Obama to Seek Congressional Authorization for Intervention in Syria, Says He Doesn’t Need It, Or Any Other Kind

tick tockReasonPresident Obama spoke at the Rose Garden today, announcing he had made the decision to take military action in Syria based on the use of chemical weapons, a violation, he said, of an international standard. He said he believed he had the authority to act, but preferred a vote in Congress first, something polling indicates an overwhelming majority of Americans want.

From Politico:

President Barack Obama has decided to use force against Syria, but he will first seek congressional approval, he said in a Rose Garden speech Saturday afternoon.

“I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress,” Obama said.

Obama said he has decided using force against Syria is necessary and does not require cooperation from other nations.

UN inspectors left Syria today, and will be testing samples they collected. Russia’s Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, disputed the notion that Assad would provoke a Western intervention by using chemical weapons.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us at @reason247

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

  • Contrarian P||

    So let me get this straight...we don't need authorization from Congress to take action because we've already decided to do it, but we're going to ask for one anyway? I'm starting to wonder if asking for authorization isn't a way to get out of military strikes isn't a way to back off from a war which it's clear nobody wants while saving face.

  • Dave Krueger||

    Exactly! The only reason he's going to Congress is because he's looking for face saving way out. You can be damn sure he didn't do it out of any sense of duty.

  • db||

    And then he gets to blame Republican Obstructionists for not giving him what he wants.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    It's like the plan he had to put Gitmo detainees on trial. If the jury didn't convict, he would just keep then in detention anyway.

  • Entropy Void||

    ALL HAIL IL DUCE REDUX!

    ... at least he will make the trains run on time ...

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yeah, Amtrak. Let's see how *that* works.

  • Sudden||

    Wait, I thought he was gonna run them on solar and wind power. You're saying he can run that extensive network of high speed rails on a limitless resource like time?!?!? The man really is the messiah. All Hail King Barack I!!!!

  • XM||

    He's only asking for congressional authorization because there's a potential for a major backlash. He acted unilaterally on Egypt because the public was more or less sympathized with the "Arab Spring" movement.

    But that turned out to be the French Revolution of our time, so it's not enough for Obama to use "saving the lives of innocent" as a justification for military action. What if he bombs the rebels, and it turns out that it was Assad who deployed chemical weapons? Or vice versa?

    But why not just stay away and do nothing? Because he can't afford to be seen as the Ron Paul "laissez faire" crowd. If he washes his hands of Syria and one of their rebels hits the east coast, everyone will moan that "The government should have done SOMETHING about this"

    This is a president who knows how to go with the flow.

  • MWG||

    "He acted unilaterally on Egypt..."

    You mean Libya?

  • Combaticus||

    "Unilaterally" means acting in concert with a group of like-minded allies—sort of a "coalition of the willing," so to speak—right?

  • ||

    Senator McConnell boldly holds the line on Congressional authorization:

    Sen. McConnell: "President’s role as commander-in-chief is always strengthened when he enjoys the expressed support of the Congress” #Syria

    — Sen. McConnell Press (@McConnellPress) August 31, 2013


    [removed][removed]

    That's right. He doesn't need it, but it is a nice thing to ask for. Thanks Barry!

  • CatoTheElder||

    So he will seek authorization from Congress.

    However, he has often said in other situations that, if Congress will not act, he will act without Congress.

    At this point, what difference does it make?

  • ||

    The other day, I worried that World War III was starting. Now it appears that only the Obama administration will experience this as the Apocalypse. Oh, sweet schadenfreude.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Actually, I think it is clever for Obama to seek Congressional authorization.

    If Congress approves and Obama acts, he can claim credit if consequences seem favorable and deflect blame otherwise.

    In the unlikely case that Congress disapproves and Obama pulls back, Obama can blame Congressional obstructionism when bad things happen in Syria. Also, he gets to blame his inability to act on red line crossing on Congress.

  • CatoTheElder||

    After reading David Krueger's comment below, please read the word "clever" in the comment above to mean "avoids making Obama look like a total moron".

  • JW||

    Operation Plausible Deniability.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    ^This. And, he wants to use it as congressional '14 election issue. He's trying to put congress on the spot. If they deny him permission then they're isolationist cowards. If they vote yes then he's been legitimized. Also, it's about trying to remove the taint of hypocrisy from his legacy.

  • Wind Rider||

    Biggest taint his legacy could do without is named Valerie.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    She's more of a tunt, really.

  • Sudden||

    I'd not be surprised if the bombings commence even if the resolution is narrowly defeated.

    If its an overwhelming defeat, then maybe he reconsiders.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    If the Congress blocks the attack, Obama will hang any future chemical attack on them, the media will help. Pictures of gased children, questions about why Republicans hate children and want them to be gased will abound.

    Why does everyone here want children to be gased ?

  • wwhorton||

    Why does everyone here want children to be gased ?

    Over at the good ol' WaPo that is the exact response the prog hawks are making to anyone not in favor of full and complete authorization for any and all military action our Nobel Peace Prize Winner-in-Chief thinks appropriate.

  • Bam!||

    Has anyone started to juxtaposition Obama's Syria statements with Bush's Iraq statements?

  • Marshall Gill||

    Mark Steyn mentions a few in this article.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....mark-steyn

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Instead, for the first time since the British defeat at Yorktown in 1782, the House of Commons voted to deny Her Majesty’s Government the use of force."

    Yorktown was 1781 - everyone knows that. Even Canadians should know it.

    Maybe the no-confidence vote was 1782, but Yorktown was definitely 1781. Yup.

  • G-dub||

    ^Exactly. The only difference I could find between Obama's speech today and Bush's pre-Iraq speeches was a "no boots on the ground" commitment. And if we're not willing to put boots on the ground, then what the fuck is the point of throwing rocks?

  • Kurbster||

    This won't change a thing. Instead of 1 neolib authorizing war, there will be 535 neocons/neolibs authorizing war.

    Nothing but a sideshow

  • Dave Krueger||

    This is the first intelligent thing he's done with regard to Syria. It was, however, for the wrong reasons, because he only did it after it became his only remaining option to keep from looking like a total moron. If Congress votes it down, then he no longer has to proceed with his half cooked plan to attack Syria in defiance of almost the entire rest of the world. If Congress gives him the Okay, then he's off the hook in terms of defying Congress. He'll have a "powerful national mandate" which consists of a simple majority these days.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If we're lookin' for a pony here, maybe it's that a significant number of Republicans in swing states can now go on the record as being against warmongering--and Democrats in swing states will have to defend their going on the record to support what will almost certainly be a pointless exercise at best.

  • PapayaSF||

    Very astute. This is a big opportunity for the libertarian-ish Republicans to take a stand, and something that forces a lot of normally dovish Democrats into an uncomfortable choice. Boxer and Pelosi will have to betray their peacenik supporters and vote party-line.

  • Irish||

    I'm psyched for someone to run against Pelosi by accusing her of war mongering.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Say, five years ago?

  • Ken Shultz||

    But this is why he was reluctant to consult Congress initially.

    I think he has little doubt that he'll get the authorization--he just didn't want to hurt the Democrats who are running in the midterms for going on the record in favor of his warmongering.

  • PapayaSF||

    I once met a libertarian who ran for office in San Francisco. Maybe it was against Pelosi, but I forget. Not that he had much of a chance, but it went to zero when a reporter asked if he would support children being allowing to own automatic weapons, and he defended the idea.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Children fall in the "reasonable exception" area of libertarian thought. No, they cannot start out doing things that adults do or exercising certain rights that adults have, by the very nature of their natural dependence and immaturity. But the job of parents is to raise them to that point, and to decide when they have reached it. Some chronological "children" (according to the arbitrary lines drawn by our current laws, anyway) may be ready to make and honor contracts, have consensual sex, keep a responsible job, go to war, drink alcohol or use recreational drugs, keep and bear automatic weapons, etc. Others (most, probably) will not. Libertarianism is about the individual, and no two individuals are the same. But, unless and until a particular individual has achieved maturity in a particular aspect of life, parents and other adults must be in charge, responsible for guiding and protecting the youngsters.

    For the record, my high school had a gun club in the 1970s, we never had any problems or incidents, and I doubt that situation would have changed had the weapons involved been automatic, as opposed to semi-automatic. The people in SF who may have been repulsed by the idea of "kids with machine guns" almost certainly did not have my same experience; sadly, they probably had NO relevant experience.

  • Guillotined||

    Strong post.

  • ||

    it became his only remaining option to keep from looking like a total moron

    I agree, and I'm more than willing to give him a way out if it means we stay the fuck out of another conflict. He stepped on his dick, no doubt, but the most important thing is that we don't use force just so he can save face.

    Now Congress needs to step the fuck up and do the right thing. The thing that an overwhelming majority of Americans agrees with. It really shouldn't be that hard. The only things standing in the way are dickheads like Graham and McCain and Team Blue solidarity.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I agree, and I'm more than willing to give him a way out if it means we stay the fuck out of another conflict."

    Yeah, I think Obama sees this as a win/win.

    If they refuse to authorize a strike, then he's off the hook for his stupid red line comments, and if they authorize it, then they get to share the blame with him if it's a total disaster.

    I feel really cynical talking about this in political terms, but that's the reality. No significant part of Obama's calculations on this has anything to do with whether what he's doing is in America's bests interests.

    When Obama talks about strategy, he's talking about the mid-terms, and that's it.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    If congress torpedos it, not only does he get to back down; even better, he can spend the next year blaming the deaths of Syrian civilians on Republican obstructionism.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Racist Repuplicans hate Muslim children and enjoy seeing them inhale sarin gas. I can see the ads being cut on MSNBC already.

  • Jon Lester||

    There's no shortage of atrocities committed by Muslims against Christians for Republicans to counter with, so while we may have to endure a few "very special episodes" during the campaign, it just might put this sort of thing to rest at long last.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'd love to think there were enough Democrats with integrity and Republicans who want to embarrass the president to think they might refuse to authorize a strike, but that's just wishful thinking.

    In fact, if Obama was going to order a strike with or without an authorization, it might have been better--from an election cycle perspective--to see him act without an authorization.

    Having an authorization might satisfy the Constitution, but an Emperor acting without any constitutional legitimacy is better than an Emperor with a legitimate constitutional endorsement, isn't it?

    Oh, and even if when he gets his authorization from Congress, airstrikes against Syria still aren't in the best interests of American security.

  • Meerkatx||

    "Oh, and even if when he gets his authorization from Congress, airstrikes against Syria still aren't in the best interests of American security."

    But they will be in the best interest of American security agencies, since it will allow them to crack down and destroy even more civil rights of Americans.

    Also the defense industry needs their annual cash injection.

  • Bam!||

    Krauthammer (however you spell it)on Fox News is now yammering on about Iran and how all this will effect Israel. These people are desperate to invade the Middle East.

  • ||

    Oh, yeah, add Krauthammer to my list of dickheads above.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Krauthammer was born in Canada. Shouldn't his name be Canuckhammer?

    Whatever his motives, Obama did the wise thing. It will be interesting to see what happens on Sept. 9.

  • JW||

    So, what if Congress tells The Big Zero to fuck off and to take his drones with him?

  • Ted S.||

    They're not Zero's drones.

  • PapayaSF||

  • BFawlty||

    Got a kick out of this comment there..."Note he never says "my economy"...

  • BakedPenguin||

    Yeah, I'm really wondering if he would give them the finger and go ahead anyway. That might actually wake up some people.

  • ||

    That would get him impeached.

  • PapayaSF||

    Obama could personally machine gun the Supreme Court and eat their flesh and not get impeached. It would be racist.

  • Hyperion||

    Yep, the first black prez cannot be impeached, by any means known to... anyone.

  • Irish||

    Yeah, I'm really wondering if he would give them the finger and go ahead anyway.

    He won't. If he'd just gone ahead without Congress, they would have whined and complained but nothing much would have happened. Once he asks them for approval, if he disobeyed the Congressional vote it would really blow up in his face.

    The fact that he asked Congress to vote on it in the first place tells me he intends to obey whatever they vote.

  • ||

    I'm not so sure. I think he will if they don't give him the go ahead. He's so full of himself I think he believes all the Messiah of the Earth shit people have spewed about him.

    He has no awareness of how to convince other politicians, all he can do is "go campaigning" to the American people if he wants approval for an action. He'll go to war, and claim any public displeasure is a result of anti-government forces and poor messaging, the way he's always done.

  • andarm16||

    No, I don't think he'll ignore Congress. He needs the far left Dems to be pacified and not feel like they are being abused. If he doesn't get authorization, the media will be hunting for more lines in the sand to be crossed. This was how Wilson pushed the country into the Great War, and for Obama's situation, it'd probably work better.

  • Duke||

    Liberals are so damn faggy. Just listening to Obama’s speech how he’s decided to take military action against Syria is like listening to a fool. So now Syria is fully aware of what we are going to do, and since Obama is going to let Congress vote on it, Assad has plenty of time to take counter measures. I remember Clinton exhausting our entire cruise missile inventory in Bosinia-Sebian war. I’m just going to stick the head of it in! I hate liberals for being such pathetic pussies almost as much as I hate them for their dipshit ideas.

  • Meerkatx||

    "I remember Clinton exhausting our entire cruise missile inventory in Bosinia-Sebian war."

    Does the current Syrian regime have a country full of mountains to dig into?

    Bombing Serbia was stupid, bombing Syria after waiting nine days for a vote is also stupid, bombing Syrian objectives before they know they are going to be bombed would be somewhat effective.

    That being said, I'm not 100% convinced that it was Syrian forces who gassed their own people. Some of the rebel groups arrayed against Assad and some of the other countries who have interest in a destabilized Syria would be perfectly happy to see or gas innocents themselves and hope the world blames it on Assad's government.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I still haven't heard anybody ask Obama the important questions. A couple from the top of my list:

    1) What do you plan to do, Mr. President, if Assad orders more chemical attacks just to defy your airstrikes?

    2) If your missile strikes hit Hezbollah targets, how do you anticipate Hezbollah will respond to that?

    So far, listening to the Obama Administration talk about the way they expect Assad and Hezbollah to react to airstrikes, it sounds a lot like how the Japanese expected us to react to Pearl Harbor. ...beyond expecting total capitulation from their target, they don't seem to have given it much thought.

  • Duke||

    Here’s another big question:

    What if Congress denies approval and the president concedes? Won’t that give Assad the green light to do whatever he wants from then on?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, rather than go through all this drama, he really would have been better off if he'd just 'fessed up...

