centers where the NRA is meeting.

A number of people who joined the ACLU after Donald Trump won last year’s election have complained that the Virginia ACLU was supporting Nazis’ free speech rights, assuming that the ACLU was primarily a liberal outfit since it’s opposed the Trump travel ban and other actions Team Trump has taken to restrict civil liberties. Instead, they’re good old First Amendment absolutists, arguing that if the government can restrict Nazis from marching in one case, then a more conservative government might be emboldened to crack down on unions or groups supporting immigrant rights. Chris Hansen, a retired senior staff counsel for the ACLU, said the organization’s insistence on free speech for repugnant views wasn’t universally accepted by members following the 1978 Skokie case:

It turned out to be a huge surprise to many people who support the ACLU who thought of us as another liberal do-gooder organization[.]

We’re all for the ACLU’s new position. Gun humpers are always saying the Second Amendment is the foundation of all the others, and it looks like the ACLU is taking them at their word. If you want marches for people with minds that hate, a rifle or pistol’s not needed for the debate.

Yr Wonkette is supported by reader donations. Please click the “Donate” clicky and don’t bring your guns to town.

[WSJ (try the Twitter link to sidestep the paywall) / TPM]

$
Donate with CCDonate with CC
  • OddMan
  • ArgieBargie

    Breaking: Steve Bannon leaving White House to spend more time sucking his own cock
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/politics/steve-bannon-trump-white-house.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

    (must credit The AV Club for the headline)

    • Bill D. Burger

      Poor Republicans: The Party of Lincoln Rockwell weeps!

      (*BTW: Bet he hasn’t seen that his dick in years, and, at the least, now he can spend time looking for it.)

      • Oblios_Cap

        That party’s time has long since passed. This is Reagan’s wet dream of a party.

        • Bill D. Burger

          Motherfucker Rockwell founded the American Nazi party and the Republicans own him. I’m damned tired of them calling themselves the Party of Lincoln and this goes a long way to correct that joke.

          The fucking Republican Party today IS The Grand Old Party of Lincoln Rockwell.

    • wide_stance_hubby

      I bet this will be repeated billions of times this weekend.

      • mardam422

        Well, in fairness, if I could suck my own cock I’d never leave my own house.

        • wide_stance_hubby

          IKR?

    • He got the Bannonhammer of Nazi Correction.

      • Raan

        Apparently, it wasn’t​ for being an actual Nazi, but for contradicting Pelagius III on North Korea.

        • Oblios_Cap

          Trump’s more like Lrrr of Omicron Persei 8.

          • Raan

            Lrrr was competent.

          • Arolpin

            And his wife didn’t obviously loathe him.

        • Cat Cafe for the Prosecution

          Which I’m pretty sure was 100% deliberate–saw he was about to go, decided to do it on his terms

    • Monsieur_Grumpe

      Life is good,the sun seems a little brighter, kittens are fluffier and my car started.

      • ahughes798

        I knew something was in the air….I had to go to court today because I totalled my friend’s car on the way back from dropping her off at the airport. A Mack truck hit me on the driver’s side bumper, which caused me to spin across the whole front of the semi, blew the passenger side window out and into my face, and when we came to rest, I was facing southbound in the northbound lanes of 294. Our driver’s side windows were almost side by side by the time we stopped. I had one small scratch on my upper arm. So, at court today the State Trooper didn’t show up, the truck driver didn’t show up, and the airport bus driver he hit didn’t show up. Tickets dismissed!

        • Monsieur_Grumpe

          !!!!!!!

    • Treg Brown
    • Cock Blockula

      His replacement will be David Duke.

      • Christopher Story

        Nah. Kelly won’t let that happen. And Donald Trump loves sucking up to his generals.

    • Raan
      • wide_stance_hubby

        HA! I was just singing that to myself!

  • Treg Brown
  • proudgrampa

    Who’s got the GOOD! Kitty meme?

  • Indiepalin

    Boston is expecting a pirate ship full of nazis.

  • Oblios_Cap

    Or like convention centers where the NRA is meeting.

    Or GOP Conventions.

  • Carpe Vagenda

    I was actually OK with Skokie. I was absolutely not OK with the ACLU looking at what happened at Berkeley, where there was right out there in public planning for criminal assault, and deciding to ignore it.

  • janecita

    Well, my usual Christmas donation to the ACLU, is going to the SPLC this year. They do a great job tracking down all these extremist organizations.

    • marxalot

      Also the National Lawyers Guild, which provides lawyers in civil disobedience cases and has been doing good work on Muslim Ban cases, doesn’t represent fascists and could use a few bucks.

  • ltmcdies

    but trolling Nazi with a tuba is awesome..

    https://twitter.com/riotwomennn/status/898373115708878849

    • Vincent Ricola

      This tuba player is my America.

    • The Wanderer

      Magnifico!

    • doktorzoom

      Power, Money, Persuasion, Supplication, Persecution–these can lift at a colossal humbug,–push it a little– crowd it a little–weaken it a little, century by century: but only Laughter can blow it to rags and atoms at a blast. Against the assault of Laughter nothing can stand.

      — Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger Manuscripts

      • Cat Cafe for the Prosecution

        Well look at you with yer book larnin’ and all

      • Oblios_Cap

        There’s a lot of Twain’s work that isn’t common knowledge, what with his writing being somewhat subversive and all.

        • ahughes798

          Read his book of short stories, if you haven’t already. He had a pretty twisted sense of humour.

        • Paul

          Probably his most subversive work is “The War Prayer” and it used to be really hard to find, back in the day, before the internet. It was NEVER published , even in books claiming to be “Complete Short Stories” of Twain. He knew it’d make heads explode and wouldn’t allow it to be published until after his death. Even then, his powerful story was too “divisive” for his agents/editors to include in any anthology.

