I did something like this on Ron Jeremy's lawn.

Also, this was a story in a mainstream UK paper today (the Sun). Reproducing it here because I wouldn't give the pricks another click:

WHERE THE BREX WAS WON Streets full of Polish shops, kids not speaking English… but Union Jacks now flying high again
People from Portsmouth, Plymouth and Boston revel in their relief at EU exit
BY BEN GRIFFITHS AND RYAN SABEY 26th June 2016, 2:11 am

VOTERS in Britain’s most Eurosceptic towns spoke of their relief at Brexit saying: “We’re elated.”

The anti-Brussels fervour was greatest in Boston where 75.6 per cent opted for Leave.

Single market too far … a corner shop in Boston, Lincolnshire
One in six of the Lincolnshire town’s 65,000 population are Eastern Europeans — the highest percentage in the UK.

Yesterday a buzz was back in its medieval centre where High Street stores are flanked by Polish and Lithuanian shops. Crosses of St George and Union Jack flags were adorning pubs and homes.

Caterer and mum-of-five Sally Shuttleworth, 58, said: “I’ve never been so elated as when I saw the Brexit result come in.

“Boston is an example of how Britain has lost its identity with all the Polish shops.

“We need tighter border controls. Immigrants are hard workers but there is too much pressure on the system, on schools, and hospitals.

“You could tell by the number of people streaming out of polling stations that the vote meant a lot to the town.”

In January the Boston area was named the most murderous place in England and Wales, with 15 cases per 100,000 people.

It also has the unwanted title of least integrated town in the UK.

Elation … Retired agricultural mechanic Ron Holmes, revealed: “I’m delighted. The whole town is.”
Translators are employed at Park Academy primary school where half the children speak Eastern European languages.

Retired agricultural mechanic Ron Holmes, 69, added: “I’m delighted. The whole town is.

“Whether you think the EU or immigration is right or wrong things have to stop in Boston.

“It is crippling the UK and we had to deal with it once and for all and vote out.

“The EU wasted money on so many things. They should have put the money in places like Latvia and Estonia to build them up so those people would not want to come here. We should never have joined the Common Market in 1975. I remember it well. Now we have finally put it right.”

Variety … the town of Boston has many shops and eateries catering for Polish tastes
Locals yesterday talked of celebratory parties, extra busy pubs and cheering in the streets.

There are around 1,200 people, mostly Brits, out of work in the town and many hope the result might see a change in fortunes.

Jobless Paul Cook, 53, said: “I don’t think people in the South realised how important this vote was to us.

“It is brilliant that we have voted out. We have had enough of the EU telling us what we can and cannot do. Not being able to control who comes in the country is a big problem. Now we can hopefully get a points system that will allow skilled people in.

“I’m hoping it will free up more roles for British-born people.”


There ya go. Racism is now acceptable in public discourse.

FYI the politifact piece that Jon is going by is written by Riley Snyder,. With all the retweets he does of Jon Ralston(one of the bigger "violent bernie-bros" pushers) I highly doubt he gave the claims a fair investigation.

He clearly ignored the Roberta rules being pushed through at 9:30 while delegates were still in line to get in. It did not have a 2/3 majority. The rest of Riley Snyder's fact checking was just as reliable.

It is politics as usual, and not nearly as bad as what happened to Ron Paul supporters in the Republican primary.

Vote for the candidate that you think will represent you the best not just the lesser of two evils.

"mylungpuppy commented on 28 Apr 2015
Hey man...nice to meet you. Thanks for subscribing to my channel...I just watched a few of your vids..good work, I just subbed you back. Do you still have snow up there and is it finally all melted? Warm spring weather here in NYC..I'm going out of a ride now. bye, Ronco"

ronco Ron Anderson mylungpuppy *ban

Wow.
True enough, nothing will likely happen because almost all of them break the law daily....
...but then to devolve into a ridiculous, factless, even actually claimless attack on Clinton (not even sure which Clinton you mean, or what 'hideous' occurrence, or when) while admitting ALL politicians do the same things is just laughable.
If you admit all politicians on both sides share Clinton's faults, why single Clinton out? Why not instead single Sanders out as the most honest and consistent politician in high office, or Warren,...or even go old school Republican with Ron Paul, who may have had some nutty ideas, but was certainly not a liar or a wind sock (turning which ever way the wind blows).