    "You know, when I made those remarks about a red line, I was just speaking off the cuff. That was a mistake, and I shouldn't have said it..."

    All of this is because he said something so stupid--no CEO in the Russell 2000 is so stupid that they would say something like that. Again, this is just further evidence of Obama's incompetence and, frankly, unprofessionalism. There's are reasons why corporate-speak is so bland--and one of 'em is 'cause saying what's in your heart at the wrong time can get you in a lot of trouble.

    I'd say being in the White House was on the job training for Obama, but he doesn't seem to have learned much on the job. He's still making the same stupid mistakes--saying stupid shit he shouldn't say. It's hard enough to stay out of tough binds in this world--even harder when one of Obama's biggest enemies is his own stupid mouth.

  • ||

    Why, exactly, is it up to us to give the leaders of sovereign states the red, yellow, or green lights on anything not directly affecting the United States?

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's an excellent question.

    Red, yellow, green...why is it in the United States' best interests to attack Syria?

    I guess it's more of his "everybody needs to make sacrifices for the common good" mantra.

    ...except this time, he's not asking the rich to make sacrifices for the poor, or all of us to make sacrifices for the environment. This time, he wants us to sacrifice what's in the best interests of American security--for what's in the best interests of the Syrians, maybe?

    When, really, he wants us to sacrifice what's in the best interests of American security for him--to make it look like what he said off the cuff wasn't stupid.

  • Duke||

    I’d say being in the White House was on the job training for Obama, but he doesn't seem to have learned much on the job. He's still making the same stupid mistakes--saying stupid shit he shouldn't say.

    I can totally see George Washington and Thomas Jefferson doing the same things. Obama is every bit as smart, wise and courageous as they were and so is totally qualified to make war decisions that affect all the inhabitants of the earth.

  • crashland||

    He is truly the leader of the free world. I'm in awe of his powerful, incisive intellect and thrilled that I'm alive to experience his inspiring leadership first hand.

  • Meerkatx||

    Not sure, we do know France with our without US aid may be dead set on doing something.

  • ||

    Peter King: "President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as Commander-in-Chief and undermining the authority of future presidents."

    ^This is the position a majority of Republicans will take in voting yes, I'll be on it. The lust for power when your Team is in the White House won't go away.

  • Wind Rider||

    Politcal theatrics aside, this will likely result in Habib's Gas-nGo on the road to Aleppo being flattened by 5 JDAMS, a Harpoon, and some random Tomahawks, followed by the announcement that "Baracky done showed 'em real good!"

    It's almost as if his actions were designed to destroy all sense of credibility in our Government or something. Now why in the Cloward-Piven Sam hill would that jug eared fucking moron want to go and do that?

  • PapayaSF||

    Occam's Razor was leading me to believe that all this was just incompetence, but now that you mention it, taking the US down from an exceptional nation and into being "just another country" is one of his professed goals....

  • Jon Lester||

    Seems to me we can make room for the BRICS countries without bombing anybody, and I really think we should. Let's see what happens when the house of Saud try to push around the Chinese, like they're used to doing with us.

  • PapayaSF||

    Obama doesn't want to "make room" for anyone, he just wants to take the US down a few notches and kill that "American exceptionalism" idea.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You know what would be about the most disgusting development imaginable?

    If Obama announced that the planned strikes against Syria had been put on the shelf for now, and Putin soon afterwards announced that Snowden was being put on a plane and sent back to the United States.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I agree, but I don't think anyone in the Obama administration is that smart.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Why do you think Putin would give up his trophy? To the Russians, Edward Snowden is a symbol that they do not bow to the wishes of the American hegemony.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, Putin's support for Syria (and other allies of Russia) is a symbol of defiance of American hegemony, too. His support for Syria (and Iran) is a much bigger symbol than Snowden, actually. Hell, isn't Putin sending warships to the Mediterranean, too?

    http://www.reuters.com/article.....AK20130829

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Oh Ken. They aren't sending "more" ships to the Mediterranean; they're just rotating groups. Coincidentally, they'll have one extra group near Syria until they finish with all of the naval housekeeping, official transfers, paperwork, you know.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, I'm sure the fact that Obama has sent more ships to the exact same place is just a coincidence.

    And Putin selling anti-aircraft missile systems to the Syrians was just a coincidence, too!

    Look, I'm not saying that Putin is going offer Snowden in exchange for Obama standing down, but if I were Putin, that's one of the things I would do. If I can get something better than Snowden for Snowden, then I do that deal.

    And I think Obama is so pathetic? He would take that deal and call it a victory. I think Obama hates Snowden personally for embarrassing him, too.

  • Jon Lester||

    The Russians expect to be paid for those outstanding contracts, as opposed to our plan to simply give arms to some of the rebels, to say nothing of all this talk of blowing several hundred million dollars' worth of ordnance just to show we want to do something.

  • Warrren||

    That's mighty white of him.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Holy crap! Look who finally decided to show up to the party! The anti-war crowd!

    NEW YORK (AP) - Anti-war protesters rallied in Times Square on Saturday as President Barack Obama announced he would ask Congress to authorize a military strike on Syria.

    About 200 people opposed to U.S. military intervention staged a noisy but orderly demonstration in the tourist-packed theater district.

    Many chanted, "No war on Syria!"

    The rally began around noon and continued as the president said in a televised address that he favored a military strike to punish Syria's government for chemical weapons attack on civilians but would ask for congressional approval.

    That didn't mollify protesters like Benjamin Koatz, a 19-year-old Brown University student.

    "I'm glad he's following the Constitution," he said. "But even if Congress approves it, I think it will be a disastrous decision for the U.S., the world and Syria."

    Some demonstrators saw an attack as inevitable, no matter what Congress says.

    "At the end of the day, I don't think it really means anything," said New Yorker Noor Hasan, whose parents were born in Syria.

    "He's going to do whatever he wants to do," she said of Obama.
  • Irish||

    One 200 person rally does not an anti-war movement make.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Antiwar movement: "Why is my boyfriend Obama being such a dick about this warmongering? I bet it's that bitch Samantha Power - she got to him. If I can only persuade him that she's bad news, he'll come back to me!"

  • Anonymous Coward||

    It's an improvement from "Bush made him do it!"

  • mad libertarian guy||

    "I'm glad he's following the Constitution," he said. "But even if Congress approves it, I think it will be a disastrous decision for the U.S., the world and Syria."

    And they're already looking for ways to deflect the blame from Dear Leader when the cruise missiles start to fly.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    So does Congress approve or disapprove?

    My guess is disapprove on a bi-partisan basis.

    Vote yes or no on outcome.

  • BakedPenguin||

    No. 2014 is an election that voters who pay attention will go to. Congress Critters know this.

  • Irish||

    I say disapprove. There's no real drive for this and most people don't want it. With public approval where it is, there shouldn't be too many Republicans other than the uber-hawks who want to go in with Obama on this. Obama's also really lost support among Democrats in Congress due to his dithering incompetence.

    It might be wishful thinking, but we might get bailed out of this nonsense.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    My concern is this is an attempt to marginalize the Rand Paul wing (both left and right). If Congress disapproves then they can be painted as weak on national security. They refused to punish the shitty little dictator Assad for the outrageous use of chemical weapons. If America can't act under such circumstances then we truly are isolationists and that makes us weak. That will be the pro-use of force argument. That could work against them and him (Paul) in '14 and '16.

    Regardless of the outcome, I'm pleased that Congress be forced to vote.

  • Irish||

    My concern is this is an attempt to marginalize the Rand Paul wing (both left and right).

    There is virtually no drive for intervention in Syria and the approval for such an intervention is very low. If hawks want to try and marginalize the Rand Paul wing in 2014 by saying 'He was against war with Syria!' then most people would applaud him and come down against the hawks.

    There is really no desire from most Americans for a Syria intervention. If Congress votes in favor of this, then it really shows how unaccountable they are to the constituents that they supposedly represent.

  • BakedPenguin||

    This.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Regardless of public opinion, the media is going to support intervention. Watch Matt Welch's interview on CNN from yesterday. Both anchors were firmly in the pro-intervention camp. When the establishment types get a consensus going they don't give a damn about public opinion.

    I still think Congress will disapprove, just playing a bit of devil's advocate.

  • John||

    You think they will? I bet they approve it.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    It might end up as a referendum on Obama, not just the use of force. It's an opportunity for the Dems on the left to differentiate themselves from his presidency.

    Typically, sometime during the second term the president's party gets good and sick of compromising and holding their tongue for the good of the team. They then revolt. This might be that time for the Dems.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The Senate will approve and the House won't.

  • Dweebston||

    The media's in the president's pocket, and warfaring is more imminently coverable than Paul standing on a soapbox decrying American militarism. This is the age of hard-nosed realism in which international relations are expedient-driven and making concessions to the sad necessities of the times is what passes for sage counsel. Principles and ambiguities and acquiescing to the will of a war-fatigued nation are not career-making gestures.

  • PapayaSF||

    Irish: Spot on.

  • James Hatt||

    good point. war is really not popular right now, but the folks who got to congress think they still have to tow the lion on it. a vote against use of force will be a big win, but if those fuckers in DC vote for the war like I think they will, then every bit of antiwar sentiment gets directed at all of congress, not just republicans, but all those fuckers. antiwar liberals will be confronted with the fact that they were okay with this. I don't know if they can admit to that at their wine tastings.

    a pro force vote seems like the best result, assuming liberals will get the guts to actually stand up for one of the niceties they claim to love, simply because of the backlash it will cause against the career politician types.

  • DenverJay||

    And this is where, politically, Obama made a mistake. If he had started bombing first, THEN asked for Congressional approval, he would have gotten it. By then all the "support the troops" Mars worshipers would be on his side. The polls now are asking about a hypothetical attack, and people are against it. But once "the troops" are actually involved, then you are a dirty commie-loving pinko hippy if you don't support the troops, which in red-neck land means supporting the war.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    red-neck land

    Point made, but is there really a reason to be a regionalist dick?

  • DenverJay||

    Ahh...well I meant red-neck as a mindset more than a rural identifier. Like the people with office jobs who drive huge trucks and watch NASCAR

  • ||

    If Congress disapproves then they can be painted as weak on national security.

    Respectfully, LB, what does the current situation have to do with national security?

  • John||

    They will approval sadly. But if they don't be can't do it because they have no money.

  • Nazdrakke||

    if they don't be can't do it

    da fuq?

  • John||

    If they don't, it can't be done. No money.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Well, you have never once been right on any of your lame predictions so that seals it - Congress will not approve.

  • John||

    Anjou mean Obama is too much of a war longer for them? Fuck off you nasty little fascist. No one fucking care to hear you sucking Obama's cock.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    Anjou? I think you mean Bosc. Possibly Bartlett.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    John is posting on his cellphone?

    You know who else did that

  • Dweebston||

    Your brilliant Matt

    Whatever

    Bqhatevwr

  • John||

    He needed money. DOD said it needed an additional authorization to pay for this. So he had no choice. The good news is that some dems are going to vote for this. If the republicans had any brains, which they don't, the would vote against this such that every single dem has to vote yes for this to pass. Let him go to war but only if his entire party is on record as supporting him.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Maybe they could have taken it out of the $11 billion a year they're spending on 35,000 people at the NSA, who are working on cracking encryption.

    "The federal government is pouring almost $11 billion per year into a 35,000-employee program dedicated to "groundbreaking" methods to decode encrypted messages such as e-mails, according to an intelligence black budget published by The Washington Post."

    http://arstechnica.com/securit.....g-program/

    They could find enough money for this operation in the couch cushions at the Pentagon.

  • John||

    No they can't. You can't just take money from one expense and put it towArds another. Government fiscal law doesn't work like that. That money can only be used for that purpose.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Except when agencies do this. See Forest Service firefighting "funding".

    DOD is just going to use Syria and any other excuse to get out from under sequestration.

  • ||

    7 tips for keeping your man (from the 1950s)

    I don't really have a problem with any of these, particularly #7.

    Yes, TIWTANLW!

  • John||

    The part about get over it if he has a one night stand is an interesting contrast from today. For all of the rampant t sexuality and vulgarity of our society, we are actually more puritanical than we have ever been in many ways.

  • Irish||

    Except for the fact that a woman would in no way be allowed to stray sexually without being ostracized. I personally have no problem if people are okay with their partner straying once in a while, but it should be allowed for BOTH partners in such an instance, not just the man.

  • John||

    That just makes them misogonist. It doesn't make us less puritanical.

  • Bam!||

    Given how hard it was to divorce in the 50s, getting a ring on your finger was basically all you needed to keep a man.

  • ||

    Actually, how easy getting a divorce was depended on what state you lived in.

    And if you had the time and money you could always got to Nevada and get one.

    While some states were quite strict, in some Northeastern states adultery was the only grounds, much of the rest of the world considered America a scandalous den of iniqity in the 50s.

  • Warrren||

    Watching I love Lucy she is possessed by the thought that Ricky is stepping out on her and getting a bunch of strange on the side.

    They don't say it directly of course, but it's very obvious.

    And could you really blame him? He had the looks and the opportunities and had to deal with a crazy woman at home and her disruptive friends.

    That's one of the reason he didn't want her in the show at his club. Hard to bang chicks in the office or step out to a hotel when wifey is hanging around.

  • ||

    That's one of the reason he didn't want her in the show at his club. Hard to bang chicks in the office or step out to a hotel when wifey is hanging around.

    Weird, working with Lucy didn't stop Desi from banging every girl that came his way during the original production of 'I Love Lucy'.

  • Warrren||

    Yeah, that was real life. They couldn't even show a toilet on TV let alone skirt-chasing.

  • ||

    I forget, were they allowed to show Lucy and Rick sleeping in the same bed?

  • Warrren||

    No. Twin beds, which must have been confusing to all the married couples in the audience.

  • ||

    Weird, since they were married in real-life and everyone knew that.

    Also funny was that Lucy's pregnancy was the first on-going story line in sitcom history (and set a ratings record in the episode where she does give birth), but they were never allowed to use the word 'pregnant' on-air.

  • John||

    Same with Dick Van Dyck. Yeah, I am so sure a straight husband would sleep separately from a twenty something Mary Tyler Moore.

  • ||

    Did you know Mary Tyler Moore identifies as a libertarian?

  • Warrren||

    Meow!

  • ||

  • John||

    She as very hot.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Working with that ultra-Prog dick Ed Anser will do that to you.