          Back in the early 70’s we read it in a “History of War” class at UMASS, taught by a retired special forces officer who had become thoroughly disillusioned in Viet Nam. He had to scour high and low to find the damn thing for us, and the book never arrived at the bookstore till the semester was almost over, being that hard to locate.

          Thank the FSM for the intertubes, here it is. Really short, take a few minutes to read it, if you haven’t yet. You’ll see how it could make heads “splodey.”

          https://warprayer.org/

          • Oblios_Cap

            I’ve got it on the bulletin board in my office.

          • Paul

            Tremendous. What are people’s reactions?

            Are you a teacher/professor? (If I may ask?)

          • Oblios_Cap

            Just a wage slave working in the public sector. Most people don’t know what it is or spend the time reading it. They would just believe I was a lunatic, because there is no sense in what it says…

          • Paul

            We’re all lunatics on this bus.But we do make sense.

      • Biel_ze_Bubba

        NYT had an article on exacty that: how a town in Germany laughs these goons out of town whenever they show their faces.
        How to Make Fun of Nazis

    • SDGeoff3

      I’ve been waiting for some nice person to post this again!
      Thank you.

  • Villago Delenda Est

    I’m glad the ACLU has seen the light on this.

    Voltaire never met Reinhard Heydrich.

    • ltmcdies

      I wish i could like this about fifty times

    • Cat Cafe for the Prosecution

      I know, this has been driving me insane since Skokie.

  • freakishlypersistent

    Okay fine. Nazis now?

  • Sort of OT: The Klan’s trying to get a permit to march in Durham this afternoon. There are reports that the City Manager has denied the request, but it hasn’t been confirmed.

  • Resistance Ftr PuckStopsHere

    The New York Times article says Trump is trying to decide how to fire Bannon. Uh, I dunno, Tweet?

    • ltmcdies

      Ok that’s hilarious from the Apprentice guy

    • wide_stance_hubby

      If only he could find the 2 words. . .

      • elviouslyqueer

        I bet Bannon has at least two words for him… the second one being “You.”

        • wide_stance_hubby

          [furiously rearranging Scrabble tiles. . .OH, MY!]

    • Resistance Fighter Callyson

      What, does Bannon have the pee tape? How hard is it for a competent POTUS…oh, I see the problem.

    • The Wanderer

      MSNBC is saying now that Bannon’s out.

    • Bill D. Burger

      Coulda’ just poured slop on the outside of any WH gate, yelled “SooooWeeeee” and when Bannon went for it…slam the gate shut.

      • Christopher Story

        A couple fiths of gin would’ve done the same trick

      • Beanz&Berryz

        That’s unkind.

        • Bill D. Burger

          Too harsh? ___ Ima’ baaaad man. ;)

        • Christopher Story

          So are Nazis.

          • Beanz&Berryz

            I’ve adopted the Susan Collins form of “unkind,” meaning also true, so kinda a polite society acknowledgement of it being unkind, but it’s true so really it’s ok.

          • Jamoche

            Is there a German compound for that? We could use one.

      • Vagenda of Rebel Scum

        Pried the top off of a barrel of bourbon and set up a large electric fan. Is that kinder?

  • Ryan Denniston
    • Cat Cafe for the Prosecution

      I mean, great, but Romney actually is trying to positioning himself for 2020

      • Oblios_Cap

        Isn’t he tired of losing?

      • Ryan Denniston

        Save us Mittens, you’re our only hope!

  • Lyly Sirivong

    If you want to protest with a gun, why does it have to be loaded ? Unless you want to kill someone ?

    • Christopher Story

      And that’s the REAL gun control argument: “These liberals are infringing on my right to get to have to kill someone. Tyranny!”

      • SDGeoff3

        TRANNY!!

        • Christopher Story

          Morans!

          • WotsAllThisThen

            LIBETY OR DEATH! No wait, not death, what’s that other thing? Oh yeah crying on youtube about maybe getting arrested.

          • SDGeoff3

            Hands down, I think that’s the best of the lot.

        • ahughes798

          Or Libety!

    • Bill D. Burger

      Perpetual compensation for little dicks?

    • Bobathonic

      Because the fantasy is to kill someone with it.

  • Wuulf

    1st amendment defends “the right of the people to peaceably assemble” . An armed mob is not a peaceable assembly.

    • Covfefe

      No! No! No! There is no split infinitive in the Condtitutional language. It’s “peaceably to assemble.”

      • TEX Dept. of Space Tacos

        since it’s obviously an important point…what the hell is a split infinitive?

        I’m being serious…

        • It’s where you interject an adverb in between the infinitive part of the verb (to XXX VERB). To Quickly Run <- Split infinitive. To Run Quickly <- Not split infinitive.

          • TEX Dept. of Space Tacos

            sooo, basically tis’ an adverb that could work with either word (or clause) on either side of it, rather than clearly applying to one clause or word?

          • Split infinitive is when you actually break up the verbal clause (to verb) by interjection the adverb in between. It also applies to past tense forms had run vs. had quickly run.

          • TEX Dept. of Space Tacos

            hmmm, the first example was clearer, but thanks for attemping.

            (I’m dumb on a good day, and I’m tired)

          • NastyBossetti

            It’s not the adverb itself that is a split infinitive. It is the act of splitting a verb clause by inserting another word into the middle of it.

          • Covfefe

            It’s better than that. English verb forms are spelled as if they were two separate words instead of one word. Any insertion of another word between the two parts of the verb constitutes a split infinitive.

          • TEX Dept. of Space Tacos

            okay, that’s clearer. Thanks.

        • WotsAllThisThen

          a holdover from old Latin, when infinitives were single words.

        • Jamoche

          It’s applying Latin grammar rules to English. There was a big fad for that back in England – Victorians, IIRC. Of course a Latin infinitive is a single unsplittable word.