Today, US politicians won't prosecute other politicians that are in their party no matter what their crime, but are willing to prosecute those on the other side of the isle for non-crimes, which is a clear conflict of interest and proof that their prosecutions should not be in their own hands.
As a prime example, I note that there was no censure or any repercussion at all, much less prosecution for Grimm who was caught on camera making hideous death threats directly to a reporter for asking a question he didn't like. (although he was later convicted of other felonies, but not by congress)

Hillary is worse than Bush and Obama combined. I have no idea how anyone could vote for her, unless they are as corrupt or stupid enough to still believe her lies.

I really wish Sanders would win, but I highly doubt it. It reminds me of the Ron Paul hype that suddenly got so much air time and was mentioned so many times on the Internet, polls actually looked good for him. Yet we all know how that ended. Plus hes very old and we all know what happens to presidents who go against the establishment, the real people in power.

I found out the other day that the guy who played Ludo is Ron Mueck!

@Lawdeedaw
i get what you're saying and no,i don't think that makes you a prick.

totally forgot about ron paul's stance of reverting to the gold standard.that would certainly fall into the "kook" category.i had some issues with ron pauls politics but i admired how he was consistent and stuck to his principles (which CANNOT be said about his son).

this is a similar reason why i dig sanders.while i do not agree with everything he proposes and have some issues with his politics as well.the man has been fairly consistent through his career.

which i think we can all agree that we want principled,honest politicians in our government.we can disagree with someones politics and still admire them for being principled and honest people.

ultimately this is about power and who wields that power.maybe i am just biased in cheering for the anti-establishment candidate,because the establishment has proven over the years that they only seek to perpetuate a dysfunctional and corrupt system which serves their needs at the expense of the majority.

so fuck the establishment.

Here, let me see if you agree.

Basically, there were three camps around Ron Paul.

1st was the conservative camp. 2nd was the liberal camp. 3rd was the everyone who voted for Paul camp.

In the 1st one people hated Paul because he didn't follow their platform. He didn't want to ban abortion at the level of the federal government, he didn't want to make gay marriage illegal with a broad pen stroke and he wasn't keen on telling people they could drink but not smoke pot. He believed the states should decide.

In other words, this camp was solely based on their own selfish beliefs. Me me me, greed greed greed. Give me. Fuck the honest guy.

In the second camp people hated Paul because he didn't follow their platform. He didn't want federal government handouts, one-sized fits-all approach to education or legalization of gay marriage or abortion at the federal level. He believed states should decide.

In other words, this camp was solely based on their own selfish beliefs. Me me me, greed greed greed. Give me. Fuck the honest guy.

Then there was the 3rd camp. They valued him as a candidate, and said fuck the platform. Platform voting has been destroying our country and polarizing our nation since the beginning.

What makes me so pissed is that the first 2 camps believe they were doing the right thing. Like a rapist in India trying to make a lesbian straight...yeah, great morals there guys...these delusional whack jobs disgust me. Yeah, it is fine to vote against Ron Paul without being labeled as such, so long as you 100% believed your candidate was morally superior to Paul. And as long as that belief had nothing to do with platform...

Or am I just being a prick?

Ron Paul was not goofy, but he was a (partially) fringe candidate. The gold standard being his biggest kookiness. But as far as just being loved by libertarians, well, that's what the media sold and that's what some poor saps actually believe.

As more a liberal leaning guy I swapped parties to vote for Paul. His honesty was nice but would have been unverifiable. However, his willingness to buck those he could have been bought by and made president from amazed me. He wasn't a populist except insofar as that his message was against those in power.

But what is most funny is this. Paul didn't do bad in the polls for basically being a 3rd party candidate. In that he smashed Nader and most other 3rd party candidates. Even knowing his defeat, those still willing to show their vote to him was astonishing. Now some would argue that he technically wasn't third party since he ceremoniously went under the Republican brand...but that's about stupid logic there.

@ChaosEngine

if you are referring to the established political class,the pundit class and those with relative power and influence i would agree with your assertions.

which is pretty much what i am talking about.

if you look how ron paul was being treated by his own party and compare that treatment to sanders by the DNC,there are some glaring similarities.

while both paul and sanders have differing politics,they did align in a few areas i.e: audit the fed,citizens united,money in politics and restructuring the military to name a few.

they both had/have immensely popular grassroots support.ron paul garnering 20 million in small donations and sanders broke that record with 30 million.

they both held large rallies with high attendance.

they both had a populist flavor that appealed to their own political base.challenging the current corrupt power structures.

and they both have/had experienced a weird media blackout,even though they were/are incredibly popular with the voters.

now we can question WHY that is,but i don't think it too much a stretch to come to the conclusion that both candidates challenged the current power structures that dictate this countries dysfunctional and corrupt political system.add to that mix a paid propaganda pundit class that never challenges the current narrative,all put on display on corporate media which is owned by what? 5-6 entities? who just happen to be the biggest lobbyists in this country?

nader experienced pretty much the exact same treatment from the DNC in regards to media exposure and it went even further in his case with him being outright denied to some debates,or made to jump through almost insurmountable dictates to even get ON the debates.

so when i assert this is a well crafted and intentional practice by the parties,i do so with precedent.

because all three,nader,paul and sanders all had/have massive public support from the voters,but not their respective parties.

so when ron paul started to become a real thorn in the RNC,who did not want him anywhere near the nomination.they changed the tactic from ignoring or downplaying pauls message..to creating the "kook" myth.this was from his own party!!

nader received similar treatment,though in a different context.the establishment as a whole came out against him.

so what can we assume,based on previous tactics from these political parties in regards to sanders?when they can no longer ignore his popularity? his grassroots campaign donations? his rally attendances?

there will soon come a time when they can no longer ignore sanders and his grassroots success,and they will respond the exact same way they did with nader and paul.they will concoct a narrative that plays on peoples fears and biases and begin to portray sanders as an anti-capitalist "kook".that somehow him being a democratic socialist means the end of our civilization.just the word "socialist' makes many a republican wet their panties.

could i be wrong?
oh please god let me be wrong.
i happen to like much of what sanders is promoting,not everything,i have issues with some of what he proposes,but over-all i dig not only what he is saying but how he is going about conveying his message.

there is one huge problem if sanders gets the nod,and that is the support you mentioned.he has almost none in the legislature.which will make much of what he is trying to change in washington damn near impossible.

which will create it own political mess and just create fodder for the pundit class to ineffectually pontificate on,just so they can have a job.

i think it would be such a great thing for this country if sanders got the nomination,but the establishment has already made its intentions clear:they dont want sanders,they want hillary.the establishment does not play by the rules nor do they play nice.

playing by the rules and being decent is for the peasant class.

hope i am wrong.
i hope that every single point i made will never occur.
i hope that sanders gets the nod and things may change,because this country needs a fucking enema.
but my cynicism really struggles with that kind of hopeful optimism.

"if this tactic is unsuccessful,they will do what they did to ron paul and demonize sanders.they will portray him as a "kook" a weird,fringe "goofy' candidate.which is exactly what was done to ron paul."

Except that Paul WAS a goofy, fringe candidate. He had no mainstream support from either side. Sure, the libertarians loved him, but the conservatives hated his stance on drugs and progressives hated his stance on, well, pretty much everything else.

Sanders probably has more actual support amoung his liberal base than Paul did amoung the conservatives, but there's a very real chance that he WOULD lose a presedential race against a moderate conservative.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Sanders get in. Ironically, I think the only chance he has is if Trump gets the republican nod.

So much win. *quality

This guy is frickin amazing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/04/ron-clark-academy-oprah-favorite-teachers_n_7191938.html

His school is also pretty amazing. Like Hogwarts.
https://youtu.be/MRp2R9-otmg

Even Better is this amazing talk he gives (which i may have to sift). He should be given the keys to America's education castle.
https://youtu.be/HY8XkWVBEpc

Oh, Rand Paul spoke like his father and that's what Maher loved about Ron...if I remember correctly Maher was foaming at the mouth to denounce Ron Paul. He would have swallowed a million gallons of Islamic jizz in order for one man to vote against Ron Paul...fuck Maher, little cock-weasel.

I don't, but I have my fingers crossed and I do hold onto a shred of hope.
True that about Paul...but Ron's ideas were a little farther out there.
It was the same in that their parties didn't support them in the least, and the media only ridiculed(s) them.