  • ||

    And Gloria Steinem. Her show celebrated female independence, but she resented Steinem and the feminists for hijacking the message to mean that women need to have an independent career to be a liberated woman.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    The first television shows to have the characters take bathroom breaks were "All in the Family" and "Married with Children."

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    It was always a reliable source of laughter when Archie would rush in the front door after work and scramble up the stairs with hardly a word to Edith or the family. Then, after a few seconds, we would hear a flush (first laughter cue), and some seconds later, Archie would saunter down the stairs, in no hurry at all, a very relieved look on his face (to some laughter, and many knowing chuckles from the live studio audience).

  • Rhywun||

    I think they were already divorced when the show started.

  • ||

    According to Wikipedia, Lucille Ball was aware of her husband's affairs and filed for divorce in the 1940s, but they reconciled and remained married until divorcing in 1960.

    But they remained friends until Arnaz died.

  • Rhywun||

    Ah, OK.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I don't see fellatio anywhere on that list; therefore, it's inaccurate.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I was nodding until I came to the advice from the "eugenicist." Sorry, I don't want eugenicists giving advice to my women.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And I'm not so hot about the whole "never mind if he cheats" bit. That would warrant at least pouring scalding coffee down his pants.

    Other than that, good advice!

  • ||

    I learned a long time ago not to give relationship advice. The people who need the advice are the ones who wont take it. It is one of those things that, if has to be explained to you then you wont get it anyway.

    I have had a very long, very successful marriage and we are both very happy still. We still kiss, hold hands, the whole bit. We are almost never apart. People occasionally ask me how we do it. My answer: "Who you choose to spend your life with is the single most important decision you will ever make. ".

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The other of said 7 tips is also the person who wrote Red Miracle: The Story of Soviet Medicine.

    But let's pretend these views were held by those nasty old "right-wingers".

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    *author

  • Warrren||

    Ha! You literally othered him!

  • ||

    How much longer do we have to put up with this incompetent, narcissistic fuckwit? Until 2016? Every time I hear something new I keep thinking this is all a bad dream. How did we ever let this happen to our country?

    OT; My local sporting goods store had tannerite in stock so I picked some up. Holy crap, that stuff is fun.
    I had never used any before.

    The instructions said not to shoot it from closer than 100 yards, so naturally my brother and I shot it from about 25 yards. Jesus, it blew our hair back and I could feel the shock wave in the ground. It made one hell of a boom.

    The instructions also said not to place it near anything that might turn into shrapnel, or to place it inside of any kind of container, so naturally we took a large watermelon and hollowed out a hole in it and placed the tannerite inside the melon. The melon was completely vaporized and we both ended up with seeds in our hair.

    If you shoot and you have never played with tannerite targets before, I recommend that you try some.

  • John||

    Three more years of the chocolate Nixon. He is the most arrogant and incompetent President in history. I just hope he does not blunder us into a really serious war.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Red Tony has spoken and proven his idiocy once again.

  • ||

    I wonder PB, do they pay you minimum wage to troll here? Or less? My guess is less. For all their screeching about raising the MW, I see they pay their help less.

  • John||

    Tell us about how wonderful. Obama is shreek. What a shock a fascist sock puppet loves our fascist President.

  • dinkster||

    Weird. I don't see anything particularly conservative about above factoid.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Re: Tannerite

    So the lower photo is yours?

    http://www.tannerite.com/fbi-e.....awareness/

  • ||

    my nephew took a video. He will upload it and I will link to it later.

  • ||

    And John McCain is on Leno, talking about how we MUST go to war, how shameful it is that we haven't gone to war yet, and the opinion of the public be damned.

    http://news.yahoo.com/us-hawks.....58125.html

  • ||

    Also, walk-on true freshman quarterback? No problem! WRECK'EM TECH!!!

    Texas Tech 41
    SMU 23

  • Bam!||

    If a tree falls in the forest, John McCain wants to go war with wind.

  • ||

    If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to bomb it, does the Pentagon get more money?

  • Irish||

    "Maybe that red line was written in disappearing ink? I don't know. But we have to be as good as our word. And is there any good options? No."

    When our president makes a moronic extemporaneous statement about red lines, that means we must go to war if that line is crossed. Behaving like adults is not an option. We must bomb someone.

  • Duke||

    Irish, It’s all about saving blackface.

  • DenverJay||

    OMG! I literally couldn't stop laughing. I mean "shame on you for a racist..."
    Naw, fuck it, that shit was funny!

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It's drunk logic.

    "I told my kid that I'd break his nose if he kept making noise, so he kept making noise and that's exactly what I did."

  • Lady Bertrum||

    I saw the entire interview last night. McCain also assured Leno that the Syrian rebels were moderates. Moderates. Right.

  • Warrren||

    You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    You watched Leno?
    I'm so sorry.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    I sprained by ankle playing tennis two weeks ago. I couldn't reach the remote. :-)

  • ||

    Moderates who saw the heads off of priests with dull kitchen knives. Moderates who eat their enemy's still warm hearts in front of cameras. Moderates who gas their own people to goad jug eared idiots into bombing their enemies for them.

    If anyone is dumber than the big zero, it is McCain.

  • BardMetal||

    In fairness maybe McCain is just going senile.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Going?

  • CatoTheElder||

    If anyone is dumber than McCain, his first name is Lindsey.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    It is shameful to violate one's oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution. Bad things happen all over the world, all the time. It is not our place to be the world's arbiter of behavior or the global policeman. The United States was never constituted nor intended to be "just another country." The people who founded this country explicitly wanted something better than nationhood-as-usual, politics-as-usual. People who do not share their vision for a truly different (and thereby,a more SUCCESSFUL and ENDURING) type of nation, have little business leading Americans, whether as elected officials or not.

  • ||

    The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim may change their name to simply the Los Angeles Angels as they prepare to negotiate with the Anaheim city council on a new lease for the team.

    They should just go back to being the California Angels, it's more accurate than the LA Angels.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Less repetitious, too.

  • Warrren||

    The Los Angeles Los Angelenos!

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    The Angel moniker has always been natural for Los Angeles teams, since The Angels is a literal English translation of the Spanish Los Angeles.

  • Warrren||

    Really?

  • ||

    Yeah, but that still doesn't mean they need to keep the city's name to retain the team name.

    For example, in the NBA the Jazz aren't the Utah Jazz of New Orleans.

  • ||

    Er, they aren't the New Orleans Jazz of Utah.

  • ||

    Tim Tebow cut by the New England Patriots

    Tebow should sign with Cleveland so they can let him down one more time.

  • BakedPenguin||

    After the powerhouse stylings of Colt McCoy, I don't know if they could take it.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    He and Vince Young should go on a cross country tour.

  • Warrren||

    Featuring Ja'Marcus Russell.

  • Warrren||

    Oh, and Ryan Leaf can be the wacky mechanic that gets the crew into all manner of crazy shenanigans.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Unlike Teebs, VY has a job.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Unlike Teebs, VY has a job.

  • Virginian||

    Vince Young is the Packers backup now.

  • Warrren||

    No, he was cut today.

  • RBS||

  • DenverJay||

    Poor Tebow is a perfect example of the Peter Principle. He would be everybody's idea of the perfect 2nd string QB, but he just isn't quite up to being the starter. But Jebus loves him, and I think he's a genuinely nice guy.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Obama does the right thing and the Peanut Gallery is furious.

    Typical.

  • John||

    He wants to launch an illegal war. But he is going to ask Congress what they think even though he says he is going to do it anyway. Real classical liberal he is.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    It won't be illegal when Congress approves it (your prediction -not mine).

    Do you ever stop saying stupid things?

  • Duke||

    Do you? The main issue to me is whether Obama should have popped off at the mouth about a red line and then committing us to another war just to save face or please his masters.

  • John||

    Any war absent UN approval or self defense is illegal under international law. Don't you remember when you handlers told you to talk about the illegal war in Iraq?

    You are such a retard you can't even troll properly or keep your talking points straight.

  • BardMetal||

    Well even though I think international law is bullshit. (When exactly did the UN become the world's government) I do find the hypocrisy demonstrated by the left to be absolutely astounding.

    Apparently UN approval is only required when a Republican is in office.

  • PapayaSF||

    John's got you there, Mr. Buttplug.

  • ||

    Keep polishing that turd buttplug. I am sure it will get shiny soon.

  • John Galt||

    A "classical liberal," not even close. He is a big "L" liberal. Or in other, far more accurate, terms an illiberal.

  • John||

    Forgot the sarc tags.

  • Hyperion||

    He's a proglodyte through and through. It's easy to discern from his cult like worship of a politician.

  • ||

    Getting congressional approval would not make a war on Syria "right"; it would make it constitutional.

  • Irish||

    We're not furious that he asked Congress. We're furious that the gibbering moron in the White House even got us into this position with his red line horse shit. More importantly, he's clearly only asking Congress in order to deflect blame from himself. He's shown repeatedly that he does not care what Congress thinks, so if he goes to them it is fairly certain that he's only doing so out of base political calculations and not because he gives a good god damn about the constitution.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    On the other hand, he seems to be seeing and acknowledging that quite a few people in this nation know enough and care about the Constitution to give him a hard time for his proven disrespect of it. I think that is a good sign.

  • ||

    He doesn't even think he needs Congressional approval, because that would require humility and acknowledgment that their are limits on his power.

    The Constitutional Law Professor is either contemptuous of the Constitution or an ignoramus.

  • ||

    He cant be both?

  • BardMetal||

    Is it hard to type with Obama's cock in your mouth?

  • wwhorton||

    In what regard would you consider launching a military intervention with no strategic objectives other than saving face, and that will, at a minimum, result in the loss of even more international prestige, could empower jihadists in the region, and could even provoke a larger regional conflict with Iran and possibly even Russia the "right thing?"

  • Agammamon||

    Is it rape if you said yes but he wouldn't have stopped if you said no?

  • John||

    Hear him talking about "his military"? Chew on that phrasing for a bit.

  • Warrren||

    I've known a few military types in my day and not one was a full-on lefty. They were not all hardcore righties by any means but not one of them would think well of being considered "his".

  • John||

    There Are a few lefties. But they all take pride in being the nation's military. Can you imagine if Bush had said that?

  • ||

    "But as I've already said, I have had my military and our team look at a wide range of options."

    Wow. That alone should be reason enough to retire the SOB .

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Hear him talking about "his military"?

    He didn't build that.

  • John||

    +1000

  • Warrren||

    And 1 Arabian nights.

    I know it's not Arabia, shut up.

  • John Galt||

    It's a very powerful king who may show his subjects mercy should he please to do so.

  • BardMetal||

    That about sums up the attitude I've seen on the Huffington Post about this issue.

  • John||

    Look at shreek. He is almost manic. They are getting desperate.

  • BardMetal||

    I just don't understand it. No matter what that idiot does his devoted followers find someway to twist it in their deranged little minds into a positive.

    I bet Obama could break into Shreek's house, rape him, film it, and then post it on youtube, and the only thing Shreek would do is watch it over and over while bragging to his friends how he met the president once.

  • John||

    Cult of personality and victim hood. They can't turn on Obama that is racist.

  • BardMetal||

    I guess it's the cult of personality I don't understand. Even ignoring the man's politics I just don't find him that cool. I thought George Bush, and Bill Clinton were both more likable personality wise.

    I think it's all about the race. The thought of having elected a black man fills leftists with a feeling that I can't possibly understand, but it's very important to them.

  • BardMetal||

    It just dawned on me. A lot of white leftists feel almost a sense of guilt for being white, for having what they think is an unfair advantage, for thinking that they are somehow responsible for past wrongs, and Obama relieves them of that guilt.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    This also explains the 21st century popularity of the BM/WW cuckold fetish.

  • John||

    That whole thing is deeply odd. Swingers are one thing. But these guys are into being humiliated. They don't want their wife to make live action porn for them. They want their wife to humiliate them with other men. You need to get some kind of serious help if you have so much self hatred you find that pleasurable.

  • RBS||

    Yeah, that is some weird shit. I watched one a few years ago and felt sorry for the guy at first.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    How is it different from the guys who pay women to beat them mercilessly or piss on them or take their money?

  • John||

    More personal I guess. There has always been guys who liked slutty women and let their wives screw around for kinky fun and because their wives would come home and screw their brains out. But these guys are different. They don't get off on their wives being sluts. They get off on their wives humiliating them. Some of them don't even want to sleep with their wives. They just want to jerk off watching That is deeply weird.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Assuming this isn't yet another "sex subculture" that's just a figment of the media's imagination, it may be a product of someone getting used to jerking off to other guys having sex with a woman (via porn) and finding they can't, er, satisfy the lead role when they have the opportunity.

    Now, why in the world you would marry someone in that situation is beyond me.

  • Frank_Carbonni||

    It's actually quite real Tulpa. I'm a fan of "classic" porn in the sense that I like John Holmes (or his modern equals) have a go at some chick.

    On those sites there are a lot of guys who leave comments like, "Cuckold here. My wife hates my tiny cock and I want some huge dick stud to fuck my wife while I touch my little dong while thinking about what a real man you are."

    Trust me. Those people are out there.

  • John||

    James Taranto on twitter. If President McCain were asking for authorization to go to war in Syria, how would Senator Obama vote?"

  • Warrren||

    Some have said he would vote against, others have said he would vote for!

  • Jerry on the boat||

    Vote present.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Damn you and your speedboat!

  • Cdr Lytton||

    "Present!"

  • Tony||

    Hey John, or anyone else, what is the course of action Obama could have taken that would have garnered your praise, even if begrudging?

    One gets the distinct sense that no matter what Obama does, it's going to be wrong, as sure as water is wet.

  • ||

    We are still waiting for him to do something right.

  • ||

    Hey John, or anyone else, what is the course of action Obama could have taken that would have garnered your praise, even if begrudging?

    "While I think that the US should take action in Syria, I acknowledge that our Constitution and system of checks and balances requires me to ask Congress for permission to go to war in cases where there is no imminent threat to the security of the United States."

    That's all he had to say and I would have praised him for it. But no, he's incapable of humbling himself and had to make it clear that he's only doing Congress a favor by asking and reserves the right to act without their permission.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's hard to take comments seriously from people like you, Tony, when your position on the right of holocaust victims to their lives is indistinguishable from that of the Nazis and when your position on whether Rosa Parks had a right to sit in the front of a public bus is indistinguishable from that of the segregationists.

    Now that you've been completely unmasked, why don't you go troll somewhere else?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Notice how Tony sets the standards, too.