      • Wuulf

        Oops

      • Wuulf

        Thanks. I edited it. Now it’s right.

  • marxalot

    Indeed, an armed group set on expressing their views and intimidating those holding opposing views, through direct or implied threats of violence, is inimical to the very idea of free speech and oppositional to the exchange of ideas. Intimidation isn’t speech, it’s Going Prepared to Cause an Affray.

  • Zippy W Pinhead

    The big problem for the ACU is that many states have laws against marches while armed

  • Covfefe

    “The right of the people peaceably to assemble. . . . .”

    Also too. Notice that there is no split infinitive in the Constitutional language.”

    • Cat Cafe for the Prosecution

      Greetings to you, fellow Pedant! Welcome!

    • WotsAllThisThen

      Don’t get me started or I shall be forced to start quoting from David Foster Wallace’s “Authority and American Usage”

    • Royal Ugly Dude

      Grammar Nazis are invited to boldly go fuck themselves.

      • Wuulf

        That is the exact quote from the text of the 1’st amendment.

    • CottonBlimp

      Do you think people remember that line having a split infinitive because it sounds better that way?

      Stop trying to force Latin rules onto English. I’ll end a sentence with a preposition whenever I feel like!

  • MynameisBlarney
    • TEX Dept. of Space Tacos

      wow…i seriously seriously doubt that.

      • MynameisBlarney

        Yeah, fake pewp, sure.
        But real doots would be a biohazard.

        • TEX Dept. of Space Tacos

          that was my thought – but it’s day two of the great sleep schedule realignment (and i ran out of my meds for this crucial days), so I sleepy and grouchy.

          Thanks.

      • WotsAllThisThen

        A constitutionalist would argue that any sovereign citizen has a right to send the product of their morning constitutional, be it the person, individual, or settler.

    • Bill D. Burger
    • Bobathonic

      Cartman LLC?

    • Angela Ruzzo

      Well, now, the USPS has a list of hazardous materials that you can’t send by US mail, generally defined as “any article or substance designated by the U.S. Department of Transportation as being capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, or property during transportation.” I would think that poop would be on this list, but maybe not if you package it correctly??? Perhaps they don’t use the USPS? I wonder what UPS and FedEx think about this.

      • MynameisBlarney

        Well, I’ve sent oil and coolant samples via UPS and USPS.
        Packaged properly, they wouldn’t care probably.

        • Angela Ruzzo

          I had hard Italian salami, pepperoni and Romano cheese shipped to me in Louisiana from St. Louis (couldn’t get them there), and some people would consider those to be hazardous materials. They used dry ice.

  • Zippy W Pinhead

    “If you want marches for people with minds that hate, a rifle or pistol’s not needed for the debate.”

    The lost third verse, eh Dok?

    • doktorzoom

      It was hell trying to make that come close to scanning.

  • Mavenmaven

    The ACLU will also no longer defend protestors carrying tiki torches, as those are just tacky.

    • WotsAllThisThen

      The right to tacky speech is protected by the Constitution. However, carrying fire in a crowded theater is not.

      • elviouslyqueer

        The right to tacky speech is protected by the Constitution.

        “Thank heavens for that!”

        — Paula Deen, probably.

        • Raan

          Also unrestricted by the constitution: butter.

        • ahughes798

          Sandra Lee, definitely.

    • Bill D. Burger
    • Paganish

      Pine-pitch torches, D&D style, or GTFO

  • Cat Cafe for the Prosecution

    They should have done this with Skokie, too. Skokie was where this started in post-war America.

    • Zippy W Pinhead

      I’m glad they drew the line where they did. Skokie was a peaceful march that didn’t involve a bunch of armed yahoos. This was different.

      • Cat Cafe for the Prosecution

        I have always said that once a group has murdered millions and millions of innocent people in cold blood, they lose their right to free speech. It was horrifying and legitimizing and I say that Nazis have no right to free speech after what they did. Germany knows it. Germany doesn’t tolerate it. I lost almost all my extended family to the Nazi slaughter, one side “liquidated” in the Lodz ghetto, another side, god knows what.

        My dad barely escaped on the Kindertransport, my grandmother actually was deported to Auschwitz but was one of the ones who somehow survived, my mother was in London and worked on the Enigma machine but HER extended family in Poland and Russia was liquidated, and with every ounce of my DNA-that-survived-Auschwitz I will denounce all Nazis and anyone who espouses Nazism to the end of my days. No free speech for brutal, anti-humanity, grotesque criminals, or their “sympathizers.”

        I think Americans who think otherwise, who didn’t experience this for what it is, in their own families and recent past, are well meaning but terribly naive and ultimately unwittingly enabling. This is how Hitler rose to power to begin with–naive people (like Chamberlain, or the French government) simply unable to fathom the real brutality and meaning of who he was.

        Not meaning to attack you, sorry if this is impassioned, but I feel deeply, powerful, primally strongly about this.

        • Zippy W Pinhead

          I truly do get the loathing- it’s well deserved. My only problem is that in Skokie it was neo Nazis and it’s difficult to legally claim that they are the same people as the ones from Germany, despite the obvious resemblance.

          • miss_grundy

            The Skokie Nazis share the same ideology. They wanted to march in Skokie because it was a Jewish suburb of Chicago. Many of the Jews who lived there had survived the Holocaust and the Third Reich. They wanted to get in their faces and they knew that the Jews would be upset.

          • Zippy W Pinhead

            While that’s all true, it doesn’t justify deying them their 1a rights.

          • miss_grundy

            The ACLU made sure they were able to have their First Amendment rights and those Nazis were able to march. But it had to be particularly galling for the Jews who had escaped or survived the Holocaust to have these people marching in their own town. And I sympathize with the people of Skokie. For them, having these idiots marching and extolling a philosophy that wiped out their families would be hard to stomach. Today’s NAZIS just want everyone to be under their boots and want to use guns during their exercise of free speech to intimidate those who protest them or perhaps use deadly force to stop protests.