    If a stranger at a party gets drunk, pees in the umbrella holder, and starts a fight with the DJ over playing Mambo No. 5, and I condemn him, it doesn't make much sense to say that I'm being unfair because nothing that stranger could have done would have caused me to praise him.

  • John||

    Intervened early before al Quada took over the rebel forces. Now the best think to do is nothing. We are better off letting the civil war drag on. It is bad for both Iran and Al Quada.

    Beyond that, he can't get unsc authorization. So either say that such is not needed and tell his supporters to apologize for lying about the Iraq war being illegal or give up until he can get world support.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Obama could have not let his mouth write a check that necessitates him to do something stupid to cash, too.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Intervened early before al Quada took over the rebel forces.

    Huh? Not clear on what's preventing AQ from taking over the rebels after our intervention (unless you're suggesting an occupation).

    That's kind of like responding to your girlfriend sleeping around by saying you should have married her before she became a slut.

  • John||

    We would have had to invade and occupy them or stay the fuck out. Those are the choices.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    what is the course of action Obama could have taken that would have garnered your praise, even if begrudging?

    How about not get involved?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    tbh, we probably wouldn't have praised him even then. Well, maybe Ed Krayewski, but he's weird.

  • Number 2||

    How about resigning?

  • BardMetal||

    All he had to do was say that the United States has zero interest in this fight, and nothing to gain by supporting either side, and because of that we're are going to stay out of this particular conflict.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Hey John, or anyone else, what is the course of action Obama could have taken that would have garnered your praise, even if begrudging?

    "Letmebeclear, my statement about the redline wasn't very smart and I apologize. The USA has no interest in the Syrian conflict"

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    One gets the distinct sense that no matter what Obama does, it's going to be wrong, as sure as water is wet.

    That's been the pattern so far. I fail to see how that's his critics' fault?

  • CatoTheElder||

    Okay. Try this:

    1) Gather concrete evidence demonstrating conclusively that
    a) civilians were gassed in a CBW attack (fairly conclusive evidence)
    b) the Syrian military conducted the attack (evidence sketchy and denied by Syrians)
    c) the Syrian military elements were under control of Assad (evidence lacking and denied by Syrians).

    2) Provide all evidence to public as well as experts and politicians. Obama refuses to disclose evidence to the public or to their representatives; he only provides his conclusion of "high confidence". Bush was confident enough to provide his evidence of "mobile weapons labs" and yellowcake purchases. Why can't Obama do the same if the quality of evidence will withstand scrutiny?

    3) Allow a thorough review of all evidence, including the denial and other evidence produced by the Syrian government and evidence provided by third parties such as the Russians.

  • CatoTheElder||

    4) Acknowledge that destabilizing the Assad regime is not a solution to Syria's problems. It is only a punishment that Obama feels appropriate to visit upon Assad. (In this case, Obama's war will solve nothing, not only in fact but also by design.)

    5) Acknowledge that only Congress can authorize military action. Propose the Obama declaration of war against the Assad regime. Allow Congress to debate both the guilt of the Assad regime and proper responses and limitations.

    6) Obtain a coalition of the willing that is at least as robust as the Bush/Powell administration achieved.

    7) If Congress authorizes war, use all diplomatic resources in a public manner before resorting to violence.

    8) Offer to mediate or to cooperate in a mediation between Assad and rebels. Of course, the US has squandered an abundance of good will in the Middle East over the past 40 years such that it has no credibility as a primary resource in such talks.

    Except for 1a, Obama has failed in every single requirement.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Of course, my preference is for non-intervention.

    But if Obama is intent on intervention, I at least want it to comply with Art I Sec 8 and a competent course of action consistent with the Constitution.

  • Irish||

    Hey John, or anyone else, what is the course of action Obama could have taken that would have garnered your praise, even if begrudging?

    Not being a moron on all issues related to foreign policy and having the ability to avoid extemporaneously issuing a 'red line' ultimatum when he had no plan for what to do if that red line was crossed. Honestly Tony, Obama's so grossly incompetent on foreign policy that he's managed to be less popular than George Bush in the Middle East. Bush invaded two of their countries and at his lowest popularity level was still more popular in the Arab world than Obama. That's a hell of an accomplishment, even for someone I hold in as low a regard as Barack Obama.

    One gets the distinct sense that no matter what Obama does, it's going to be wrong, as sure as water is wet.

    You're missing an obvious possibility. Obama could very well be wrong on all of the issues we claim he's wrong about. In which case it's not that we should stop criticizing him, it's that he should stop being wrong all the time.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Hey John, or anyone else, what is the course of action Obama could have taken that would have garnered your praise, even if begrudging?

    If he publicly state that we are staying the fuck out of Syria's civil war.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    what is the course of action Obama could have taken that would have garnered your praise, even if begrudging?

    Stop meddling in the internal politics of foreign nations which present no meaningful threat to us.

    What do I win?

  • Warrren||

    An all-expense paid trip to Guantanamo Bay!

  • Marc F Cheney||

    You win a sub-thread devoid of Tony.

  • Warrren||

    Unfortunately it's a religion-abortion-immigration thread.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I slogged through a David Brooks column earlier. It was tough sledding, but I think he was trying to say the entire region is fucked, so we should just go in, take the place over, and establish a military dictatorship. Or maybe they will greet us with flowers and kisses, and seize the opportunity to become just like California.

  • crashland||

    Just think, we could plant a starbucks in every mosque....

  • Irish||

    David Brooks may literally be a fascist. I know that word gets thrown around a bit too freely, but this is a man who absolutely adores every sort of military intervention, coined the phrase 'national greatness conservatism,' and is so desperately in search of a leader to bow to that he stood in awe of President Obama's pants crease.

  • Dave Krueger||

    Why all the fuss about going to war with Syria, anyway. War is free these days. Very few important (ie: white) people die and the Fed prints the money needed to pay for it. And let's not forget that we're bombing these countries for their own good and they will thank us for it later. Where is the down side? If anything, it would be negligent NOT to attack them.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    THIS IS WHAT PROGRESSIVES ACTUALLY BELIEVE

  • Brian D||

    THIS IS WHAT NEOCONS ACTUALLY BELIEVE

  • Number 2||

    Is there a difference anymore?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    You jest, but I've heard something very similar to this rationale from many people.

  • CE||

    Russia’s Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, disputed the notion that Assad would provoke a Western intervention by using chemical weapons.

    So Ron Paul isn't the only conspiracy theorist claiming it was a false flag attack after all.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    It's not really a conspiracy theory. The place where this supposedly happened is a clusterfuck right now -- you don't need a conspiracy to misassign blame.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    And let's not forget that we're bombing these countries for their own good and they will thank us for it later. Where is the down side? If anything, it would be negligent NOT to attack them.

    What kind of President bombs greasy foreigners thousands of miles away when a great American city like Detroit cries out in vain for salvation from the air?

    Why have you turned your back on America, Mister President?

  • John||

    We are bombing Syria because we are mad their government is bombing Syria.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    We're going to bomb Syria because their dictator dissed ours.

  • ||

    Dispatches from San Francisco's War on Corporate Chain Stores

    The impact of the law has grown over time. When first adopted in 2004 by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the ordinance offered neighborhoods options ranging from “notifications” — letters mailed to nearby residents upon a chain’s arrival — to an outright ban. In 2006, voters chose to implement a more widespread solution: “conditional use authorizations,” in all of the city’s 17 NCDs. Every Gap, CVS, and AMC that wants to move into one of the city’s small-scale commercial streets must be approved by the Planning Commission. In total, hundreds of blocks require formula retail to obtain authorization, while dozens more operate under a categorical ban.
    [...]
    Dan Houston, one of the founders of Civic Economics, stumbled into this niche in 2002 as he watched two independent Austin businesses, Waterloo Records and Book People, threatened by a city-subsidized Borders set to move in across the street. Houston’s young firm agreed to analyze the effects of then-powerful Borders sapping the market share of two local businesses.

  • ||

    The results were striking: for every $100 spent at a chain, approximately $13 remained in the local economy, largely through wages. For every $100 spent at the local outfit, $45 would recirculate locally, thanks to wages, corporate profits, locally oriented procurement, and potential future investment in the community, ranging from sponsorship of a Little League team to opening a second branch. The cost of a book or CD might be marginally higher, but the return for the city was nearly three times better at Waterloo Records and Book People. Borders didn’t move in.
    [...]
    “Not much focus is on the consumer, and giving the consumer the right to choose between companies that are located in proximity to each other,” Linscheid added. “We need to remember that this is America, and that a certain amount of competition is good for the consumer.”

    Supporters of formula retail restrictions caution against invoking the “free market” argument. Stacy Mitchell, a senior researcher at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance who has written extensively about formula retail controls, pointed out that there are numerous hidden biases in favor of chains beyond the government subsidy. Suburban road design creates the perfect environment for big box stores; landlords prefer national chains for reasons — credit, accountability, longer leases — that have little to do with consumer preference.

  • John||

    Arguing that your money stays in the area is not really a free market argument. And they can never accept that most people don't want their fucking driery idea of life. It is not preferences it is ROADZ!!!! Sure it is you little dweeb.

  • ||

    I find it ironic that they're promoting economic sectionalism and xenophobia when on other issues it's all about national unity.

    Like it's a bad thing that a corporation makes me money and creates jobs in another state even if in the long-run it benefits everyone.

  • RBS||

    Don't forget that they really hate that lower income people can afford to shop at the big box stores..

  • John||

    That is what it is about. It is all about class and fashion.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Well, I always make shopping decisions to keep money local.

    Of course, my idea of local is very narrow, ie, in my wallet.

  • MJGreen||

    Money is wealth! If that sweet, valuable money moves out of the community, that community is that much poorer!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The community isn't, but the local govt might be. If that money leaves their territory they don't get to tax it anymore.

  • Irish||

    The results were striking: for every $100 spent at a chain, approximately $13 remained in the local economy, largely through wages. For every $100 spent at the local outfit, $45 would recirculate locally, thanks to wages, corporate profits, locally oriented procurement, and potential future investment in the community, ranging from sponsorship of a Little League team to opening a second branch.

    I notice your little study doesn't consider the money that stays in someone's wallet due to lower costs and can therefore be spent elsewhere. That's because your study is stupid.

  • Rhywun||

    Every big company I have ever worked for spent a shit-ton of money on crap like Little Leagues. You cannot get away with NOT doing that in America. Methinks the author doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Less than 10 years later, Borders is completely gone. Are Austinians searching UPS trucks to make sure there are no Amazon deliveries on board now?

    The final word from Book People's About Us:

    We're right across the street from Waterloo Records and in the same complex as REI & Anthropologie.

    Chains good! (when they're complimentary to us)

  • Rich||

    Grace note FTFA: Obama’s national security team is set to give an unclassified briefing for Republican senators Saturday afternoon. Democratic senators are to be briefed later in the afternoon by an administration team that includes Secretary of State John Kerry, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    Emphasis added. WTF?

  • RBS||

    I guess they are really tailoring the message to the target audience.

  • Rich||

    "Target" audience, eh?

    Seriously, this is itself should derail the game playing.

  • Rich||

    Argh -- *in itself*

  • BlueBook||

    On a related note, what, if anything, is the libertarian position on war refugees? I tend to say let em all in, provided they mind their own business and don't become welfare addicts, but I realize this is a political impossibility in the current climate. Maybe wall off Detroit and let them resettle there? Syrians are among the few people in the world for whom that would be an improvement over current digs.

  • Warrren||

    If it's your property you can as you like and let them in, but I don't have to let them cross my property.

  • PapayaSF||

    I know it's non-libertarian, but I don't want any more Muslim refugees. The chance that they will support terrorism or sharia is not insignificant. Syrian Christians would be fine.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The chance that they will support terrorism or sharia is not insignificant.

    We already have a fairly large population of Muslims in America among which the support for either is essentially zero.

    If you're worried about people who want to use violence to achieve political goals and turn our legal system into an anti-liberty tool of oppression.... there's way more of those people who are already here, eat pork, and check "Christian" on the census forms.

  • PapayaSF||

    "Essentially zero" is not zero. Numerous Muslim immigrants to the US and other countries have committed terrorist acts or supported terrorism elsewhere. OTOH, non-Muslim immigrants connected to terror are hard to find.

    And the fact that there are already anti-liberty types here is not a reason to import more of them.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I thought we were talking about immigrants to the US? If you put people in ghettos and exclude them from the general society as is common in European countries w.r.t. nonwhite immigrants, then yeah, you're going to have problems, whether "terrorism" or just garden variety crime. So I don't give a shit about Muslim immigrants in the UK or France. Totally different situation.

    For US Muslim immigrants, I'll grant you the Dzarnaev bros.

    But that doesn't look as impressive when you stack them up against Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, etc.

  • PapayaSF||

    Sorry, random nuts like Lanza and Loughner don't count. You can't do much about homegrown lone nuts, but you can certainly do something about foreign adherents to a religion strongly associated with fanaticism and religious violence.

    And to the Tsarnaev brothers, add Shirwa Ahmed, Fazliddin Kurbanov, David Coleman Headley, Cabdulaahi Ahmed Faarax, Abdiweli Yassin Isse, Mahamud Said Omar, Mohamad Shnewer, Serdar Tatar, Agron Abdullahu, Dritan Duka, Eljvir Duka, Shain Duka, and Najibullah Zazi.

    And those are just the ones we caught. Some of them.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Sorry, random nuts like Lanza and Loughner don't count.

    Unless they're Muslim! Playing Papayaball again, I see.

    the first guy you're adding to the list committed terrorist acts against the Puntland govt in Somalia, nothing to do with the US, so I'm not bothering researching the rest of the list.

  • PapayaSF||

    I don't know if you are being intentionally dense, but the difference is between 1) random insane people and 2) followers of a worldwide ideology.

    And yes, a US citizen or resident supporting or committing terrorism in other countries has "something to do with the US."

  • Killazontherun||

    Hypothetically I'm curious, if a community of Muslims in the US lived in a non incorporated settlement and wanted to incorporate it according to Sharia would it be unconstitutional? Obviously, there is a great deal of that law that would get the axe, as was the case with Judeo-Christian code, the parts that are not in conflict with a secular order tend to actually be adapted. Like civil law punishing adulterers (alienation of affection) enforces a moral code derived from that tradition, but a secular argument can be made as to why it is partial to the social order. From the first generations of Muslims, they have been flexible in the application of Sharia as many different cultures folded into the Muslim sphere. It could be done, likely it exists within civil arbitration, as there is no proscription against community standards so long as they stay within the bounds of the fourteenth amendment.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Well, there could perhaps be bits and pieces of it adapted. If you just took the whole of sharia, or even just the parts that are not explicitly religious, it would be a serious Establishment Clause issue.

    And of course the state legislature of the place could always preempt whatever they wanted.

  • Ted S.||

    Hypothetically I'm curious, if a community of Muslims in the US lived in a non incorporated settlement and wanted to incorporate it according to Sharia would it be unconstitutional?

    Kiryas Joel

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Unless Ron Paul has been declared "not a libertarian" by whoever the libertarian standards authority is, not all libertarians have a problem with immigration controls in the first place.

    If we accepted refugees they should be held like voluntary POWs in camps which are sealed off from the rest of society. Otherwise countries would start civil wars just so they could immigrate.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If we accepted refugees they should be held like voluntary POWs in camps which are sealed off from the rest of society.

    That's what Thailand does with Hmong who flee Laos.

    It's disgusting.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Would you prefer that they send them back into Laos?

  • Rhywun||

    I dunno... was America involved in the war in question? If we stay out of Syria like we should, I don't see any compelling reason to move any resultant refugees ahead of anyone else in the line of people who are waiting to get in.

  • PapayaSF||

    You obviously don't worship at the idol of Diversity.

  • Rhywun||

    Actually, I kind of like it - especially for the food and dating choices. But worship? No.

  • PapayaSF||

    Ah, but true Diversity in the US today has little to do with dating or dining. It's about making the US into something as little like a '50s sitcom as possible.

  • West Texas||

    Man, I just can't get worked up over politics anymore, or at least Obama. All this stuff about approval ratings, public opinion, objectively poor economic data... So what? He was reelected. Why give a fuck about any of this stuff? It's like peeing in the wind. He'll do whatever he wants. So what.

    2008 was forgivable - hey, a black guy! - but 2012 has just killed all of my caring about Obama. He's president and this country's going in the shitter and voters don't care.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I really don't see Congress authorizing a war that the public is overwhelmingly against, and fail to see how BO can really use this as an issue to retake the House in 2014.

    Then again, I was surprised that some of the tactics his campaign used in 2012 worked, so there's a possibility he will be able to use it.

  • Rich||

    One word, Tulpa: TARP.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    TARP got voted down the first time. It only passed after public opinion was softened by 3 days of the cable/network news propagandists predicting the end of the world if it didn't pass.

    They're trying to do that with Syria by claiming the US will have no credibility in the world if we don't go in and kill some people, but the American people are wiser about these things now. And of course those commentators are totally disingenuous, since they don't criticize BO for getting us into this position by flapping his gums about red lines.

    I just heard Bill Kristol on WMAL and boy did he sound like a guy with blue balls. He thought he was going to get his war but it looks like he won't now.

  • Warrren||

    I hope he has a ballaneurysm and dies screaming.

  • John||

    There are enough republicans to make this bipArtisan and allow both sides to avoid blame. I bet they approve it.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    One word, Tarpa: TULP.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The cost of a book or CD might be marginally higher, but the return for the city was nearly three times better at Waterloo Records and Book People. Borders didn’t move in.

    News flash- I am in no way obligated to support my local merchant's cutting horses. Fuck him and his "lowest quality at the highest price" business model.

  • John||

    The funny thing is that there is no worse employer than a small local business. I would work for WallMart all day before I worked for some cheap ass local business.

  • Rhywun||

    I kind of prefer the "ambience" when working for smaller businesses but the larger paycheck and better benefits that bigger companies offer pretty much can't be beat.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Back to doing what he does best.

    Right after shipping responsibility for authorizing an attack on Syria, President Barack Obama returned to his comfort zone: The golf course.

    Obama’s motorcade left the White House at 2:30 p.m., about 30 minutes after completing his statement.

    Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are playing at Fort Belvoir, Va., along with White House trip director Marvin Nicholson and Walter Nicholson, according to the White House.

    Ironically, I missed the speech playing golf myself, though I suspect I couldn't afford his course.

  • John||

    It not only that he is such a bad president, it is that he seems to take such pride is being a bad president.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Reuters Runs Interference For Barry

    He was the peace candidate who became a war president, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who has regularly ordered executions by drone.

    Just three months ago, President Barack Obama called for an end to America's "perpetual war-time footing." On Saturday, he said he had decided to take military action against Syria for its apparent chemical weapons use, but would seek authorization from - and to share responsibility with - the U.S. Congress....

    Obama has hardly been, or presented himself, as a pacifist. While running for office, he declared his opposition only to "dumb wars," not all of them. And he continued the fight his predecessor had begun against al Qaeda, only with different means.

    Once in the White House, he quickly turned the military's focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, which his aides had touted as the "good war" in the fight against Islamic militants....

    "The response I'm getting in Connecticut is overwhelmingly negative when it comes to military intervention in Syria, and I think those people deserve to have their voice heard," said Democratic U.S. Senator Chris Murphy. Like Obama, Murphy was elected, in 2006, as an anti-war candidate.

    Barack Obama: He's the Peace Candidate...Except when he's sending troops to Afghanistan, double-tapping Pakistani EMTs and children, and loaning out the Air Force to jihadis in Libya.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    While running for office, he declared his opposition only to "dumb wars," not all of them.

    And the one he was specifically talking about in that speech, he continued for 3.5 years while in office.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    And that only ended because BOOSH the Busherian signed the Status of Forces Agreement that set a withdrawal date. As Kray-Kray pointed out last year, Obama tried to keep 3,000 troops in Iraq past the December 2011 withdrawal date.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    quite so! I forgot about that.

  • ||

    Robert Sarvis, Libertarian Party candidate for Governor of Virginia, is polling at 10%

    "Younger voters are attracted to a candidate like Robert Sarvis, who is representing their views," said Rick Sincere, the chairman of Charlottesville's electoral board. Sincere is also a writer for Virginia Politics on Demand. He identifies himself as a Republican with libertarian leanings.

    Sincere says Sarvis is gaining traction because people aren't happy with the other candidates.

    "Both McAuliffe and Cuccinelli have very high negative ratings, very unfavorable among voters," Sincere said.

    Negative or not, those two are getting a lot more attention than Sarvis.
    [...]
    But Sincere says Sarvis may be on the stage with Cuccinelli and McAuliffe in the future, if he continues his current trajectory.

    "If another poll comes out next week that shows him at 10 or 11 percent, he'll probably get an invitation," Sincere said.

    Wow, wouldn't it be a pretty big accomplishment if an LP candidate got to participate in a gubernatorial debate? It's almost enough to make me slightly optimistic.

  • ||

    Sorry, forgot the lede:

    The latest poll from Emerson College Polling Society says 10 percent of voters favor Sarvis. That compares to 45 percent for Democrat Terry McAuliffe and 35 percent for Republican Ken Cuccinelli. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.8 percent.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Which means he's taking votes mostly from Cucinelli.

    Sorry, McAuliffe is a total scoundrel and must be kept away from power.

  • John||

    Cucinelli is a fucking tone deaf half wit. It takes a major league retard to think arguing that consensual sodomy laws ought to stay on the books won't be used against you. I do t care how much you think you can yell sex offenders and Childrenz!!!!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    No argument there.

    If Sarvis shows the capability of at least getting into second place, he'll have my support. But that's not going to happen.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Cuccinelli gets tighter eminent domain laws passed in Virginia, then decides that KULTUR WARZ is the best hill to die on.

    Smooth operator, this guy.

  • ||

    Is it really taking votes when they're running away from you as fast as possible?

  • Hyperion||

    Unfortunately and sadly, the MSM seems to remain firmly in charge of most Americans thinking.

    All of the coverage I have seen of this race in the MSM does not even mention Sarvis. IOW, most voters do not even know that this guy exists.

    It's amazing how many people I have told that I voted for Gary Johnson for POTUS and they get this quizzical smirk and say 'Who is Gary Johnson'?

    Sarvis will never see a stage for debate, and he will be lucky to get 2% of the vote.

    Sounds like McAuliffe has this locked up, I am sure mostly thanks to gubmint leaches in NOVA. There's a whole lot of MD/DC in NOVA. It might as well be the same country, where parasites outnumber the hosts by a wide margin.

  • Killazontherun||

    @repjustinamash: Thank you, Mr President.

    It was so nice of the president to let you play with his toys, wasn't it Congressman Amash? Make sure you lick his balls while you are down there.

  • ||

    Pres Obama hasn't come close to justifying war in #Syria. I look forward to this debate. Pres must comply w/ vote of Congress; not optional.

    He's still on the right side of things.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Not really.

    If Congress passes an AUMF, will Amash say BO has to order strikes? I hope to Sevo he doesn't.

  • Irish||

    What's wrong with that tweet? He's saying that it's good there's going to be a vote in congress.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    That's not what "thank you" means where I come from.

  • Fluffy||

    Meh, I see what you're saying - Obama should not be thanked for obeying his oath of office - but "Thank you for doing the right thing" is still kind of a social convention.

  • Irish||

    He's thanking him for allowing the vote. Obviously he should be legally mandated to allow the vote, but given Obama's history, I have no problem with offering thanks on the rare occasion that he actually obeys the constitution.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    You don't thank someone for doing something to which you were entitled.

    It's probably just a slip of words, but it looks really bad.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    It doesn't look bad. Sometimes "thank you" means "thanks for not being an asshole."

  • ||

    You shouldn't HAVE to thank someone for doing something to which you were entitled.

  • Hyperion||

    We're a tough crowd here, and that's all good.

    But Amash is one of the only decent congress critters we have, maybe the best, and there is nothing to criticize here.

  • Killazontherun||

    I did because there was.

    When bombs drop it's not manners, good tidings and chummy sentiments that get stripped of flesh. We are only in this corner because the president ran his mouth off, drew lines and made threats he had no business making. So, what is there to thank him for? Once you thank some one, you also recognize that person as a moral peer. That obliterates the seriousness of just how far off the deep end we are here. It takes us back down to the delusional comity of business as usual in Washington, and every time that happens, bad people get their way.

    You don't thank him, you tell him, 'it is the least you could do, motherfucker.'

  • Hyperion||

    No way that Amash votes for this, so it will never be his fault if Obama does the stupid.

    Amash is just thanking him for doing the right thing. Not something I would do, but still, it's only a gesture, it doesn't mean anything. I bet that Amash hates that statist fuck as much as we do, but he's trying to look polite, because, well he's in the public spotlight, unlike us here at H&R.

  • Hyperion||

    BTW, Killazontherun, if I had my way, it would play out like this:

    Congress votes no.

    Obama has petulant royal hissy fit and moves to bomb Syria anyways.

    The military stands down, and instead takes Obama, Graham, McCain, and everyone else that has been beating the war drums, and air drops them into the middle of the conflict in Syria. I want this filmed live. It will be the one reality show that I guarantee I will not miss a minute of.

    And let this be a lesson to tyrants and war mongers everywhere.

  • Killazontherun||

    I'll admit in the public spotlight even I would leave out the 'motherfucker' part. But the rest is important. You have to be very careful who you thank in public. There is no room for informality that is not carefully staged in politics.

  • ||

    I automatically read it with dripping sarcasm. Maybe I hang out here too much?

  • Fluffy||

    So, as a practical matter, what can Rand or Amash or anyone else in the Congress do here?

    Will there be a debate, or will the Anointed One just address a Joint Session and demand an immediate vote?

    Will amendments be possible?

    What's the process going to be like?

    One problem with quasi-Constitutional government is it's all ad hoc, so it's hard to know the answers to these questions up front.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    You don't know how a bill becomes law?

  • Fluffy||

    I don't know how this bill becomes law.

    Because it's not necessarily to be a bill and it's not necessarily going to be a law.

    Since Obama indicates that he's not actually looking for something with legal force and won't acknowledge the legal force of whatever is passed, are we talking about a full-blown through committee and through both houses and through reconciliation and then to signature LAW, or are we talking about some sort of Sense bullshit?

    That's my question.

  • Hyperion||

    I didn't think that a declaration of war was a bill. I thought it was a vote. Maybe since there hasn't been one since the dinosaurs, no one really knows now. And that constitution thing, the Dinos ate it before they went extinct.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Both of the Bush AUMFs went through committee and the amendment process, like normal bills.

    There is certainly not going to be a declaration of war, but the last time that happened (against Germany in WW2), it took the form of a joint resolution.

  • John||

    There will be an aumf just like Iraq. Remember too they have to vote to fund this little adventure. So there won't be some BS non binding resolution or something.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    An insane woman tried to engage me in conversation on the street yesterday. I just kept walking and didn't say anything.

    Now why did I just think of that?

  • Rhywun||

    I tried to be pleasant and accommodating, but my head hurt from her banality. I almost didn't notice it had happened, but I suddenly threw up all over her. She was not pleased, and I couldn't stop laughing.

  • Frank_Carbonni||

    Wow. A Se7en reference. Nice.

  • Hyperion||

    Late Nite Links, especially on weekends, would really freshen up this place after 8pm EST.

  • Warrren||

    You know who also liked to freshen up?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Larry Craig?

  • Hyperion||

    2 wiminz who need to go to the restroom ... juntos?

  • Rhywun||

    1970's gum chewers?

  • Nazdrakke||

    On the other hand it's better than last Saturday, with it's one big thread of crazy.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The best possible outcome here is that Congress votes no and Obama goes ahead anyway. Then the libertarian-republicans use it as a campaign issue in 2014 to crush the Neo-Cons and the democrat socialists.

  • ||

    True, but I have confidence that the republicans will completely drop the ball.

  • Hyperion||

    Why fear? The orange one who speaks, has only your best interest in mind. I bet he even took time out from slathering himself with his 1970s stash of Coppertone QT to come to your house and talk to you personally about how the peasants are feeling about this senseless act of agression.

  • Agammamon||

    Went out into the open desert to day to do some shooting with a couple of friends - its so hot that in 4 hours I lost 2.2 pounds.

  • Hyperion||

    Did you find any gold nuggets, or nail any milfs?

    If you are going into the desert, please make story MOAR interesting.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Dude, are you reading the same story I am? He and his friends gangbanged two MILFs in the Sahara desert ("shooting"), and the MILFs were so hot that he had ejaculated 2.2 pounds of semen by the end.

    It's called reading between the lines.

  • Agammamon||

    Yeah man, something's you just don't talk about in public. Sheesh.

  • Hyperion||

    I missed all of that. I think I need to drink MOAR.

  • ||

    Shooting what?

    Upthread I described my shooting today. Watermelons and Tannerite. You can imagine the interesting combinations to be had there.