          • Cat Cafe for the Prosecution

            I know. I do get the other point. I just don’t think that anyone waving swastikas in support of the actual Nazis in Germany should be allowed to spread their fetid murderous hate. Anywhere.

            There’s no “Nazism lite.” American Nazis, then, and now, and in the 1930s and 1940s, are marching in cheerful support of people who slaughtered my family, who destroyed my father’s ability to be the happy young kid he once was, who forced him to leave his beloved mom as a young teenager, not knowing if he’d ever see her again, on a train full of terrified children leaving their fainting, weeping mothers, going to a country where they didn’t even speak the language; who let my father’s father die on an operating table on purpose and sent his sweet, kind mother to be gassed to death (only for her to be thankfully liberated, weighing 75 pounds and riddled with typhus, and with stories that would make you weep forever).

            They are marching to cheer people who slaughtered millions upon millions, who made little kids just like any little kid you know in your family, kids so trusting that they held their hands on the way to being made to dig graves in a forest and then machine-gunned them into them, people who brutalized cities and small towns, who slaughtered entire villages, people who callously gassed or shot friends and neighbors and kindly old men and women, who bashed people’s heads in with shovels in their own businesses, who strung up teenagers with piano wire just for shits and giggles, who starved and tortured and enslaved and murdered in the most heinous, barbaric ways, and I don’t see why I have to be okay with that, or sit still while someone says “YAYYY wasn’t that the best let’s have more of that, hey let’s march THROUGH A JEWISH NEIGHBORHOOD and cheer for it.”

            They are supporting barbarianism. They are ENABLING barbarianism. They are the cheering crowds that lined the streets for Hitler. They are the grinning SS officers who pulled the Zyklon B levers. They are all the same.

            I condemn them. They have no place in civilized society. These atrocities happened in REAL LIFE to REAL PEOPLE. To MY family. I contend, if it happened to you, you would feel the same way, and the fact that people don’t is a brutal statement of a lack of awareness and empathy. I’m sorry, I feel really strongly, for the reasons I’ve stated, and I’m not attacking you, because many people feel like you, but I truly, truly, truly think they are horrifically wrong.

        • Natalie Au Natural Hedonist

          My condolences to you. My father helped in the liberation of the camps, he told us, if you could have seen those poor walking skeletons and the horror of what was done to them, you would know it could never be allowed to happen again.

          • Cat Cafe for the Prosecution

            Endless thanks to your father and the other brave men who saved so many lives and gave back the hope in humanity to all those souls.

          • Natalie Au Natural Hedonist

            Yes, they were heroes rescuing other heroes.

    • Angela Ruzzo

      That is a hard one to call. It comes down to the difference between Freedom and Liberty. Freedom usually means to be free from something, whereas Liberty usually means to be free to do something, so one could say that the ACLU was defending Liberty (freedom of Nazis to march) at the price of Freedom (our right to be free from Nazis marching). Then the conversation moves to whether “the end justifies the means” and I could discuss that all day, but I won’t.

      • Cat Cafe for the Prosecution

        I did just discuss it all day in a rant just before this post.

  • WIDTAP

    OT: Wonder how Trump’s core numbers will go now that Brietbart is declaring #WAR

    • Zippy W Pinhead

      next week’s polls should be interesting

    • Raan

      I can’t imagine the 25% expected this.

      • Beanz&Berryz

        Does much of that 25% really know who Bannon is?

        • Zippy W Pinhead

          I bet most of them do

        • Raan

          Pretty sure most of them are his readership.

    • Nounverb911

      How low is absolute zero?

      • weejee

        4 °K above Bannon’s soul.

      • CottonBlimp

        In American politics? About 20% approval.

    • JustPixelz (((Ω)))

      “Brietbart better not make ANY threats or they will see fire and fury such as the world has never seen before.” @realDonaldTrump

      “The waiters at golf resort better bring me TWO scoops of ice cream or they will see fire and fury such as the world has never seen before.” @realDonaldTrump

      “Melony and her son better not change the channel or they will see fire and fury such as the world has never seen before.” @realDonaldTrump

  • weejee

    Resign orange one, resign.

  • Sean McLaren

    So, who thinks, free of the Trump team, Bannon might turn his ultra-nationalist fever swamp towards Russia if he thinks it’ll be politically useful?

    • weejee

      How about after they get out of Leavenworth in say forty years.

      • wide_stance_hubby

        Too soon.

    • Zippy W Pinhead

      I don’t think that ship can turn that adroitly. It took them a long time to brainwash the dullards into liking Putin, not sure it would be worth the effort to Bannon to change course.

      Although all bets are off, if he has some dirt in that area to hit the boy king with

      • Sean McLaren

        I think you’re overestimating how hard it is to turn that ship. I stand by my velociraptor analogy, they’re pure pack. If it serves the pack to be pro-Russia, they’re pro-Russia, if the pack leader decides it’s in their interests to be anti-Russia, he’ll say “globalist concessions to Russian dictator” and the pack will wheel on a dime.

        • Zippy W Pinhead

          Maybe- I think we’re about to find out

  • JustPixelz (((Ω)))

    Little Babby Donnie will have to be twice as racist to fill the gap. Does he have the stamina?

    • Nounverb911

      Low energy, sad

    • miss_grundy

      He has had the stamina to be a racist bigot all of his life. It is the only thing he is really good at.

  • miss_grundy

    Is it true that Donny Two Scoops just shitcanned Bannon because of the comments he made regarding the White House????

  • ltmcdies

    I don’t know if this was posted earlier so I apologize if a repeat..but the Gov had some words for the Nazis last night

    https://twitter.com/attn/status/898328098529083394

    • YoBunnyBunny

      Getting school on American history by an Austrian… Sad.

      • Bobathonic

        Another Merkin jerb taken by an immigrant!

      • ltmcdies

        actually kind a getting schooled on some Austrian history…from a guy who lived the aftermath

      • marxalot

        Well, I mean, he oughta know.

      • Paganish

        Arnold was my first childhood hero. I’d still vote for him, Austrian or no.

    • Treg Brown

      Fuck me. That was beautiful.

    • Atheist

      This is how a president acts!!!!!!

    • redarmyzombie

      Alt-right scumbags calling Schwarzenegger a cuck in 3-2-1…

  • Internet Hitler
  • Carpe Vagenda
  • Ezio
  • Bill D. Burger

    “Today Donald Trump became president of the United States.”

    ___ Fareed Zakaria

    ~snicker ~ Well…It’s a classic.

    • JustPixelz (((Ω)))

      SAD!

    • The Flaming Carrot

      For 5 minutes.

      • miss_grundy

        He can barely make it to thirty seconds before he’s an embarrassment.

    • You should ice that burn

      Before that I considered Fareed one of the better news talkers, it’s a shame really, there are so few worth listening to.

    • miss_grundy

      Make sure to add a pivoting comment….

  • Ezio
    • WotsAllThisThen

      We’ve never had a season where so many were voting themselves off the island.

      And now our most competitive event, the reverse-immunity challenge!

  • FormerMainer

    Very disappointing capitulation by the ACLU.

    • Bobathonic

      You know they never had a policy to accept every case they are shown, right?

      • FormerMainer

        Of course, but that is irrelevant. Please see my response to willi.

    • willi0000000

      nope . . . simple rule: speech OK . . . speech with guns not OK.

      [ talk, argue, cajole, promise . . . don’t intimidate ]

      • FormerMainer

        Being “simple” is not somehow a virtue here.

        My concern is that the ACLU is saying that they will not defend the constitutional rights of people who are doing something that, while legal, they don’t like. I fear that this type of litmus test for protecting constitutional rights will handicap their ability to be the advocates that they have been in the past. More importantly, it shows their willingness to deny their services to unpopular groups – something they have not done in the past. This is harmful for two reasons: (i) they have long been seen as a proponent of constitutional rights, and independent from the causes of the people’s whose rights they advocated, and this focus gave them credibility; and (ii) everyone’s rights should be defended, even the rights of people who do things we don’t like.

        • Beanz&Berryz

          the gun nuts will get ACLU help if they leave the guns at home. They can say what they want. Guns are brought to a ntimidate orhers and skew the debate. Fuck those fuckers. As I taught the Todfler Bz&Bz. Use your words.

        • YoBunnyBunny

          It’s not simply “they don’t like guns”. What the ACLU is getting at is that free speech is great. Free speech with a gun is not so great (not necessary illegal). Why?

          Think of it like this: Though questionable, it’s certainly my 1st amendment right to stand out in the street hollering how I want to fuck everybody up.

          Now let me do the same exact but then put a gun in my hands. See the difference? See how murky things are getting? Am I just expressing myself–as I am entitled to do? Or have I just crossed the line into threatening/intimidating the public?

          ETA: they’re drawing a distinction between the freedom to express their repugnant beliefs and using that expression to intimidate people.

          • FormerMainer

            I completely agree that what you describe above is their concern.

            I simply disagree that the ACLU should refrain, as a matter of policy, from protecting the rights of people who are exercising their speech in a manner the ACLU does not like. The ACLU is most effective being viewpoint and content neutral.

          • miss_grundy

            Until some fucker decides to shoot someone while exercising their right to freedom of speech. If you need to carry a gun to exercise your freedom of speech, then you are suffering from mental issues.

          • FormerMainer

            I’m not sure any of these people need to carry them; i think its more a question of desire.

          • YoBunnyBunny

            The ACLU is content-neutral. I think you’re oversimplifying the nature of the nature of how 1st amendment/free speech claims are evaluated.

            It’s not the “what” they’re protesting, it’s the “how”. The ACLU will always protect the content, just not the the method of expressing that content.

            I’m no 1st-Admendment scholar, but I vaguely understand that the courts make a distinction between regulating content and regulating expression. While the government cannot regulate the content of speech (generally), they can certainly regulate the expression of the speech, regardless of what that content is (which is why we’re required to get a “permit” before we do a rally). Granted there aren’t any statutes that explicitly ban carrying guns while protesting, but I think the ACLU is probably anticipating some folks crossing from the unregulated “content” side of free speech (which the ACLU will and should defend) to the regulated “expression” side of free speech (which the ACLU isn’t really supposed to defend ETA: without good reason), and they probably don’t want that responsibility.

            I think your assuming that the ACLU is merely declining to represent these groups simply because they don’t want them to do free speech and carry guns at the same time. It’s unseemly yes, but I think this would be no different from the ACLU declining to represent Pyromaniacs United who want to do a tiki torch rally at a national park out west during wild fire season.

          • FormerMainer

            “It’s not the “what” they’re protesting, it’s the “how”.
            The ACLU will always protect the content, just not the the method of
            expressing that content.”

            – True, “how” is a much better word to use here; though I don’t see a material difference in appropriateness.

            “I’m no 1st-Admendment scholar, but I
            vaguely understand that the courts make a distinction between regulating
            content and regulating expression. While the government cannot regulate
            the content of speech (generally), they can certainly regulate the expression
            of the speech, regardless of what that content is (which is why we’re
            required to get a “permit” before we do a rally).”

            – That is correct, and another reason I’m not happy with the ACLU decision. It sends quite a message to the courts when the ACLU deems by policy that certain methods of speech are not worthy of their protection.

            “I think your
            assuming that the ACLU is merely declining to represent these groups
            simply because they don’t want them to do free speech and carry guns at
            the same time. ”

            – No, not exactly. I assume they are adopting this new policy to quell their critics.

            “It’s unseemly yes, but I think this would be no different
            from the ACLU declining to represent Pyromaniacs United who want to do a
            tiki torch rally at a national park out west during wild fire season.”

            – not exactly. It would be no different than if the ACLU decided by policy not to represent anyone carrying fire with them while protesting (assuming that doing so is legal).

        • willi0000000

          “My concern is that the ACLU is saying that they will not defend the
          constitutional rights of people who are doing something that, while
          legal
          lethal, they don’t like.”

          FTFY

          shooting, or threatening to shoot, those that disagree with you is indefensible.

          [ . . . even if the shooting is done with a 3000 pound bullet ]

          • FormerMainer

            Shooting or threatening to shoot is not the litmus test the ACLU appears to be using; rather, the mere act of carrying a gun would disqualify someone from advocacy.

        • Angela Ruzzo

          It’s not that simple. The ACLU is not just objecting to protesters carrying guns, they are objecting to protesters carrying guns who threaten to shoot people with those guns in their pre-protest propaganda and media statements, and with signs at the protest, and with verbal statements at the protest. Such people make it very clear that the primary reason why they are carrying guns is not to defend themselves, but to injure or kill others. The ACLU wanted to draw a line somewhere, and it’s not easy to draw a line when it comes to civil rights, so I think they are giving it their best shot.

          • FormerMainer

            I don’t agree. The ACLU’s statement appears to be quite clear that they will not defend the rights of people who carry guns.

          • miss_grundy

            They will not defend someone who is carrying a gun and willing to point it at someone who is protesting the gun carrier. If you need a gun in order to exercise your freedom of speech then THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU. The Cville Nazis decided to hide caches of guns throughout Cville. They wanted to use their weapons against unarmed Nazi protesters. Why are you defending NAZIS?

          • kareemachan

            On. A. Case. By. Case. Basis.

            Reading comprehension is a good thing…

          • FormerMainer

            The “case by case basis” is describing their current practice, hence the use of the present tense.

            “If a protest group insists, ‘No, we want to be able to carry loaded
            firearms,’ well, we don’t have to represent them. They can find someone
            else”

          • Because protesting with guns is not protesting, it is intimidation.
            See also: What every Republican ever said about the Black Panthers ever.

          • FormerMainer

            I think you are missing the point.

            The ACLU should stand for the protection of rights of everyone – the marginalized, the unpopular, and the ones we disagree with. There should not be a litmus test for when one’s rights are or are not worth defending.

          • Angela Ruzzo

            Well, that’s sort of what I meant when I said they had to draw a line somewhere, and the only way for them to do that is to say “no people carrying guns.” They can’t say “only people carrying guns who did not advertise their deadly intentions” because it would be hard to draw a line that narrow. They drew a wide line instead, which is probably necessary to catch all the Nazis in the net.

          • FormerMainer

            Well, we agree that they should have a line somewhere, I would prefer that such line did not exclude those carrying guns.

          • Angela Ruzzo

            I hear you. I’m sure some people at the ACLU are uncomfortable with it too. Myself, I would prefer to live in a society where nobody carries guns, but that is a utopian pipe dream.

          • FormerMainer

            I personally have no opinion on guns. My concern would be the same if the ACLU said they were not going to represent people carrying apples or riding donkeys. It’s the principle that the rights of those least favored and least accepted by society, and the rights of those with whom we disagree, must be respected and defended just as the rights of any other.

          • Angela Ruzzo

            You’re right about the principle. And in this case a woman was killed by a car, and they have not refused to represent people who protest while driving a car, so there is an element of the absurd here.

          • FormerMainer

            they are showing they care more about what people think of them than their values.

          • Angela Ruzzo

            My opinion of them changed significantly when they seriously let down Hurricane Katrina victims. The State of Louisiana forced everyone who applied for a homeowner recovery grant to sign a legal form agreeing to remain in Louisiana for 3 years after the date on which they received the grant (not 3 years after the hurricane), and this was a violation of the 4th amendment of the Constitution guaranteeing mobility between the states. I contacted the ACLU about this, TWICE. They weren’t interested, and they sent me a crappy, almost illegible, xeroxed form letter saying so that they didn’t even bother to sign.

            Of course that was the ACLU office in New Orleans, I probably shouldn’t judge the whole organization because of them.

          • FormerMainer

            And you shouldn’t evaluate the merits of this policy based upon past acts.

          • Angela Ruzzo

            No, I shouldn’t, but it’s hard to eliminate personal experience from the variables involved. They also promised on a stack of Constitutions not to sell my name on their mailing list, but they lied to me. One mistake I can forgive, two mistakes is hard to forget. Three strikes. and they’re out.

          • Mysterious Masked Wrestler

            It’s a terrible, terrible analogy. Nazis with guns are an immediate danger. Nazis with donkeys and apples, less so. The idea that it’s important to defend the right of hostile people to march down our streets armed to the teeth is completely retarded and has nothing to do with “free speech”.

          • FormerMainer

            “retarded” – let’s not use such slurs in this conversation.

            It is vital to protect the rights of hostile people. Otherwise, our rights are conditional on “good” behavior. Rights are for everyone, not merely those that stick to the status quo.

          • Mysterious Masked Wrestler

            My argument is that an hostile group has no right to march down a city with deadly weapons, therefore there is no right to protect. The end.

          • FormerMainer

            And that is the problem – your willingness to deny constitutional rights to people based simply upon your moral disapproval of them. Your way of thinking is the EXACT way of thinking of social conservatives for decades.

          • Mysterious Masked Wrestler

            Because there is no danger to violent groups bent on genocide (they are literally calling for a violent revolution and retribution against all who oppose them) marching with guns, at all, and something something constitution. It isn’t about moral disapproval, it’s about thinking practically rather being ready to put other people’s lives at risk over some vague, misguided “principle”.

          • FormerMainer

            Unless there is an imminent and serious risk of violence (much more than a mere fear of violence) then one’s rights should not be eliminated. I think our difference reflects how much we value free speech – I am not willing to curtail our rights based upon fear.

          • Mysterious Masked Wrestler

            I think it’s more the fact that I interpret “speech” as meaning “speech”, as opposed to demonstrations of force.

          • FormerMainer

            Perhaps, you have a much more narrow definition of speech than I do. Your view would give the viewer a veto authority over the speech of another based simply upon how you interpret or view the speech or the motives of the speech. I find the concept of that veto authority frightening as it gives great power to veto speech of unpopular groups.

          • Crazt Maist Waizy

            Many, many other countries are very close…

          • Iron Monkey

            Learn to read.

          • FormerMainer

            thanks for the thoughtful response. what portion of the statement do you think I am misinterpreting?

        • kareemachan

          Did you read where they said it would decided on a case-by-case basis?

        • Did you read the part where it was only “Gun toting people who can obviously defend themselves just fine?”
          No?
          Ok then.

          • FormerMainer

            Can you explain why you think it is good policy to not defend the rights of some people? (without snark)

    • covfefesumgame0005

      your concern is noted, and dismissed

      • FormerMainer

        Thanks for your the thoughtful reply.

  • TheGrandWazoo2
  • Nounverb911

    CNN just reported that bannon is hiding in his office

  • Sam Jones

    those counter protesters had some huge balls, they went after those Nazis and white supremacists who had assault rifles, pistols, bats, polls, shields and helmets. You gotta hand to them, they meant business.

    • YoBunnyBunny

      “Love” really may be the equivalent of liquid courage.

    • They didn’t went after. They stood their ground, however.

  • Bill D. Burger

    Counter protesters were just sooo’ rude, huh?

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHUC-TaV0AAnfsf.jpg

  • UncleTravelingMatt

    It’s cucks and RINOs all the way down!

  • Atheist

    Is Bannon really gone? Is he finally good for gone this time?

    I want to celebrate and do a Snoopy dance, but I’m worried the White House is trolling us again.

  • ltmcdies

    https://twitter.com/DanaHoule/status/898594041826344961

    got a few more to go but….not wrong

    • miss_grundy

      Oh, hey, did Donny Two Scoops resign? No? Then we haven’t even started on getting rid of all of the racist bigots currently in the White House.

  • Nounverb911
    • ltmcdies

      Ok that’s just bloody “Twilight Zone” …..

    • ziggywiggy

      That’s absolutely horrifying. I WAS eating, thanks alot now I can’t finish my quiche.

      • Wonkette diet plan strikes again!

      • HarpyLibtart

        Yep, no lunch for me now.
        I feel like I need to wash my eyes.

    • Iron Monkey

      Never thought Trump’s face could look worse than it does.

      You did it.

    • Sekhmet1

      Oh jaysus. That is legit Nightmare Fuel.

    • redarmyzombie

      Bloodborne, holding on line 1…

    • jaysus mary and joseph the fuck??!?!?

    • Old Man Yells at Cloud

      Having seen that, I am not going to be able to sleep tonight

  • Amelia Resists and Persists

    OT: I swear to God, if anyone on the news tries to praise Trump for ousting Bannon I’m going to lose my shit. Trump dumped Bannon because he was getting too much attention, not because he came to some grand moral realization. He’s like a spoiled brat second grader who realized his friend was more popular than him.

    (Second grader libelz)

    • Bobathonic

      What, now he’s finally presidential!

    • ltmcdies

      bottom line…Steve Bannon was a disgrace from day 1 and ought never have darkened the door of the Oval Office to begin with

      • Amelia Resists and Persists

        Yep.

      • Bebecca

        the same could be said about the president.

    • Atheist

      I hear you. It’s a crying fucking shame it takes something like THIS to light a fire under Trump’s ass and do the right thing. Or for hosting companies to finally say NO to Nazis. Or for paypal and OKCupid to be like “nah, we don’t Nazis, especially Nazis who tell women they don’t have a right to have boundaries and shame them for being fat girls.”

      For what god forsaken reason do people just keep tolerating this shit then finally one day go “shucks someone died so I guess I oughta stop enabling these guys.”

      :|

      • miss_grundy

        He only fired Bannon because he was getting more attention, not because he is just as much of a racist bigot as Donny Two Scoops.

      • Mysterious Masked Wrestler

        It was just so unpredictable that Hilter fans would end up killing people (of course, they’ve been killing people all along, but nobody was paying attention).

    • Angela Ruzzo

      SNL can take some credit. Their depiction of Bannon really infuriated Trump.

    • miss_grundy

      True. But you know that some asshat like Fareed Zakaria will say that he is pivoting. And then he will be joined by other communication majors (those people who work in television but never graduated from journalism school).

    • anon_the_great

      Trump didn’t dump Bannon. Bannon simply repositioned himself

      • Marceline

        This. He’s going back to Breitbart with a blank check from the Mercers.

        • Mercers must see the writing on the wall and assume their investment in Trump is a losing proposition.

    • Mysterious Masked Wrestler

      If he even wanted to pretend he’s taking a moral stance, which he doesn’t seem to, he would’ve had to fire Gorka and Miller at the very least.

  • Carpe Vagenda

    Priceless: George Sifakis, co-director of the Office of Public Liaison, is also out. Which means the sole director of the Office of Public Liaison is Andrew Giuliani. Who is qualified for whatever job he has by being not quite good enough to stay on his college golf team.

  • (((fka_donnie_d)))

    No snark, I am prouder to be an American today than I have been for a long time. Prouder even than for most of Obama’s presidency.

  • ltmcdies
  • Jennifer R

    Good decision.

  • BearLeft

    It was enough for me when they defended the Westboro Baptist Church, which, after intentionally inflicting emotional distress on a grieving dead Marine’s father, was sued for, wouldn’t ya know, intentional infliction of emotional distress (!1), a civil action for a tort that did not exist until about 60 years ago and could not have been imagined by the Framers. I told ’em they could send my invoices to the thankfully now deceased Fred Phelps (who has by now, I’m sure, had lots of opportunity to see just how much God hates fags). There’s a big difference between prior restraint of speech (as in Skokie) and paying for the intended consequences of your actions.

    • Bitter Scribe

      There’s a big difference between prior restraint of speech (as in Skokie) and paying for the intended consequences of your actions.

      This.

  • Carpe Vagenda
  • Mr. Blobfish

    They can get that Larry Klayman guy to represent them. I hear he has a good record. Plus, he doesn’t like da Jooz.

  • Who knew? Batman was a snowflake!

    • doktorzoom

      Not necessarily, if you read the next panel…

      http://comicsalliance.com/files/2013/01/guns01.jpg

      • but.. isn’t that akin to punching nazis?

        • doktorzoom

          I’ve read enough Frank Miller to know that he’s not necessarily a role model.

          But if it helps, let me clarify: Do not become a costumed vigilante.

      • Grokenstein

        Unfortunately, the reference is spoiled by being Frank Miller’s obscenely fascist Batman (“The world only makes sense when you FORCE it to”) from The Dark Knight Returns, or as I like to call it, Batman Shrugged. By the end of the book he’s actually assembled his own cadre of brownshirts from the disillusioned children of Gotham’s ‘useless liberal’ caricatures (New Robin’s own ‘rents are so stoned out of their gourds 24/7 that they can’t remember if they even have a child, haw haw).

        God, have you seen the animated adaptation? Miller’s book was unsubtle enough about the Joker’s sexual orientation; his voice actor in the ‘toon performed a Paul Lynde imitation to hammer the point home.

    • (((Aron)))
  • Zyxomma

    Thanks for referencing The Beatles. Always welcome.

    • M.E. Lawrence

      A favorite Lennon song (would look nice on a rally sign, yes?):

      You can go to church and sing a hymn
      You can judge me by the color of my skin
      You can live a lie until you die
      One thing you can’t hide
      Is when you’re crippled inside

      • hanadora444

        Excellent quote!

  • Biel_ze_Bubba

    The ACLU defends First Amendment rights . . . but in advance of court decisions on those rights. That means, so some extent, guessing at what’s defensible – and Nazis standing around yelling Nazi stuff is 100% defensible.
    However, it’s pretty well established law that the First Amendment takes a back seat to public safety. (The classic example: no right to yell “FIRE!!” in a crowded theater.)
    If a group is planning to march with guns, helmets, shields, and clubs, and is patently spoiling for a fight, I think a court would have little problem with refusing a permit, or requiring that the march be in some location where the cops can keep them separated from counter-protesters. The ACLU has to be able to make that call as well. They didn’t anticipate Charlottesville (too much faith in the cops, who fucked up bigly) but they sure as hell can anticipate trouble going forward.

    This “intimidation” excuse is weak and impossible to consistently apply to future situations. What if the protesters are carrying knives, or sticks? Or what if they’re just big and mean-looking and ornery? The basis of the decision, I think, should be the public safety exception to free speech.

  • 60 years or so it’s been since the Nazis cropped up here. There have been other killings. Lynchings. Rapes. Threats. 60 years these fucks have been hiding behind free speech and well meaning people.
    ACLU is right on free speech but for fuck’s sake, why was this woman’s killing the turning point? I just have to know why all the others were not enough to convince them?

  • Lefty Wright

    Late joining, but I followed the thread started by FormerMainer criticizing the ACLU for saying they may not, in some cases, represent armed groups in first amendment cases. There are several back and forth comments by several people, but no one really talked about the summary Dok made on Romero’s reasoning. One person sort of touched on it, but was not really clear. I thought the idea Romero presented was very clear. The ACLU will stand up for any speech made in a non-coercive manner. In other words, where everyone present has equal rights to express themselves. A group of 100 people carrying semi-automatic rifles and pistols who have a history of verbal threats that include shooting people that disagree with them does not present that level playing field of free speech by both sides. Like most rights, there are limits. Their automatic right to free speech ends when they use intimidation and threats to limit the free speech rights of others. The antifas using violence as a tool may want to keep that in mind also.

  • Ding dang dumb reasonable people! How can you snark at someone who is only being reasonable and taking every side of an issue all serious like? Jeez! What can you do with ACLU? Nah nah! You don’t want war and riot at caused by the white supremacists getting all skeert of the libels what is shouting vitriol and invective at them and shooting some of them? Next thing you know the ACLU won’t defend the white supremacist motherfuckers unlessin’ their rallies is near public transport so no’ll bring a car!

    Oh wait. I think I did snark on them.

  • Grokenstein

    I wish I had made a note of who turned me onto Karl Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance. I would really love to thank them.

  • Occupied Territory of Kavefish

    Huh!

    So weird that an organization with the words “civil liberties” in their name would only represent folks who remain civil while exercising their liberties.

    It’s almost like… oh, I dunno… words mean something.

  • The Truth

    People wouldn’t need to bring gun if the liberals would allow people to safely exercise free speech.

Previous articleThe Navy Gave Wackaloon Pizzagate Guy Jack Posobiec ‘Top Secret’ Clearance. Was That Smart?
Next articleFarewell, Steve Bannon, You Malevolent Shit Monster! May You Stub Your Big Toe On Your Way Out!