    Your weight loss is probably mostly water. You did not drink enough.

  • Hyperion||

    What about a story where you went into the desert, blew shit up, nailed milfs, and found undiscovered treasures?

    Why can't we libertarians have it all?

  • Warrren||

    Next on Gold Hunting MILF Fuckers: Shit gets blowd up good!

  • Hyperion||

    What time is that on?

  • Rhywun||

    What about a story where you went into the desert, blew shit up, nailed milfs, and found undiscovered treasures?

    Tuccille did it.

  • Agammamon||

    Oh, I know it was water.

    Shooting paper - 44 mag lever action, Ruger 10-22, and a Kel-Tec P-32.

    Had a barbeque.

    While we were close to the border, no Winnebagos barreling across the desert to crash into a dune whereupon a man wearing only a gas mask and tighty-whiteys comes stumbling out of a could of poisonous smoke materialized unfortunately.

  • Agammamon||

    Sometime soon we'll all have dirtbikes or ATV and then its barreling across the desert to shoot shit (dangerously) from moving platforms, probably while drunk.

  • cw||

    OT: Another Baby Reason came into this world yesterday!

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Awwww. Boy, girl, or awaiting genetic testing?

    Congratulations!

  • MJGreen||

    Hey! Let he/she choose her/his own gender, you libertarian tyrant.

    Congrats to you and yours, cw. Did you go all the way and name it Reason?

  • cw||

    Nah, but I'll brainwash him to spout libertarian talking points ;)

    Sorry, wifi connection really sucks.

  • Irish||

    Nah, but I'll brainwash him to spout libertarian talking points ;)

    Good. The first goal of libertarianism should be to make more libertarians.

    You've just taken an impressively direct approach to this problem.

  • Hyperion||

    This. If I ever have another kid (no fucking way!), I would start the indoctrination at least a few months before conception.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Agreed. I'm going to wait until they figure out some way to get Nozick's Anarchy and the State transmitted to the kid in utero before I have my next one.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

  • Warrren||

    Congragulations?

  • Hyperion||

    Whaaa???

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Congratulations!

    (I suppose "came into the world" is shorthand for "born," but on this joyous occasion I won't quibble over that)

  • ||

    Congratulations!

  • Hyperion||

    you libertarian tyrant

    All Libertarians are tyrants for wanting everyone to be able to choose how they live their own life. We are heartless bastards.

    On the music front, this is really unique, I think.

    bastille Pompeii

    Anyway, it's got stuck in my head for good or evil.

  • Hyperion||

    Oh well, everyone must SF a link in their lifetime.

    Bastille Pompeii

  • Lady Bertrum||

    OT: I'm becoming increasingly alarm by the ads on my Reason page. The top banner is photo's of sexy women saying, 'I don't want young men. I WANT YOU!'. Other ads are for hair removal, night vision scopes, Christian Mingle and shoes. What does this say about Reason's ad bots?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So you're saying you *don't* want any of these things?

    Not even the shoes?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And at least the bots got Reason commenters pegged when they attract advertisements for Christian dating sites, right? What Reason commenter *doesn't* want to settle down with a nice Christian girl?

  • Lady Bertrum||

    If by settle down you mean murder in their sleep, I'd say Sevo.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    At Reason, we know that you can't spell "chastity" without "tit".

  • Hyperion||

    There are no wiminz who do not want shoes, many shoes. If you meet a woman who does not have, or want many shoes, you better be having a looksee into those panties before you go making commitments.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    ^ While not a unique insight, it is also very true.

  • ||

    Once I brought yet another new rifle home and my wife put her hands on her hips and asked " How many rifles do you need?!"

    I answered "Not as many as you need shoes.". She has more than 300 pairs. I even had to build a special closet for them. Not only that, but she stores large chests of them in the attic. She has never said anything again about my gun purchases.

  • Hyperion||

    LOL. Dude, I hear you.

    I don't even bother to count the shoes and purses, whatever, that my wife has.

    Today, we were in an antique mall, that we've never been to before at the request of a family member to pick up something they purchased there.

    I collect historical bottles. I've been doing it since I was 12 years old, and have about 600 bottles currently in my collection.

    We were walking around there and I told her, of course, I need to see if they have any bottles I want at a price I can negotiate.

    She looks at me and said, 'baby, do you need more bottles, why?'

    To me, that seemed so silly, and I didn't answer with 'Do you need another pair of shoes?', I just didn't answer at all.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    I think it's very sweet that she called you baby, and your non-response shows great restraint. (or, she has you properly trained). ;-)

  • Hyperion||

    Haha, and I am sure we both think (has you properly trained)...

  • Pope Jimbo||

    I think that in this case you should go read that wonderful story Gunrunning in The Grasshopper Trap by Patrick F. McManus.


    The fourth gun is the tough one, and in the face of this spousal assaut, there is always the temptation to sneak the fourth gun. That's a mistake. Your wife's knowing you purchased a fourth gun is essential to further development of your gun collection. Here's why. After you bring the gun home and show it to your wife, she will shake her head and say, "I don't know why you need all those guns." Note that she doesn't say "four guns" but rather the vague and general "all those guns." Henceforth, she will think of our gun collection not in terms of specific numbers but as a single collective entity -- all!
  • Pope Jimbo||


    To thoroughly grasp this important concept, suppose your wife is dusting the gun case. "Him and all those guns," she might say to herself, possibly with a very tiny tolerant smile. What she fails to notice is that there are now five guns in the case! Once the pyschological barrier of the fourth gun is crossed, the gun collection can be expanded indefinitely without the wife's noticing provided the husband uses some common sense and doesn't add too many guns at once. Two or three a year is about right, spaced at decent intervals.
  • Rhywun||

    Sounds like they've got you nailed?

  • Lady Bertrum||

    The shoes, hair removal, and night vision scopes make a certain sense, and really do work together if you think about it. The ladies who don't want young men confuse me. Do they want me? Are they lesbians? Are they confusing me with an old man? Or do they want me to join them in their search for old men? And, while I am a Christian, I really don't want to mingle.

    It's all very confusing, but my second glass of wine maybe adding to the fog.

  • Hyperion||

    Don't worry, LB, your 3rd and 4th glasses of wine, and it will all start to be very clear...

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Pouring 3rd glass of wine......

  • Hyperion||

    You're on the right track, Saturday evening at H&R, straight ahead, no stop lights, no speed limit...

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Well, my ankle is injured, my family is way on a camping trip, and I'm all liquored-up and ready to say slightly inappropriate things on the internet. Yippee.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Call someone a fascist!

    Take your top off!

    Take your top off AND call someone a fascist!

    I've already done all three, and I didn't even have to get liquored up or anything...

  • Lady Bertrum||

    You're a fascist.

    DONE!!

  • Hyperion||

    Nah, LB, he's not a fascist, just a Canuckistanian, they're not always fascists! Remember, we are tolerant of barbarian cultures here!

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Fascist I'll take, but to call me a Canadian goes too far!

    Proud boricua, here.

  • Hyperion||

    Thanks for helping to guide a new weed hopper down the path to enlightenment.

    But you didn't finish, let me help.

    Take your top off, call someone a fascists, post it on the intertoobs, and post a link here.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Yeah, no. You'll just have to trust me on the last part.

    Not really. I have the AC on and it's a bit chilly in my house, so I'm not taking my top off.

  • BuSab Agent||

    I'll take my top off for you. Not running the AC and the sweat is really pouring between my tits.

  • Rhywun||

    They probably saw you on Reason with "Lady" in your name, and assumed you were a dude. I know I did.

  • Hyperion||

    How can you not assume that any poster on H&R is not a dude?

    /this is why there are no libertarian women.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    The assumed I was a hairy dude in need of Christian companionship and night vision scopes?

  • Agammamon||

    Inside, deep inside - your secret self, the face you hide from the world.

  • Irish||

    If you can't have a good weekend with a Christian hairy dude and night vision goggles then you don't know how to have fun.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    And now an ad for baby doll dresses from Mini Boden. So, a hairy Christian guy with night vision, high heels and a pink lacy dress.

    That is actually my mental image of Epi.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    But, maybe he's Jewish.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I'm pretty sure Epi is Italian, and would no doubt be offended that you would insult his unshakeable faith in Sol Invictus in such a manner.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Hmmm. This is what happens when women get tipsy. We "dish" on those not present in a bitchy manner. It's called friendship.

  • Hyperion||

    I'm pretty sure Epi is Italian

    Damn, I thought that he is Washingtonian...

  • Hyperion||

    I was just assuming they wanted money from anyone willing to pay for ads here. Assuming that 80% of the populace doesn't know what a libertarian is, seems normal for me to get all sorts of requests.

  • Rhywun||

    That's like half of us. Not me.

  • Hyperion||

    That there's not nearly enough ads for scary black guns and how to print them on your new 3D printer?

  • Irish||

    That there's not nearly enough ads for scary black guns and how to print them on your new 3D printer?

    Why's it always about race with you? I have a dream that one day guns will be judged by the contents of their magazines, not by the color of their plastics.

  • Hyperion||

    Look, dude, it's been tried. Have you ever seen a computer from the 90s? They tried that cracker shit, and they all turned a sickly shade of yellow. That's why all computers are black now.

  • Rhywun||

    "What'choo talkin' bout, Willis?"

    /My iMac

  • Hyperion||

    You Mac imperialists are apparently using that special white(cracker) plastic that don't fade and can only be afforded by the 1%, you bastard.

  • Rhywun||

    Actually, it's aluminum but the rest is accurate.

  • Hyperion||

    It's still a piece of crap compared to my badass PC, sorry dude...

  • Rhywun||

    Heh, I have one of those too. Unfortunately, it runs Windows.

  • Hyperion||

    It's also totally upgradable with high end hardware, like SLI NVidia video cards with 2G video ram each.

    If you don't game or like to upgrade your system, Mac is ok.

  • Rhywun||

    I like some gaming but I don't need 2GB video cards for what I do.

  • Hyperion||

    like some gaming but I don't need 2GB video cards for what I do.

    PC - choice of libertarians. I'll need whatever the fuck I want, and get it. (:

  • Rhywun||

    Turn that frown upside down! Anyway, I know what you're talking about. I was a PC until 2006, and I am still a Windows programmer in the day world. In my real life, however, I prefer Mac OS enough to go that route.

  • Hyperion||

    Haha. I have some friends in IT that love their MAC, although they are jealous of my PC for gaming.

    I'm a software engineer, web only, so it doesn't matter to me what OS or browser you see my sites in, I make sure it works for all of them.

    PC is just superior for gamers and tinkerers, Mac is nice for those who want something nice out of the box and don't care that it won't get any better for 5 years or until they are ready to spend totally too much money again on a computer that will be obsolete in 6 months.

  • Rhywun||

    10 years of software engineering in a Windows shop is what made me switch to Mac in the first place. Well, that and that horror that was Vista.

  • Hyperion||

    10 years of software engineering in a Windows shop is what made me switch to Mac

    I don't get it. What does PC or Mac have to do with your choice of development tools? All of my sites work with Mac browsers.

    You don't like .NET? Seriously? What do you want to use, Java? I can't believe that anyone wants to develop in anything but .NET if they have any choice.

  • Rhywun||

    I like .NET. I don't like Windows.

  • prolefeed||

    Other ads are for hair removal, night vision scopes, Christian Mingle and shoes. What does this say about Reason's ad bots?

    It says you should install Ghostery like most everyone here and make the FN ads go away.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    William Kristol: Regime Change Should Be Goal

    -Mugged by Middle East reality, President Obama and Secretary Kerry seem finally to have awakened to the necessity to act—unilaterally and un-apologetically. That's heartening. Still, do they understand that the American action has to be decisive? After all, as the late Mike Scully put it, liberals sometimes get mugged by reality—but then fail to press charges. Will Obama press charges? And pressing the appropriate charges in this case means removing Assad.

    So whatever the president and the secretary of state may now say about the mission in Syria being “limited” and “narrow,” one trusts they know the mission will only be a success if Assad goes. Regime change is not only Assad's just reward. It's also the best hope for a modicum of stability in and near Syria. And it's the only message other WMD-loving dictators will understand.

    So Obama doesn't have to talk about regime change right now. He just has to do it.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....51465.html

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Was this lifted directly from some 2003 op-ed making a case for the war in Iraq? The willful ignorance on the part of Kristol and the Regime Change Brigade is astonishing.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    When all you have is a hammer...

  • Hyperion||

    William Kristol: Regime Change Should Be Goal

    I'm assuming that little Billy wants to get on the front lines with his war mongers friends and take care of that, right?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I've never really been bothered by chickenhawking or whathaveyou -- the military is rightly subordinate to civilian authority, and decisions about foreign policy are best seen in that framework.

    More obnoxious is that they don't even seem to be trying to square costs and benefits -- or otherwise try to exercise their responsibility and public trust responsibly. As Bo says above, if their ideology tells them to see every foreign policy problem as a nail then by God they're going to get hammered -- and that's all there is to it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is interesting because on other issues of government most neoconservatives rightly find the capabilities of government to be limited and usually counterproductive, but then turn around and say the government can be trusted with the task of quelling centuries old conflicts and rebuilding the nations of the region as vibrant democracies.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I'm not sure if most neo-conservatives would agree with that characterization; they are certainly more on the "interventionist" side of things domestically than your average conservative.

    It is absurd to have any respect at all for Burkean change, the historical "long view", or limited government and embrace the idea that 10 years of US occupation = insta-democracy*.

    *Democracy meant in the Orwellian sense as "a government that does good things that we like", not "a mechanism for selecting government decisionmakers". Arguably no one outside a few quacks is really and truly in favor of mob democracy anywhere, but especially in places like the ME.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I grant that many neoconservatives would have less opposition to domestic intervention than many conservatives of different strains, but they got their name by being openly skeptical and critical of government efforts in those areas. To then turn around and advocate our government engage in nation, no region, building is odd indeed.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    More odd is why mainstream conservatives go along with it. I suspect it has to do with an absurd fetishization of the military coupled with rah-rah partisanship, but to be honest I haven't a clue.

    The ambitions of the neo-con program certainly don't match up with claims about government and society that conservatives make elsewhere.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is probably the 'fetishization of the military' you speak of (great phrase by the way). A post here the other day mentioned that only 18% of Republicans polled had confidence in the federal government or federal government workers. I wondered if they were thinking of the Department of Defense (which by employees is the largest federal agency) or the military.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    More odd is why mainstream conservatives go along with it. I suspect it has to do with an absurd fetishization of the military coupled with rah-rah partisanship, but to be honest I haven't a clue.

    It's a hangover from the late 60-80s when the left was openly pro communist and anti-American. With the end of the cold war, non neo-con conservatives started returning to their non-interventionist roots - they opposed intervention in Yugoslavia in the 90s. But old habits die hard and the 911 attacks made the neo-con warmongers seem prescient for a time.

  • Boisfeuras||

    I grant that many neoconservatives would have less opposition to domestic intervention than many conservatives of different strains, but they got their name by being openly skeptical and critical of government efforts in those areas. To then turn around and advocate our government engage in nation, no region, building is odd indeed.

    Neoconservatism was born when old school New Deal liberals defected from the Democrats over disagreements with the radical New Left. They are only conservative in their leftism. They are not conservative at all in the traditional U.S. sense of the word.

  • Slammer||

    " It's also the best hope for a modicum of STABILITY"

    Eric Cartman: blink, blink blink Hahahahahahahaha...oh god Hahahahahahahaahanaan

  • Irish||

    So whatever the president and the secretary of state may now say about the mission in Syria being “limited” and “narrow,” one trusts they know the mission will only be a success if Assad goes. Regime change is not only Assad's just reward. It's also the best hope for a modicum of stability in and near Syria. And it's the only message other WMD-loving dictators will understand.

    I think it would actually be pretty funny if the Weekly Standard repeated op-eds that they ran in 2003 and just replaced all the dates and proper nouns to update it. I don't think anyone could tell the difference.

  • PapayaSF||

    Sorry, we're about two years late for this, Mr. Kristol. Back then we might have been able to topple Assad and gotten some sort of pro-Western, non-insane government into power. But now that the Sunni jihadis have pretty much taken over the rebel side, it's like toppling the Shah for his crimes and not caring that the mullahs would be 100 times worse.

    What a bizarre world we live in when Obama, Bill Kristol, and Al Qaeda all want the US to attack Syria, and I find myself agreeing with Dennis Kucinich....

  • ||

    "It's also the best hope for a modicum of stability in and near Syria."

    I wonder if Billy has noticed all of the stability resulting from the removal of the dictators in Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Tunisia.

    Maybe he should have some coffee and a chat with this fellow; http://www.arabnews.com/news/462741

    "... many analysts don’t know the complexity of the Arab world.
    When you talk to a Syrian from Damascus and a Syrian from Aleppo, it is like talking to two people from two different planets.
    A Libyan from Benghazi is completely different to a Libyan from Tripoli. An Egyptian from Cairo would not be welcome in Egypt’s Sinai.
    A Yemeni from Sanaa considers a Yemini from Aden his sworn enemy. The simple fact is that these countries are already divided beyond imagination."

    "Ironically, it was those ousted dictators who held these countries together. "

  • Lady Bertrum||

    William Kristol is a horrible human being. You'd think after Iraq he's locate some humility and pipe it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Commentary's Max Boot: Republicans Should Demand Larger Intervention in Syria

    -Instead of trying to block the president, Republicans would be well advised to push him to make the looming military action in Syria more wide-ranging and strategically significant than news accounts currently depict. Obama vows to send a “shot across the bow” of the Assad regime with cruise missiles. He would be better advised to use air power in cooperation with ground action by vetted rebel forces to cripple and ultimately bring down Assad’s regime, making impossible further atrocities such as the use of chemical weapons last week.

  • Rhywun||

    What could possibly go wrong?

  • Irish||

    Max Boot is the biggest neo-con in the universe. He's even more hardcore than Kristol and Krauthammer. I read an article that described him as an 'ultra-militarist' which I actually think is a more accurate description of his worldview than 'neo-con.'

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Krauthammer is probably the best of the neo-con pack. He sometimes has some good suggestions for foreign policy, and his quasi-realist tendencies prevent him from suggesting things quite on the same level of insanity of the rest of the bunch.

    I still think that Kristol is the most irredeemable of the bunch. Boot is, as you say, an ultra-militarist more than someone with an actual ideology; Kristol actually does seem to believe that a ME with Walmarts, Starbucks, and Americanized democracies is just one bombing away -- that makes him far more dangerous than Boot.

  • Hyperion||

    Krauthammer actually is one of the GOP establishment shills who came out and said that libertarians must be recognized and have a place in the GOP.

    That's apparently before he realized that we are something new that cannot be bought and sold for the price of political power.

  • Irish||

    Krauthammer is far and away the smartest neo-con, the most politically gifted, and, though this isn't saying much, probably the most reasonable.

    Some of his articles regarding domestic policy are very good. I do think Krauthammer probably belongs more in the 'realist' Kissinger school than the neo-con school. There just aren't that many realists left so he falls in with the neo-cons.

  • Hyperion||

    Max Boot? WTF? LMAO! Could you make up a more totalitarian name if you tried? Where can I heckle this fucktard mercilessly? I want 5 tickets, I will find the other 4...

  • Rhywun||

    Yeah, I never heard of him before - are we sure it's not a parody? Does the Onion have a partnership with Commentary now...?

  • Irish||

    Boot's written a bunch of books.

    Unsurprisingly they are all about warfare.

  • Rhywun||

    "Max Boot tells the exciting stories of our sometimes minor but often bloody landings in Samoa, the Philippines, China, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Mexico, Russia, and elsewhere."

    I just can't even.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It's actually pretty good as a popular history, notwithstanding the slight wafts of creepy psychopathic glee that glimmer through every once in a while.

    Boot is knowledgeable, even if he is somewhat fascist.

  • Irish||

    It's actually pretty good as a popular history, notwithstanding the slight wafts of creepy psychopathic glee that glimmer through every once in a while.

    Which is also true of Victor Davis Hanson whose history books have a disturbing tendency to dwell on what it must have been like to slowly die from evisceration.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    For really insightful social commentary check out Theodore Dalrymple. He'll make you want to slit your wrists for sure.

    Life at the Bottom

  • Rhywun||

    Yeah, he's pretty interesting. I read him a lot at City Journal. A little too so-con for my taste but definitely worthwhile.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    I'm not sure about the so-con part. He lives in France. So, there's that.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Dalrymple is interesting, indeed (though as Rhywun said, a bit SoCon for my taste).

    I'm a big fan of Sowell, as far as critical observations of race, ethnicity, and culture go.

  • Rhywun||

    I was reading some of Sowell's book recently where he talked about "cracker culture"... very interesting stuff.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Sowell lost me with his over the top support for some of the more egregious aspects of the WOT during the Bush administration and his immigration pieces recently. I think he is essentially the conservative version of Krugman, a man who undoubtedly knows a lot about economics but who has decided to write a lucrative popular column appealing to partisans.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I only read Sowell's column semi-regularly, but I don't think that's quite accurate. If you are talking present-day Sowell vs 90s-era Krugman, I would more or less agree. However, Sowell's crime in his columns is more in terms of certain things he chooses to emphasize/de-emphasize for the benefit of his readership, rather than in terms of falsehoods.

    For example, Sowell was against the war in Iraq. This is not well-known, probably because he has only mentioned his opposition to the war offhandedly perhaps half a dozen times from what I've read. This (and to a smaller degree, immigration policy) would be examples of a criminal de-emphasis. (Curious, since he doesn't seem to self-censor in his books.)

    90s-era Krugman did this, too. Present-day Krugman tells a lot of what he, as an economist, assuredly knows to be a lie. For example, he has argued in his NYT column for protectionist policies -- contradicting everything he's said in his professional career and in his column from the 90s.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Good points. I think Krugman seems more offensive (and wow, he can seem offensive, even mendacious) because what he chooses to write about is usually economics, where the left is fundamentally at odds with us. Sowell tends to do the same thing, where the right is fundamentally in agreement with us. But on issues where the libertarians tend to disagree with conservatives Sowell is, when partisan politics predict, just as bad. He defended torture, NSA wiretapping, and said some strange things about immigration.


    But on other issues Sowell

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Ah, strike that "But on other issues Sowell"

  • Rhywun||

    To wit: Discussing drug legalization with libertarians, as I did recently, can be a frustrating experience. ... Living in a civilized society means accepting laws that one did not make oneself....

    I get his scathing critiques of modern culture - and in many cases I agree 100% - but he is not much of a defender of personal freedom.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Dalrymple actually debated a team which included Reason's Nick Gillespie on drug legalization (Dalrymple was against legalization, Gillespie for). The audio is here:

    http://www.intelligencesquared.....lize-drugs

  • VG Zaytsev||

    IIRC during that debate Dalrymple said that everything you know about hard drugs is wrong (meaning the audience) and then went on to document that drug use doesn't create career criminals, but that those people get into drugs after the start on a life of crime.

    I found it to be an effective argument for legalization, which was opposite the position that he was arguing for.

  • ||

    From the comments to that article:

    "Libertarians are adolescents, which is why you really can't argue with them. They also accept the same deformed philosophical premises of progressives, e.g. that freedom=autonomy, with the difference that the latter worship the State rather than the individual. (A traditional view of freedom is faith-based, and offers a deeper and wider anthropology than either of the liberal choices.)"

  • ||

    He later says that all libertarian arguments boil down to a "petulant" cry of "you're not the boss of me!"

    Somehow he believes that freedom does NOT mean autonomy. Not sure what definition of freedom he's using.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Conservatives have a bad habit of dismissing libertarian arguments about responsibility and authority by characterizing them as petulance.

    In fairness, some libertarians do have a "let's burn down the house" approach to rhetoric and politics which make them easy to characterize this way.

  • Dweebston||

    Calling your opponent "petulant," "shrill," or "hysterical" is as good as conceding the point. Yeah, dweeb, some of us feel quite strongly about such things. Thanks for pointing it out.

  • Rhywun||

    Libertarians are adolescents

    Someone's been reading H&R.

  • Warrren||

    FUCK YOU!

  • ||

    I really dont know what to think of you Pedo-bot.

  • Hyperion||

    Is pedo bot like anon-bot, but rapes children?

  • ||

    Anon-bot is Pedo-bot. It keeps changing it's name, but it isnt fooling anyone.

  • Irish||

    Did you see his hilarious comment earlier today?

    LardoSardo| 8.31.13 @ 1:52PM |#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    Jack Daddy Frap Frap is not goign to like that at all man.

    www.MaxAnony.tk
  • Lady Bertrum||

    Strangely, this makes perfect sense to me.

  • Warrren||

    JACK DADDY FRAP FRAP!

  • Rhywun||

    Damn straight, Anon.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    +1, Well said, Lardo Sardo.

  • Rhywun||

    Wait a minute... "MaxAnony"? Max Boot? Is that you???

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    OK, one more. Bill O'Reilly:

    -This man, Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad is a war criminal, a mass murderer and a baby killer. By using poison gas on Syrian civilians which is against the Geneva Convention, Assad is now responsible for thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths, according to the humanitarian group, Doctors without Borders. So there is no question that Assad must be held accountable. If you believe in American exceptionalism that this country has a moral obligation to save lives when it can all over the world, then you know the USA must act against Assad as it did against Saddam Hussein.

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/.....z2dbah8Pq7

  • Hyperion||

    I'm totally willing to send O'Reilly into Syria to stop these baby killing menaces. When can he depart?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What I like about this one is that it has so much garbage arguments in one tight paragraph, such as the reference to Assad as a 'baby killer,' the phrase 'there is no question' for an assertion that in fact is being highly questioned by many, the invocation of American exceptionalism and then defining it oddly as 'that this country has a moral obligation to save lives' and finally the invocation of boogeyman Saddam Hussein.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    If you believe in American exceptionalism that this country has a moral obligation to save lives when it can all over the world

    ...is that really what American exceptionalism means? If so, I fail to see how you can describe America as having been exceptional up until, perhaps, the late 80s or early 90s.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Was it not a major goal of most of our Founders (at least the Washington and Adams administrations) to stay out of conflicts around the world even when they seemed inspired by revolutionary ideals similar to our own?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Clearly, Washington and Adams did not believe in American exceptionalism.

  • Hyperion||

    We became exceptional in the late 1700s. It's been all downhill since around 1900.

  • Killazontherun||

    ^this.

    In 1900, the international image of an American was of a businessman without peer. The ugly American was someone who came in, saw two tribes of people who no one but themselves could tell apart from one another in dispute over something stupid, and he would cut through the bullshit and get something useful done. The American was considered petulant and unrefined and not respecting of the honorable traditions such as starvation, malaria and infant mortality that were part and partial to a unique culture's sense of identity. You didn't hate him given you typically got something useful out of the deal like a well pump and he wasn't particularly warlike or manipulative compared to the European colonizers. It is a pity he grew out of that adolescence and decided he needed to become a member of respectable society and join the club of nations that make big wars happen. Ironically perhaps, losing most everything which made him exceptional and becoming almost typical.

  • ||

    If you believe in American exceptionalism that this country has a moral obligation to save lives when it can all over the world...

    And if you don't believe that, he'll be more than happy to call you a pussy pinhead liberal traitor and then shout you down when you try to say anything back to him.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    +1. What vague bullshit, 'moral obligation to save lives'.

    Is that what American exceptionalism really is?

    He's playing fast and loose with the language again.

  • Dweebston||

    "Exceptional" would have been bucking the European trend of going to war every couple years with one enemy or another. Exceptional would have been letting our superior trade advantages speak for us. Unfortunately, pinheads like O'Reilly see only brute martial strength as a source of power.

  • Rhywun||

    this country has a moral obligation to save lives when it can all over the world

    So... why aren't we toppling, say, Dear Leader Jr.? He is almost certainly leaps and bounds more evil than Assad, and I'm sure we could handle it.

  • Irish||

    This man, Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad is a war criminal, a mass murderer and a baby killer. By using poison gas on Syrian civilians which is against the Geneva Convention, Assad is now responsible for thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths, according to the humanitarian group, Doctors without Borders.

    This annoys the hell out of me. They don't even bother mentioning that the rebels have done THE EXACT SAME THINGS. The Syrian rebels have eaten the hearts of their enemies. They have lit four year olds on fire because their parents supported Assad. They have decapitated bound and gagged prisoners on camera.

    The rebels have done things that sound like government propaganda but all of which actually happened. Why is cannibalizing your opponents and lighting four year olds aflame less of a violation of the Geneva Convention than a gas attack?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Plus the Geneva convention only applies to conflicts between signatories, and certainly doesn't apply to civil wars.

  • ||

    There are so many things wrong there. Ugh.

    I am far from convinced that Assad is behind the gas attack, assuming there was one. This is not the first time the rebels have made that claim, and if I remember correctly, the last time it was a lie.

    Even if he did, there is most definitely a question about us holding him accountable. We have no such obligation. None.

    Do these craven war-mongers realize that the kids they send into these shitholes actually die and suffer horrible maiming, both physical and psychological? Or do they just think of them in the abstract, like accountants adding up costs and losses for businesses they have no knowledge or experience of whatsoever?

    I wonder how long it would take these guys to shit themselves if I dragged them into a real firefight.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    BBC News uses 'Iraq photo to illustrate Syrian massacre'

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Judging from the stuff Bo's been posting, American news has been copy-lifting just about everything else from its Iraq war coverage.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Sumlin didn't have much to say about two other Manziel incidents, two other examples of this indulgent, entitled young talent doing as he pleases. They happened on back-to-back plays on his second possession of the third quarter, the first one coming after he scrambled eight yards on third-and-7 and went back to the huddle walking backward, looking at the Rice defense, responding to whatever they were saying -- possibly taunts about his half-game suspension for signing those autographs -- by pantomiming a signing motion and shaking his head no, as if to say: Nobody wants your autograph.

    On the next play Manziel found Evans for their first of two touchdown connections, a 23-yard slant pattern that Manziel celebrated by looking to the sky and rubbing his fingers together in what looked like a "counting money" motion.

    Sumlin was asked after the game if he had seen Manziel miming his signature.

    "Nope," he said. "If I'd seen that, I'd have done something about it."

    http://www.cbssports.com/gener.....upid-moves

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    The ultimate issue is that liberal regressives have zero concept of how a business runs. McDonalds corporate does not dictate the wages for the franchises.
    Read more at http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?.....V9HgrJy.99

  • prolefeed||

    No they can't. You can't just take money from one expense and put it towArds another. Government fiscal law doesn't work like that. That money can only be used for that purpose.

    You mean the way the money collected for Social Security has been put in a lockbox? Oh, wait, Congress passed a law saying that ALL the surpluses automatically go to the General Fund and get spent on whatever the fuck Congress wants.

    Congress will do whatever the heck they can muster up the votes to do, Constitution or "fiscal law" be damned.

  • Dweebston||

    Threadjumping, but y'all post too quickly. IRT Ken Shultz above,

    Look, I'm not saying that Putin is going offer Snowden in exchange for Obama standing down, but if I were Putin, that's one of the things I would do. If I can get something better than Snowden for Snowden, then I do that deal.

    A small part of me wants to see the left immolate on the Snowden question. I've no idea whether progressives necessarily celebrate the guy, but I don't think they're lockstep with Pelosi and Obama on this one. I hope Snowden escapes the political currents unscathed, but if he's brought in I hope to God it's on Obama's watch. There's no chance progressives won't be caught between engorging their newfound hawkishness or championing the little guy over the scary surveillance state. It might at least clarify Obama's unapologetic war-footing for those on the left who haven't pledged him their unyielding allegiance.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    I'm torn at this point. I could continue to monitor this thread or watch Pirates of the Caribbean. Pouring 4th glass of wine......

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Orlando Bloom is looking good...

  • Dweebston||

    I'm straight, and I'd go with Pirates. Or maybe some Michael Bolton.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    weird but very funny stuff.

  • ||

    Why couldn't the boy go see the pirate movie?

    Because it was rated Aaaaarrrrgghhh!

  • ||

    No no no, you should watch GhostShark on demand.

    I taped it the other day off the Sci-Fi channel and it is EXACTLY what the title promises: a great white shark is killed and his ghost (which continues to have to swim?) comes back for revenge.

    It's literally the best movie I've seen since Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li.

  • Dweebston||

    But how does it compare to the cinematic masterpiece that is Into Darkness?

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    Zing!

    Chuck Woolery ‏@chuckwoolery 3h
    When congress votes, I think the Republicans should all vote present, just like Obama did. Let the Democrats figure this one out.
  • Rhywun||

    Be back in 2 and 2!

  • ||

    I had an interesting evening.

    I went fishing at a small stream, that I frequent, near my home. It was a beautiful evening. Warm, no wind. Sun shining. A little Whitetail fawn crossed the stream right in front of me. Serene and peaceful. You can almost hear the Bambi music. I just landed and released my first trout when...

    Bam, bam, bam, bam....

    Someone lets go with about 12 rounds, as fast as they can pull the trigger, not 50 yards away. I'm hearing bullets hitting home, THUMP, THUMP, THUMP, THUMP...

    Next thing you know, I'm on my face in the river rocks about shitting myself. I yelled, "Hey there's someone back here." I layed there for a few minutes and there were no more shots, so I quickly got some dirt between me and the origin. Pissed me off too, because I missed some of the nicest pools in the run.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Again Hyperion, this is a story about a gangbang.

    In reality, very little of what is said at Hit and Run -- by either the commenters or editorialists -- is not gangbang-related.

  • Hyperion||

    Again Hyperion, this is a story about a gangbang.

    Yeah, once upon a time, me, who somehow keeps mistaking you for Canuckistanian Trouser Pants Cheerleader... even though... I admit, I am still confused...

    Anyway, once upon a time in a land far, far away in H&R land, before any &s were permitted, I, ummm, what the fuck were we talking about???... Oh yeah... Ok. Anyway, I told stories that I thought were funny, or interesting, and that's when I learned that no milf nailin = BORING!

    And they lived fucked up ever after.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    QUIT CONFUSING US

  • Hyperion||

    Amendment... what was the last one?

    Ok. Amendment, the one after the last one, of the old and dusty constitution of the United States of Murika:

    Libertarians retain the right to be confused, after midnight...

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I remember that (though I didn't remember it was you who had told the story).

    FWIW, I found your story entertaining.

  • ||

    Clearly your experience disproves libertarian theories about personal freedom and is an argument in favor of gun confiscation.

    If you let any old idiot run around with a gun, he might MDK random stream fishing people.

    /Tony

  • Hyperion||

    Someone lets go with about 12 rounds, as fast as they can pull the trigger, not 50 yards away. I'm hearing bullets hitting home, THUMP, THUMP, THUMP, THUMP...

    Umm, isn't this the point that you hope someone eliminated another giant rat menace from the pits of hell?

    But, I love fishing. Still, elimination of giant rat menaces from pits of hell, gooooodddddd!

  • ||

    Are you sure it wasn't one of the mooching rich people you got to invest in your shitty copper mine scheme? Once they figured out you burned them on purpose, I can see some revenge killing being in order.

  • ||

    Fucking Jim Taggart! That bastard! Must have been him. He's been out to get me ever since I fucked his sister.

  • Warrren||

    Maybe he was shooting second off-handed.

  • Fluffy||

    Was she worth it?

    Considering the fact that she also screwed all your best friends.

  • Dweebston||

    But did you call the cops?

  • ||

    Why would I want my dogs shot?

  • Warrren||

    500!

  • Hyperion||

    Whooooooo Hooooooo! I knew that we could do it!

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    Wandering Prague in Streetview. Good memories.

  • Hyperion||

    Tell us more, include milf nailin, please.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    Those records are sealed.

  • Hyperion||

    Bastard! We are over 500 posts now! 500! We expect milf nailin details!

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    Here's a cool little "boutique"

  • ||

    Yikes. From the looks of that guy hanging around outside....I will pass.

  • ||

    Wow. I decided to make black beans for tomorrow to put on some taco salad. Bean dip, spicy ground beef, lettuce, tomato, cheese...etc.

    I put pork neck bones, garlic, white pepper, chicken stock, sweet onion and the beans in a slow cooker. Then I decided to chop up a couple of jalepenos and put in there. Jesus, those are the hottest jalepenos I have ever experienced. They are right up there with habeneros. I cut them barehanded and then made the mistake of rubbing my eyes an hour later. I also touched my lips and now my whole damn face is on fire.

    I cant wait to try the beans.

  • Hyperion||

    Jesus, those are the hottest jalepenos I have ever experienced

    I have found jalepenos to be unpredictable. I really don't know how you judge those things as to how hot they will be.

    But, damn, that sounds good.

    I came up with a special sauce a couple weeks ago, for leftover grilled meat.

    So, I take some leftover grilled beef, cut in cubes, and make my special sauce of:

    2 table spoons A1 sauce, 1 table spoon Thai chili sauce, 1 tea spoon Azeite de Dende (this is red palm oil from Brazil, not sure if available in US), and a few drops of Louisiana hot sauce.

    This is great for dipping overnight refrigerated beef.

  • ||

    I am not sure yet, but I think the soil, climate, and time of season has an effect on jalepeno hotness. I have noticed for several years that my jalepeno variety is hotter than normal, and the later in the season, the hotter they get.

    Louisiana hot sauce has fantastic flavor, but it is not hot. I have used a mix of 1/2 La hot sauce and 1/2 tabasco habenero and found it to be mouth wateringly good and has a decent bite. I am guessing the Thai chili adds enough heat though.

    If red palm oil is available in the states, it is not available in my area. Sounds very interesting.

  • Hyperion||

    I've been gardening for, well, I may as well say 40 years, because my grandparents in KY taught me all that when I was very young.

    I still cannot figure out jalapenos, it just doesn't make sense to me. I remember the jalapenos that my grandparent grew, and I would eat them whole, right out of the garden. Then some friends of mine came up from Mexico City and I was eating their nachos and cheese and jalapenos and those things set my mouth on fire, seriously.

    Jalapenos are unpredictable, or I want someone to tell me why they are not.

    There is nothing else like Azeite de Dende. It's very strong, and you can't use too much of it. My wife uses it in some dishes, and it's very addicting. This is the first time I've been able to use it effectively, it can easily over power anything else, so you need to use in context.

  • ||

    I googled it. I will have to order some and try it.

  • Dweebston||

    That does sound good. I've been a life-long fan of green chile, and only recently been using jalapenos, but the heat quickly overtakes the nuance of the flavor. I like habeneros for that reason: a little bit can flavor a dish, and the taste is more than just sheer piquancy.

  • Dweebston||

    Also, my brother is growing several strains of bhut jalokia and a scorpion pepper this year. Have yet to hear how they compare, but it sounds masochistic.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    The Merciless Peppers of Quetzalacatenango … grown deep in the jungle primeval by the inmates of a Guatemalan insane asylum.

  • Hyperion||

    Don't be silly. Quetzalcoatl came from the Eastern Sea, and when he got off his sea ship, he was with blue eyes, white skin, and a beard like ZZ Top. He also hated Hummus and artisanal mayo, and provided the natives with weapons that were totally ineffective against the Spaniards.

  • ||

    Ok Hyperion, true story.

    About 20 years back I went out to shoot my pistol. In the hills here there are ice cold, crystal clear creeks with sandy bottoms that meander through the woods. I would put on shorts, take off my shoes and walk through the creeks and shoot cottonmouths. You can keep cool and stay out away from the damn chiggers. This creek cuts through some piney woods with massive trees. The canopy is well over 100 feet up. On this particular occasion, after going about a mile I came to where the creek, a loggers road, and a pipeline converged. The pipe itself is buried, but they mow over the line for about 25 yards on either side so it makes a nice grassy clearing.

    As I approached I noticed two fairly attractive women laying out in the sun next to the creek. They were also drinking wine. This was very unusual as it is a pretty remote area and having been there many times for decades, I had never seen anyone there except loggers, and that only rarely. When I got to where they were I said hello and introduced myself. We talked a bit. Turns out one of them was the older sister of a guy I went to HS with.

    We talked a bit more and they had more wine. The more wine they had, the more flirty they got. Pretty soon they propositioned me. They claimed they had never had a threesome before.

    Yes, I went on a shooting trip and ended up nailing two milfs.

    Happy?

  • Hyperion||

    Fuck, dude.

    I just fucked up a response.

    Anyway, I like it, and I will counter.

    When I was maybe 17-18, I was with a couple of my cousins. I had just scored a little decent weed and I was looking for a place to get high.

    The place was near Miami of Ohio, there was an old dam there and a place where a lot of people partied.

    So, anyway, I was sitting on the old broken dam with my cousins and I Noted that there were some people downstream sitting on the other side of the dam, probably 50 ft. or so away...

    Anyway, there were 3 of them, 1 guy and 2 women. I didn't give any attention to any of them, except...

  • Hyperion||

    One of the women caught my attention, great body in a white bikini, dark hair, I was thinking, wow, I would love to see her naked.

    Couple of seconds later, seriously, the girl in the white bikini stood up and said, 'hey, you guys care if I swim nude'?

    My cousin next in age to me, he was 17, just blurted out, 'FUCK NO'. And that was it, this girl that I had moments ago been fanaticizing about, took off her clothes. I was NOT disappointed. WOW.

  • ||

    Jeez. I was thinking about that and doing the math...that was more like thirty years ago. That makes me kinda sad. Heh.

    I saw one of those women a couple of years ago in the grocery store. Fat and very grandma looking.

  • Dweebston||

    Okay, you all can stop. Pretty much killed it for me. Thanks for trying, Penthouse Letters is closed for the evening.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Dear H&R,

    I never thought I'd be writing to you, but last night I...

  • PapayaSF||

    Speaking of hit MILFs, here's the Daily Mail on Asma Assad.

    She was once described as ‘a rose in the desert’, a long-limbed, London beauty who used her elegance and Western style to mask the increasing brutality of her husband’s murderous regime. But as Asma Assad shelters in a bomb-proof bunker to avoid the horrors erupting within Syria – and to escape the US missiles expected soon to rain down on the country – she has become more of a Marie Antoinette figure, shopping for extravagant designer goods, food and health products online as the country collapses around her.

  • PapayaSF||

    hot MILFS....

  • ||

    hit MILFs

    I thought that was some sort of Kick Ass reference.

  • ||

    Well that's part of the progression, anyways.

    Hit Girl - Hit Woman -Hit Milf - You don't want to know.

  • ||

    Hit Pelosi! Yeah, I went there.

  • TommyD||

    Sec. John ketchup says sarin gas was used in Syria. They have the hair samples to prove it. It also tested positive for marijuana, so the doj will be sent over first to investigate.

  • Fluffy||

    You can make sarin gas in your basement.

    Crazy Asian cult dudes proved that.

    Can we just take the time to prove that it was Assad?

    Why does everything suddenly have to move RightFuckingNow? After we dicked around on this issue for two years, all of a sudden now Kerry's all "Shut up and get in the car, there's no time to explain"?

    Fuck him and his boss.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement