Jacob Sullum in The Washington Post: Is Looking at Child Pornography Tantamount to Abusing Children?

WJLA-TVWJLA-TVIn the letter he wrote on the day he hanged himself last month, Ryan Loskarn talked about the shame and guilt he felt after he was caught with child pornography. Loskarn, former chief of staff to Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), did not mention fear of prison, perhaps because he had already resolved to end his life. But for anyone in his position who planned to stay alive, the prospect of spending years behind bars would loom large. In fact, writes Jacob Sullum in The Washington Post, the legal treatment of people caught with child pornography is so harsh that they can end up serving longer sentences than people who actually abuse children. 

Read the article.

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.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    I think there some utility in disincentivizing the demand for child pornography, but I'm not sure if the current level of punishment has had the necessary level of scrutiny. I don't know, but I don't think that this is a crime worthy of wrecking the rest of a person's life.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    What demand? If you can get it for free off the internet, I can't imagine very few people at allpaying for it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Not only that, but do the authorities think there is a kiddie porn factory out there somewhere? Like the Molestco Corporate H.Q. in Phenom Phen or something? Do they really think child pornography is filmed in a studio complete with a bored cameraman and a director twirling his mustache evilly as he yells "you know why you're here, now take it off, honey" at the boy or girl?

    Based on all reports on the subject, the fact is that child pornography is basically a "gift economy", that is in order for pedophiles to join communities that distribute the porn, they need to make an original contribution by uploading images of them molesting a child to the community. That way the administrators know the new member is not a cop and they have new images to feed their perversion. The producer and consumer are one.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Interesting. But if the producer and consumer are usually one, doesn't that cast suspicion on most consumers? Would it be reasonable to investigate a consumer to see if he is also a producer?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Would it be reasonable to investigate a consumer to see if he is also a producer?

    Don't they usually? I would think it standard operating protocol to investigate if a consumer of child pornography was in contact with children and if so, did he or she molest them and is there photographic evidence of such. But that would require competence on the part of the authorities, so I'm not holding my breath.

  • Plopper||

    Don't they usually? I would think it standard operating protocol to investigate if a consumer of child pornography was in contact with children and if so, did he or she molest them and is there photographic evidence of such. But that would require competence on the part of the authorities, so I'm not holding my breath.

    Are you implying someone loses their 4th amendment rights when they download the wrong kind of media from the internet? On purpose, or accidentally?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    No. The investigation would occur once the person is convicted of possession. After which, any competent police officer would get, you know, a search warrant. I doubt it would be a hard sell to most judges.

  • Plopper||

    So then you do believe people should lose their rights for being guilty of merely possession forbidden speech?

    So basically then, you're OK with witch hunts and prosecuting people for simply possibly being part of a deviant group?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So then you do believe people should lose their rights for being guilty of merely possession forbidden speech?

    It doesn't matter what I believe. The original discussion was about the law as it is written and enforced now.

  • Plopper||

    Proof that HM is lying and/or ignorant and completely unwilling to engage in honest debate and would rather try to pull someone's pants down than actually debate them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Wiki

    "These include links to sites sharing child pornography and E-commerce sites selling contraband goods and services, including weapons, counterfeit money and identity documents, stolen credit card information, murder for hire, and drugs, such as the Silk Road.[4]"

    http://www.giganews.com/blog/2.....ating.html

    "New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo recently requested several Internet service providers stop providing access to 80 specific newsgroups (the NYAG repeatedly cites 88 groups, but their list contains 8 duplicates). The NYAG asserted that these groups were solely used for the dissemination of sexual abuse images."

    And if you understand how USENET works anyone can download any article posted on USENET.

  • Plopper||

    According to Sullum's article:

    Ninety percent of federal child-porn prosecutions involve “non-production offenses” like Loskarn’s: downloading or passing along images of sexual abuse, as opposed to perpetrating or recording it.
  • Plopper||

    Usually people just download it without any contact with the producers as far as I understand.

    Sites on TOR that don't require any authentication and it used to be rampant on USENET apparently.

    I seriously doubt most consumers have contributed to the production in any way at all.

    If you're ruining people's lives for downloading it you might as well be ruining people's lives for watching videos of 7-11's getting robbed.

    I don't think what HM is describing is even common at all, and even if it were the majority of consumers aren't contributing any.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Plopper||

    I'm not saying it doesn't happen.

    I'm saying in comparison to the number of consumers.

    Do you really think most consumers are also producers?

    That's a rather absurd statement when it has been freely available without any sort of authentication on TOR hidden sites and on USENET as well.

  • Plopper||

    Lol, a whole 27 people... If you really think those are "most" consumers, you're just being biased or you're a fool.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Chill, bro. I know you get touchy about your fetish, but disingenuous readings of what I wrote just makes you look like, well, Plopper.

    Do you really think most consumers are also producers?

    If you would even briefly scan the link I posted, you'd know the Department of Justice does, and I would think they have more accurate data on the subject than your anecdotes and assertions.

    Jus' sayin'

  • Plopper||

    The problem is I'd never be able to prove it to you without breaking the law.

    Kind of an interesting Catch-22 isn't it?

    Also your link hardly proves your assertion that most consumers are also producers. Who I'm quite sure are a very, very small minority.

    Department of Justice does, and I would think they have more accurate data on the subject than your anecdotes and assertions.

    Not necessarily, if the DEA told you most pot smokers were also axe murderers it must be true, right?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The problem is I'd never be able to prove it to you without breaking the law.

    Nor would you be able to prove it to me legally, because you're wrong.

    Also your link hardly proves your assertion that most consumers are also producers.

    Is English your first language, Ploppy? I'm guessing not, as, again, it's not my assertion, it's the assertion of law enforcement and child rescue organizations.
    Secondly, you never get around to saying how the congressional report is in error though, funny that. And add that to the fact that you can speak so confidently about 600 plus pages of text that you have never encountered before is proof positive that you're just a 3rd-tier bullshit artist. Having provided no evidence to the contrary, you instead just stick your fingers in your ears and scream "I'm quite sure [they] are a very, very small minority."

  • Plopper||

    But HM, do you understand how USENET works? or a website works?

    There were court orders in the past to remove certain USENET groups because people were posting child porn on them, and anyone with USENET service could download the material, so your argument that they must contribute to the market falls flat on it's face...

    Your link only proves there are cases where people trade it privately and only if it's been in exchange for stuff they've produced (or acquired through other means), it doesn't prove that consumers must contribute.

    Again, the law makes it impossible for me to prove it to you because I'd be breaking the law by simply looking for it and linking to it.

    I almost feel like you're trying to troll me into proving you wrong just so I'd be breaking the law and you'd be rid of me since you're such a hateful person.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Plopper||

    Having provided no evidence to the contrary, you instead just stick your fingers in your ears and scream "I'm quite sure [they] are a very, very small minority."

    It would stand to reason they are a very small minority when it was and probably still is freely available without any sort of authentication or needing to produce anything to download it on TOR hidden sites and USENET.

    I don't need to read the congressional report to know that it is highly unlikely most consumers are producers when it was and probably still is freely available without the need to contribute anything.

  • Plopper||

  • Plopper||

    HM,

    So what was that again about me being disingenuous?

    Here, is proof that it has been posted to USENET and anyone who had USENET service could have downloaded it.

    http://www.giganews.com/blog/2.....ating.html

    You are easily one of the most disingenuous asshole posters on this entire site.

  • Plopper||

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Wiki

    "These include links to sites sharing child pornography and E-commerce sites selling contraband goods and services, including weapons, counterfeit money and identity documents, stolen credit card information, murder for hire, and drugs, such as the Silk Road.[4]"

    http://www.giganews.com/blog/2.....ating.html

    "New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo recently requested several Internet service providers stop providing access to 80 specific newsgroups (the NYAG repeatedly cites 88 groups, but their list contains 8 duplicates). The NYAG asserted that these groups were solely used for the dissemination of sexual abuse images."

    And if you understand how USENET works anyone can download any article posted on USENET.

  • Plopper||

    According to Sullum's article.

    Ninety percent of federal child-porn prosecutions involve “non-production offenses” like Loskarn’s: downloading or passing along images of sexual abuse, as opposed to perpetrating or recording it.
  • John C. Randolph||

    All kinds of porn are available for free on the net, but somehow, some people keep paying for it and keep the producers in business.

    -jcr

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The paid stuff is higher quality, with more attractive people in it, and probably isn't full of malware.

  • Plopper||

    Not on IP torrents or the pirate bay.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Not everyone's a thief. Some of us prefer to maintain our honor while seeking masturbation material.

  • Plopper||

    This is true. I do tend to try to pay for the media I enjoy. It's just whenever I sign up on a porn site my card ends up getting charged 30 times.

    Maybe there are reputable porn sites that don't do this, but because of my experience with the bad ones I am afraid to even pay for porn at all now.

  • gaijin||

    This has probably been discussed before, but could someone be arrested today for watching a pr0n video with Traci Lords (who was 16 at the time it was made, but is 40-something now)?

  • Jgalt1975||

    Yes, that's entirely possible. Child pornography laws are based on the age of the child when depicted in the image, not what the age of the child is when the image is viewed. If the law was otherwise, people could avoid prosecution by just trading "vintage" child pornography.

  • Zeb||

    Yes. It is rather absurd that watching porn starring a sexually mature 16 year old doing it voluntarily is treated the same as watching a child being brutally abused.

  • Plopper||

    What difference does it make if you haven't contributed to the abuse in any way?

    It's like saying it's okay if someone were to watch a video of someone making a voluntary transaction at a 7-11, but if someone were to watch a video of one being robbed they should lose all their rights and have their lives ruined.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Sullun raises an interesting question. When information is disseminated for free, does that sever any ties that a consumer might have to the production of said information? If in paying money to have you produce something, I am somewhat responsible for your actions. But when obtain something for free, I am no longer morally responsible for your actions.

    But can anything truly be free?

  • Caleb Turberville||

    I suppose if you walked down the street and found a discarded harddrive, the information on it would be free to you.

  • JD the elder||

    Considering this -

    "The Supreme Court’s main rationale for upholding the ban on possession was that demand for this material encourages its production, which necessarily involves the abuse of children. But this argument has little relevance now that people who look at child pornography typically get it online for free."

    - makes me think we should find one of those RIAA types who argues that the downloading of music on the internet is going to destroy the music business, and set him up against some child-porn-scaremongers, to see if we can get an argument going that the free trading of child porn will destroy the industry.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    It's a little bit of Chicken & Egg. Who appeared first? The pedophile? Or the child pornographer?

    Generally, demand drives the market. People want toilet paper, someone will eventually drive up with a truck full of TP. Perverts want kiddie flicks, guess what happens. Add on the black market premium and someone avaricious enough will deliver.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    I know there will be black markets. But there will also be black markets for contract killing. So, where do you draw the line for what is reasonable to outlaw and what would be made worse if you outlawed it?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Does the good or service require violating someone's rights? Selling banned substances need not harm anyone. Killing someone for money necessitates violation of the right to life. Producing child pornography seems to require the violation of the child's rights because they are unable to consent to sex acts. Virtual child porn would get around that concern. However, porn is mind control and if you watch enough of it, you'll eventually seek to emulate it. Or at least that's what that paragon of virtue, Jeff Dahmer would have us believe.

  • Plopper||

    And producing shows that have surveillance videos of 7-11's getting robbed require that some 7-11 owner's rights be violated originally too...

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Aaaaand here he is.

  • Plopper||

    Aaaaand what's your point?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Touchy, touchy. I know this is hill you prefer to die on, but not all of us are so emotionally invested in the propriety of age of consent laws.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Now for the less facetious response. Yes, it has been argued and it makes sense that certain shows (like local news) glorify crime and misdeeds by saturating the airwaves with criminal activity. But as Reason has pointed out, violent crime in general is in decline. If true, shows that portray real robberies have little to no effect on criminal activity.

    HM pointed out above that according Congressional findings, the child porn market is unique in that potential consumers must contribute to the market before being allowed access. If true, then the producers and the consumers are likely one in the same and are equally liable for exploiting minors to produce child porn.

  • Plopper||

    But they don't have to contribute.

    It was freely available on USENET and TOR without the need to do any of the above and probably still is.

    I would try to search it out and prove it to you, but then I'd breaking the law to even search for it, then breaking it again to link you to it (which is also a crime).

    Basically there is no way I can prove it to you without breaking the law, even though if you searched yourself I'd bet you could find it.

    But considering it is widely known there were (and possibly still are) USENET groups where people regularly posted such things, this idea that all consumers must somehow contribute falls flat on it's face.

    If you understand how USENET works anyone can download any article from any group assuming their USENET server carries it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    this idea that all consumers must somehow contribute falls flat on it's face.

    It's obvious English is not your native tongue, as no one has stated that. Kindly, look up the phrase "is basically" in your English to Moonspeak Gibberish dictionary before posting again.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Okay, for the sake of argument, take the point of chomo porn is free as true. Let's review the original question. Even if the possessor does not directly contribute to the creation of the child porn, he received a benefit from its creation. If as you say, the pervert in question neither offers nor gives consideration for the benefit, then the porn can be said to have been produced solely for his benefit, rather than for financial gain, correct.

  • Plopper||

    And if your brother without your knowledge kills your mother for the family inheritance and you benefit as a result...

    What was your point again?

  • ||

    I would try to search it out and prove it to you, but then I'd breaking the law to even search for it

    Because you totally don't have a mirrored 10 TB RAID array full of kiddie porn...

  • Plopper||

    Don't insult me PM, it's much closer to 100 petabytes, which coincidentally sounds sorta like "pedobytes", I guess. I rent out a datacenter just to store it all.

    *rolls his eyes*

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The fact that Ploppy is ignorant of even basic facts about child porn that could be gleaned from even one episode of To Catch a Predator leads me to believe he isn't even a real pedophile who is arguing this shit in earnest, but just another head of the Mary/Murkin Hydra.

  • Plopper||

    HM,

    It seems obvious you're trying to troll me into doing something which could get me in trouble with the authorities, and I'm not going to do it.

    You truly are an evil person.

    Maybe you should check out the hidden wiki sometime?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    No, that was not my intent. But the fact that you would call that evil, as opposed to the rape and sexual exploitation of infants and children is such a dark and disturbing insight into your mind.

    I don't want to interact with you any longer. Please respect that.

  • Plopper||

    No, that was not my intent. But the fact that you would call that evil, as opposed to the rape and sexual exploitation of infants and children is such a dark and disturbing insight into your mind.

    When have I ever said rape and sexual abuse of *anyone* is not evil?

    I don't want to interact with you any longer. Please respect that.

    Because I just destroyed your entire premise that people must contribute CP to receive CP? And that you're a disingenuous cunt who is completely unwilling to engage in honest debate?

    http://www.giganews.com/blog/2.....ating.html

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Because I just destroyed your entire premise that people must contribute CP to receive CP

    I never said that. I pointed out your poor reading comprehension half an hour ago. But you keep looking like a jackass. It suits you.

  • Plopper||

  • Plopper||

    Ignorant?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Wiki

    "These include links to sites sharing child pornography and E-commerce sites selling contraband goods and services, including weapons, counterfeit money and identity documents, stolen credit card information, murder for hire, and drugs, such as the Silk Road.[4]"

    http://www.giganews.com/blog/2.....ating.html

    "New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo recently requested several Internet service providers stop providing access to 80 specific newsgroups (the NYAG repeatedly cites 88 groups, but their list contains 8 duplicates). The NYAG asserted that these groups were solely used for the dissemination of sexual abuse images."

    And if you understand how USENET works anyone can download any article posted on USENET.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Just stop it. No one cares. Just admit you misread what I wrote.

  • Plopper||

    Just stop it. No one cares. Just admit you misread what I wrote.

    Maybe I did, but other people seemed to get the same implication from it.

    (Including Anonymous Coward)

    So I'm not the only one who thought that is what you were implying.

  • Plopper||

    So now it's back to ad hom attacks and accusing me of being a pedophile?

    Or I might be Mary! Yeah that's it! Anyone who disagrees with you or thinks you're kind of a dick must be Mary!

  • ||

    So, where do you draw the line for what is reasonable to outlaw and what would be made worse if you outlawed it?

    If only we had some moral principle to guide us in these matters. Maybe something along the lines of "It is wrong to initiate force or fraud on another person"

  • Plopper||

    You do realize you're the one who is ignoring the NAP, right?

  • ||

    You do realize you're an abject moron who doesn't understand how consent works, right?

  • Plopper||

    Hahaha, really now?

    So consent works by first asking the law written by the "friendly" people in your government if you're "qualified" to consent first? Can't have consent without the government gatekeeprs! -- We're totally abiding by the NAP now baby!

    Arguments about AoC aside, this has nothing to do with possession or even distribution of child porn.

  • Plopper||

    Well, I shouldn't say nothing, but rather, they are very different issues.

  • Frosty||

    Exactly!!! Nail, meet hammer. JD. Technology has surpassed RIAA. They embrase YouTube today!

    Here is your problem (and my premise): You do not have young female children. Whether or not you have 8 year old girls, the law is repugnant to our beliefs.

    Is that protected under the 14th, 13th, and 15th Amendment?

  • x4rqcks3f||

    Fuck children.

  • Harvard||

    So....you HAVE seen it then?

  • Paul.||

    Is Looking at Child Pornography Tantamount to Abusing Children?

    Episiarch? What say you?

  • ||

    Leave your kids with me for a few hours and we can find out.

  • ||

    I'll be done with them in a few minutes.

  • Wintermute||

    Jake, you think outside the box so much I think you may be my twin. Now if we can connect this Nanny-State Fascism up with Women's Suffrage and try to educate women to be wise and opine with restraint, we may actually improve life on this planet.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yes, but what of fetus pornography?

  • Capt. Rimmer||

    Considering the varying age of consent laws from country to country, how does that variation play into the designation of material as "child porn"?

  • SIV||

    If the AoC is 14 explicit images of a 17 year 364 day old child are child pornography.h

  • ||

    Light the Plopper signal!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Please don't.

  • Plopper||

    I am mooning you right now... while smacking my ass.

  • RishJoMo||

    Dude that is like the coolest thing ever man.

    www.GoAnon.tk

  • UnCivilServant||

    This iteration of the AnonBot algorithm concerns me.

  • BuSab Agent||

    This is the Pedobot subroutine.

  • SusanM||

    Is Looking at Child Pornography Tantamount to Abusing Children?

    Maybe it should be considered in the same domain as receiving stolen property?

  • Plopper||

    Only if you believe child porn should be allowed copyrights.

    W/o copyrights there is no way to enforce payment.

    I also fail to see how encouraging people to destroy evidence helps any victim anywhere, ever.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • SIV||

    Tura Satana
    fully clothed from movie

    Tura NSFW

  • SusanM||

    Still...tits.

  • Paul.||

    And how.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What is Haji Catton, chopped liver?

  • ||

    A damn fine woman?

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    I'm totally not gay, I promise, but my first thought on that first photo (I've seen it before) was, "Jeez, that outfit had to be hot in the desert."

    ... Hobbit

  • ||

    A 144 page book can be copyrighted; "tits" can't.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Where's The Independents thread?!

  • kibby||

    Matt is clearly going to have to crack some skulls when he comes home.

  • SIV||

    While I'm waiting for ICEMAGEDDON!!!11!

    Here is a nice conversation piece/paperweight for sale.

  • SIV||

  • Ted S.||

    Exactly how close to the coast the storm is going to come still isn't known and that's important to how much snow we'll get; the local radio had a weather forecast that said we'd get snowfall between 4 and 16 inches. Gee that's a help!

  • SIV||

    Obama already declared us a disaster area and it's still above freezing!

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Are we really going to need to do the Independents on the kiddie porn thread?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Is there a difference between the two?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I would prefer to not be associated with plopper in any way.

  • Plopper||

    FdA,

    Jesus Christ, can I not state a contrary opinion where I simply argue for the NAP without being shat on by everyone?

    I already have enough mental issues without being painted as some sort of horrible person, which I'm not.

    I've never once hurt a child, unless you count fights I got into when I was also a child... but usually I was the one who was the more injured.

    Honestly I try to avoid them because I know how crazy people are in regards to children. I just don't want to be near them at all.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I simply argue for the NAP

    Yes, the guy who admitted to torturing animals in his youth and in the same breath argued that there should be no animal cruelty laws because animal torturers might be special snowflakes like him who were touched in the private place come here to lecture us on the NAP?

    As Stossel would say...

  • Plopper||

    My point was assuming some kid with psychological problems will grow up to be a violent person because they abused animals at some point in their childhood is absurd.

    Also, last I checked most libertarians don't believe the NAP applies to animals.

    It was a shitty thing to do, and I still feel very guilty about it.

    But it's obvious you don't give two shits that it still bothers me what I did as a child.

  • Redmanfms||

    But it's obvious you don't give two shits that it still bothers me what I did as a child.

    Why should it? We aren't you friends or your therapist moron.

  • Plopper||

    Gee, I dunno... Maybe I try to have empathy and sympathy for my fellow man?

  • ||

    Your empathy seems to only run in the direction of people with the same mental illness as you. That's pretty easy. You don't get any points for that.

  • Plopper||

    Your empathy seems to only run in the direction of people with the same mental illness as you.

    And you're basing this on what? How do you know who I feel sympathy for?

    I feel sympathy for the girl who was raped over and over for months by a dozen men, and whose abuse was only stopped because an acquaintance of hers saw a cellphone video recording of the abuse. In this case the dissemination of the child porn is the only thing that ended her months of abuse.

    I could just as easily accuse you of having so sympathy for people who get locked up for possessing child porn who have never actually contributed to the abuse in any way, or people who had sex with their girlfriend/future wife and and now stuck on the sex offender's list for a perfectly consensual encounter.

    Honestly though, the way I see it people who abuse children, rape people or whatever wrong it may be, once found out are unlikely to easily ever live a normal life again, even if the state failed in their prosecution. And I see no reason why you can't write laws so that people innocent of violating anyone's rights aren't caught up in an overreaching dragnet while still being able to prosecute people who do.

    I see there is more of a need to speak up for people who are victims of overreaching laws and who have never actually hurt anyone or coerced anyone into anything.

    This doesn't mean that I don't have sympathy or think I might even have empathy for those who are abused by people other than the state.

  • Plopper||

    Also, I should ask, which mental illness are you referring to?

    The only mental illnesses I'm aware of that I have are OCD and I'm a bit bi-polar.

  • Plopper||

    Oh and the complex that tends to scare me off from intimate relationships...

    But honestly I'm more worried about just people in general who get dredged up and fucked up by fools who push for laws that drag up people who have in no way violated the NAP.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    INDEPENDENTS ASSEMBLE!

    (Despite the presence of Plopper)

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    NO EARRINGS.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    (At least none in the traditional places.)

  • kibby||

    Yeah, we don't call them "earrings" when they're in other places.

  • ||

    Invisible earrings again? More variety, please, Kennedy.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Cute.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Are you hitting on Epi?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Can someone get rid of her?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    How do youz guyz do that?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Is Kennedy going for a purple referee look or purple Beetlejuice?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    MOYNIHAN!

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Yes, Kmele is gorgeous.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Hashtag the terrorists win.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Why don't you run for Senate Kennedy? I'd gladly work and vote for you!

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    The Kennedy's don't have a good track record so far.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Yes, but her married name is Lisa Montgomery, so she can run with that.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    She kicked Kraut butt in North Africa!

    Sorry, that's the best Montgomery joke I can come up with, but you should be glad I'm here at all, since the Fox Business stream keeps conking out when I try to use it.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    I am here, all is well north of the border. Health care is "free" and the guns are safely in the hands of our thin blue line.

  • SweatingGin||

    AND THE BOOZE IS RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    You had to remind me how much this Stoli cost me, huh? Make the next one a double and don't be stingy.. I've got a long H&R night ahead of me.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    Normally I watch and switch back to my movie during the commercial breaks. Not watching tonite because Around the World in 80 Days is on TCM.

    See ya next time.

    ... Hobbit

  • Ted S.||

    Let me guess: you think Shirley MacLaine is a hottie in it.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    I'm more of a Irma la Douce Shirley fan, myself.

    ... Hobbit

  • SIV||

    Tura was in that movie too.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Just say no.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    No official thread? Matt's gone for two days and things have already gone to shit.

  • kibby||

    The editor leaves & Reason throws off the shackles of normalcy.

  • ||

    ANARCHY

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Moynihan is one hair dye shade away from being Crispin Glover.

  • ||

    Back to the Future Glover or Willard Glover?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Exactly.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Come to think of it, Charlie's Angels Glover. Or kick Letterman's head in Glover.

  • ||

    I regret that we meet in this way on a thread infested by griefers. You and I are of a kind. In a different reality, I could have called you friend.

  • Winston||

    Is he shacking up with Putter Smith?

  • ||

    Don't apologize for criticizing politicians, Kmele.

  • SweatingGin||

    I don't want government to have my back. Too worried about friendly fire.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Don't worry, it is unlikely to be friendly.

  • SweatingGin||

    Should have used scare quotes.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Don't "worry," it's probably "not" friendly.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    :golf clap:

  • ||

    When does the government ever actually have your back?

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    Hint: rhymes with "brony"

  • SweatingGin||

    Pony?

  • Paul.||

    When don't they 'have' your back?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    What's with the Flintstones necklace?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    So they're not going to have a pro-NSA panelist? Who's going to come down on the side of not having our children blown up by A-rabs?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Clarence Thomas, please report to the whipping post.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    This is one of those times I wish I were watching.

    To get the context, not to see a guy whipped.

  • SweatingGin||

    nice save.

  • ||

    Once again, I will call for letting Kmele talk for the entire show.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    He'd eventually come around to his love of dog fighting.

  • ||

    Precisely.

  • Nazdrakke||

    I am just, like, totally stunned Plopper stopped by for this piece.

  • Redmanfms||

    Prepare to have him stalk you across threads for the next 4-5 days.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    I was surprised. Did not see it coming.

  • kibby||

    Hot damn, Kmele. I just want to hug the stuffing out of you right now.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    KENNEDY SMACKDOWN.

  • ||

    Kennedy is quite worked up by someone slagging Thomas. I like her like this.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Are they saying stuff that would get them drummed out of politics if they said it about Obama of John Lewis?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    There is no way you can look at the way progressives treat Clarence Thomas as anything but pure racism and hatred.

    Particularly the idea that Thomas is Scalia's puppet, which is essentially denying that Thomas has any agency.

  • Raven Nation||

    But from a prog point of view, the fact that he is not a prog is prima facie evidence that he has no agency.

  • ||

    Someone needs to realize that everyone talking over each other doesn't make for good television.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    But if you stop talking and let the other guy talk, it's like admitting they have a larger, you know...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Lung capacity.

  • kibby||

    This. My head starts to hurt when they all start yelling over one another.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Everyone has to because they spend almost no time on a subject before moving on.

  • ||

    Stop making excuses for them.

  • SweatingGin||

    Seems to work for all the editorial shows on the cable news networks, right?

    That said, much as I like a Kennedy smack down, when her words-per-minute crosses some threshold (haven't been able to measure it yet), my brain disconnects.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Fuck, maybe they should actually flesh out a topic instead of 1 minute of opening arguments and then Kennedy moving in with a NEXT TOPIC shutdown.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Look who suddenly found an attention span.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Sorry, what were you saying?

  • ||

    Ambassador to Ghana? THE PRESTIGE.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    So, fuck you, Argentina.

  • Ted S.||

    The truth is I never loved you.

  • Raven Nation||

    But Lisa loved the kids of Springfield.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ0OjpUy5HM

  • kibby||

    Appointed diplomats should be forced to go through the entire FSO process. It's the biggest pain in the ass ever created.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    SO is Significant Other, so what does the "F" stand for?

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    What does F always stand for?

  • SweatingGin||

    "Fucking", obvs.

  • kibby||

    Foreign Service Officer?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    No, too obvious.

  • kibby||

    I'm having an obvious sort of day, sorry. Too much gd studying for my brain to comprehend jokes.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Don't tell me you're studying Sanskrit too?

  • ||

    Buying ambassadorships? We really are becoming the Roman Empire.

    *cough* Proconsul *cough*

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    For Norway you just have to not talk about the war and enjoy aquavit.

  • SweatingGin||

    Don't say anything Swedish, either. Like don't suggest you take the Saab.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Any diplomatic incident can be defused by simply cracking a joke about the Swedes and Fins.

  • SweatingGin||

    I work with a Swede. Fucking Nazi symp.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    So you're in the restaurant business? I always knew that chef was up to no good.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Where do you think he got all those exotic ingredients from? And "BORK BORK BORK!!!" is Swedish for "Heil Hitler!"

  • SweatingGin||

    How do you know the Chef is a symp? I mean, beaker, he's a straight-up eugenicist/fascist. But the chef doesn't talk politics much.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    That, plus awesome parties, equals Peace Prize!

    Seriously, they're pushovers.

  • Raven Nation||

    Mmmm, aquavit.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    PUT KENNEDY IN A TIGER CAGE.

  • ||

    Add in a vicious forced game of Russian Roulette and Christopher Walken and we have ourselves a show.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Does TicketMaster sell tickets for this event?

  • ||

    No, just Michael Cimino.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    +1 round of russian roulette

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    As long as the State Department keeps writing checks, it matters not what fuckwad we set up in the embassy.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "...except for you, Kennedy."

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

  • ||

    The Ancient Booer: Boo. Boo. Boo.

    Buttercup: Why do you do this?

    The Ancient Booer: Because you had love in your hands, and you gave it up.

    Buttercup: But they would have killed Westley if I hadn't done it.

    The Ancient Booer: Your true love lives. And you marry another. True Love saved her in the Fire Swamp, and she treated it like garbage. And that's what she is, the Queen of Refuse. So bow down to her if you want, bow to her. Bow to the Queen of Slime, the Queen of Filth, the Queen of Putrescence. Boo. Boo. Rubbish. Filth. Slime. Muck. Boo. Boo. Boo.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    I embrace our Michelle Obama in her beautiful designer dress overlords.

  • widget||

    Do not mess with the First Lady like Dinesh D'Souza did.

    http://townhall.com/columnists...../page/full

    Here is a typical passage [from her undergraduate thesis]: "By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as a result of their ideologies, a separationist may better understand the desparation of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight".

    Alas, the grammar is all wrong here. More than once, the tenses are garbled. People are ignorant "of" the plight of the lower class, not ignorant "to" their plight. And"desparation" should be spelled "desperation." To wreak so much havoc on the English language in one sentence, without conveying anything of substance, is perhaps deserving of a prize. Is this what her professors were thinking when they granted her honors?"

    D'Souza might have cherry-picked that sentence for the grammar, and MO was only an undergrad then, but the nonsense is deep.

    Payback.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    A commercial for Pamprin? What makes them think any woman is watching Fox Business?

  • kibby||

    Moreover, how the hell did they KNOW? I'm searching my apartment for bugs right now.

  • ||

    You and Kenendy are synchronized, simply because you're chicks. Of course they know.

  • kibby||

    I totally forget that all fourteen of us are on the same cycle.

  • SweatingGin||

    It's built into the cable box now. Think 1984.

  • kibby||

    I don't own a cable box, so this is even more terrifying!!

  • Ted S.||

    Kennedy is a woman, right?

  • widget||

    Real women ride horses naked. Kennedy wears glasses.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    Cold-eez? Have The Independents been upgraded to mainstream advertising?? Does this mean we're winning?

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Nahh, not until we get vince and the slap-chop running show during the commerical break.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Has anyone seen any ratings?

  • ||

    Uh oh, Cato institute? ULTRACONSERVATIVE.

  • kibby||

    RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY

    (Let me just say that I still haven't forgiven my father for going to Cato for a healthcare conference & not taking me.)

  • ||

    Daddy issues? You shouldn't advertise that around here.

  • kibby||

    Yeahhh...I should just stop talking tonight.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    [insulting sexist reply deleted]

  • kibby||

    Come at me, bro. I'll tear you apart.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Go ahead - I'll [deleted] [deleted] [deleted]

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Did you kill your father, stuff and preserve his body, and begin dressing up like him?

    Then you aren't as messed as Epi is with his mommy issues.

  • SweatingGin||

    ^ That escalated quickly.

  • ||

    Psycho is a documentary. About me.

  • kibby||

    Wait, Epi is the basis for Norman Bates? How did I miss this?

  • ||

    So. Slow.

  • kibby||

    I'd ask for your autograph if I had a death wish.

  • ||

    Maybe she's looking to chum up the waters, you don't know her.

  • ||

    I don't know, jesse. If it doesn't involve being a princess or ponies...you know how chicks are.

    (wink wink)

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Boaz constrictor in the house.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Moynihan's shoulder is in the shot with Kennedy. He's invading her personal space.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "I'm uncomfortable with that transition..."

    ...IN MY PANTS.

  • ||

    Why is Boaz giving the NYT the tiniest benefit of the doubt?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Do they discuss that Chinese liberal and how he's totally a NYT style liberal?

  • SweatingGin||

    Two or three sentences on Cato being libertarian, not ultra-conservative.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    If undecideds are watching, it's the right stance to take. Liberals can get away with being aholes. We can't.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Then they're shutting down H&R?

  • SweatingGin||

    Don't give them ideas. If we weren't here, we'd be tainting local news websites, and calling into cspan looking for AM links.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    So H&R is kind of like midnight basketball for libertarians?

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    "We" meaning libertarians in the public eye. We can do whatever we want here. But that's why VP hates us.

  • ||

    I'm chubby, Kennedy?!? No, you are!

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    I'm sure the only Senate Republican that has never smoked pot is Mike Lee.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    He likes weed brownies.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    They used to call Strom Thurmond the High King of Ganja.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The poor man's Matt Welch.

  • kibby||

    Nobody is that poor.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    Bam!

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Pocket square zing! Take that Kmele.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    He drank alcohol, and he made it.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Look Mah, he drank alcohol and drove his car into a tidal channel and left a girl to drown... and he made it!

  • SweatingGin||

    Made it!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Shame is almost a thing of the past.

  • ||

    What is this "shame" you speak of?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Then again, shame is nothing to be proud of.

  • kibby||

    Paris & Helen dislike this post.

  • ||

    When Zeus fashioned man he gave him certain inclinations, but he forgot about shame. Not knowing how to introduce her, he ordered her to enter through the rectum. Shame baulked at this and was highly indignant. Finally, she said to Zeus: ‘All right! I’ll go in, but on the condition that Eros doesn’t come in the same way; if he does, I will leave immediately.’

    Ever since then, all homosexuals are without shame.
  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Ironically proggies ecstatic about this can't see that this is exactly why we don't need anti-discrimination laws for businesses: markets and social media make being an openly racist or homophobic business non-viable.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Pinko eye.

  • ||

    Kmele with the forced laugh at the scatological humor. He's hiding something.

  • kibby||

    Well thanks Kmele. I won't ever be able to read your Twitter feed without feeling a little sick now.

  • ||

    Really kibby? You're hanging out here and THAT bothers you?

  • kibby||

    I expect it from the monsters 'round these parts -- not from my classy, kickass new libertarian hero.

  • ||

    Hey! jesse isn't a monster! He's just a bear!

  • ||

    I like to pretend I'm still a cub!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You know who should fill in for Welch next? Tim Cavanaugh, Gentleman Lifeguard.

  • ||

    Cavanaugh would blow the doors off the place. No wonder they don't have him on.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Kermit the Frog should replace Welch: all the dorkiness with more incisive commentary and interesting life experience to share.

  • ||

    Hey, man. It's not easy being ginger.

  • kibby||

    I will end you.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    In fact, the entire show would be better if we replaced them with Muppets.

    Fozzy Bear could replace Kennedy because his jokes are funnier. Kermit replaces Welch and since Kmele often talks way above the audience's head he'll be replaced with the equally incomprehensible Swedish Chef.

  • kibby||

    What about Gonzo?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Kmele is Fozzy. Kennedy is CLEARLY Miss Piggy.

  • ||

    Welch = Kermit makes sense.

    Kennedy seems more like a Lou Zealand in my opinion.

    Kmele would clearly be Gonzo considering his attraction to chickens.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    The Swedish Chef? That nazi?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Yes. As we found out last night Kmele has no problem with killing animals in exotic ways.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Anyone hear how Postrel is getting along with H&R commenters on the cruise?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I hear she got drunk and stabbed a muthafucka!

  • SweatingGin||

    No commenters went.

    Otherwise, I'd assume it went like this, with the part of Postrel played by Wil Weaton

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Remember that movie "Speed 2: Cruise Control"?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    So impeach the motherfucker!

  • ||

    That would require them sticking their necks out. So it's not gonna happen.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Spoke with him earlier? What earlier? Is there an early edition of The Independents that I'm not aware of?

  • kibby||

    You were too drunk to notice it, clearly.

  • ||

    FoE isn't a drinker. No, he just injects heroin into his scrotum. Big difference.

  • kibby||

    I think you mean he injects it into what's LEFT of his scrotum.

  • ||

    Good point. You must be an expert. On scrotums. And heroin.

  • kibby||

    DING DING DING

    Wait, no. What's happening?

  • ||

    Nothing good, I can assure you that. You need a bump?

  • SweatingGin||

    JEBUS! *faints*

  • SweatingGin||

    Microaggression!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Happy Hour doesn't always fit into 60 minutes.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Republican supporting pre-existing condition restriction.

    FUCK THEM!

  • ||

    Bemoaning the lack of bipartisanship. How...expected.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    At the risk of gushing, Moynihan is an adequate replacement for Welch.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

  • SweatingGin||

    The first time or two he was on, he seemed really manic. Much more relaxed now.

    Of course, we probably won't get the comic book geekout with Moynihan/Kmele.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Yup. But Naomi would be easier on the eyes than either of them.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Vermont Teddy Bears. Incentivizing furryism?

  • SIV||

    I need a Sig P210 but not at that price

  • Raven Nation||

    Bloody hell! I assume there's something special about this model?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The Cadillac of pistols? Yeah, that's about right.

  • SIV||

    Demand outstrips supply

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    How does Cold-Eeze afford two commercial spots on Fox Biz prime time? Is it used to make meth?

  • SweatingGin||

    I got Rick from Pawn Stars offering me $0.50 for a razor after his buddy told me it was worth $3 at auction.

  • kibby||

    SHHHHHHHHHHHH.

  • ||

    Let them eat cake, Kennedy.

  • kibby||

    Not if you're providing that cake.

  • ||

    They all want cake.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    The cake is a lie?

  • kibby||

    I wasn't aware that cake made from bodily fluids was so popular. People are weird.

  • ||

    "Hi. This is Wilford Brimley. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully with this book, I'm gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don't rule the night. They don't rule it. Nobody does. And they don't run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don't lock eyes with 'em, don't do it. Puts 'em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming 'No, no, no' and all they hear is 'Who wants cake?' Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake."

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    kibby, this is a book.

    Remember that.

  • kibby||

    WHY DID I NEED TO KNOW THAT? YOU ARE A TERRIBLE PERSON.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The first step in fighting monsters is to become one.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    MTV music awards are what's outdated.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Charging for a state dinner? How gauche.

  • ||

    It's so much more sophisticated when you steal the money for it from the taxpayers.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH KIDDIE PORN?

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    You're kidding me, right?

  • ||

    EVERYTHING.

  • kibby||

    If you're charismatic enough, people will pay for the privilege of you raping their wallets & futures.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Fewer horses, more horse power!

  • ||

    They're gonna take Sarah Jessica Parker out of New York?

  • ||

    Bravo, jesse, bravo. And look, they just quoted her too.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Fake accent.

  • ||

    The mayor of NYC is beholden to cronies in the real estate business? WHY I NEVER

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Look, how are the King's Men supposed to show off their status if they aren't allowed a steed to mount?

  • SweatingGin||

    "Glue Factory?!?"

    ONE OF US!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    AH! Lou Dobbs.

  • SweatingGin||

    I'm no longer scared by Lou Dobbs.

  • kibby||

    Teach us your wisdom!

  • SweatingGin||

    2 whiskey, 1 gin, 1 beer?

  • kibby||

    I will never attain your greatness. *sad face*

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Frau Blucher.

  • ||

    AIGHHH LOU DOBBS

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    it's either that or curling!

  • ||

    Nope, I have Simpsons reruns (from the good seasons) on JoeTV. Suck it, curling!

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    The baby did it.

  • ||

    Actually, it's the one where Homer bowls a perfect game and they just parodied The Natural. Not bad.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    It's no "Homer at the Bat" but it'll do.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Joe tv?

  • kibby||

    Wow, my "The live stream will begin soon" image is, like, eighteen pixels.

  • ||

    Whoa there's a web show after the show.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    it's shows all the way down!

  • kibby||

    Libertarian inception!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

  • SweatingGin||

    Thank you, I inadvertently ended up on last night's live stream.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    WHY IT NOT WORKING

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    why do they all talk at the same time

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    They're talking race. But Kmele can't join in because he doesn't see color.

  • kibby||

    Judging by most of Matt's outfits, I'm guessing he doesn't either.

  • ||

    Is that some kind of crack at us color-blinds?!? You bigot! Hate is all you know!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Why don't you change your nick to ColorFree?

  • ||

    Because I can see blue pretty well. It's why I like David Fincher movies so much.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Epi only sees 50 shades of Grey.

  • ||

    Look, if I wanted to subject myself to chick porn I'd go read Twilight. Or go watch Vampire Academy.

  • kibby||

    This is beautiful.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Question to web pirates:

    How do you find a copy of the movie '1'?

  • ||

    Go to a torrenting site, subcategory movies and sort by name. It should be near the top.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    I must be an idiot because that isn't working

  • ||

    I'll give it a look, that's usually the way to hunt down overly generic filenames. We might have to step this up a notch.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    I found something, but it's dead magnets

  • ||

    What site were you on? I'm having an unusually hard time with this.

    Also what was the filename for the item you were looking at. You can shoot me an email if you don't want to post it here.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    I was at torrentreactor where I had the most luck.

  • SIV||

    kickass.to

    Just because it shows no seeders doesn't mean there aren't any.

  • ||

    so it looks like the uploader is ganool. I searched for his name on the pirate bay and it looked like there were some live magnets once I resorted it by name.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Thanks

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    And, of course, Kennedy is not letter Kmele talk.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Letting. But now he's talking sans interruption from his own host. Surprisingly.

  • SweatingGin||

    Genius free idea for Independents:

    Have the next guest host wear the suit that Welch wore on the previous episode. Like Lando wore Han's clothes in Return of the Jedi.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    Would it be racist for you bitches to shut up and let Kemele talk for two fucking seconds?

  • SweatingGin||

    This was Kmele telling her "you're old" while complimenting her, I think.

  • kibby||

    The answer to this seems to be a resounding yes.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    This woman needs to make up her mind. Play the race card or don't.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The woman in purple is good-looking. I find her stunning. I hope Kmele gets to tap dat.

    Jus' sayin'

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    She is but he's married.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Maybe it's open?

    And that's the difference between you and me. You're a glass is half-empty type guy; whereas, I'm a half-full guy.

    I'm rooting for you Kmele!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I'm a glass is twice as big as it needs to be kind of guy.

  • kibby||

    Unless it's a glass of beer?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So, if I read that correctly, you're into BBBWs?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You did not.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Ah, I feel you. BWBWs, aka PAWGs. That's cool.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I think you're reading too much into my comment. That first B too much.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm just looking for excuses to link to youtube twerking, to be honest.

  • SweatingGin||

    This is why kibby things we're monsters.

  • kibby||

    Yeah, kind of.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And the semen cookbook wasn't the first sign?

  • kibby||

    Seriously. Why did you even know that exists? I feel like I need to shower after opening that link.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm a weirdness magnet. It just comes to me.

    One day, I'll tell you the story of the time I was in a dive bar in Mae Sot on the Thai-Myanmar border and the world's only Shakespeare scholar/Karen insurgent leader sat down to have a beer with me.

  • SweatingGin||

    Chin insurgent leaders tend to be well educated, too.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'll have to take your word for it. From what I experienced, either the missionary schools do a hell of a job or the guy was an elite who took up arms for what ever reason.

  • kibby||

    I'm jealous because clearly I'm the most boring person on earth.

    Is there actually more to that story or were you pulling a rhetorical trick?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, I was sitting there and this guy walked in with a bandolier of bullets across his chest, filthy olive drab fatigues...he just looked like a hard motherfucker. I was the only non Asian dude in the place. He strolled right up to me and all of a sudden out of his mouth the most refined Received Pronunciation English comes out of his mouth as he asks me where I'm from. I answer America. He looked disappointed and said, "Ah, I was hoping you were from the land of the Bard." I was all like WTF? Then he asks me if I read Othello, and I answered yes. He then quotes entire passages. He also shared with me some of his favorite sonnets. My mistress's eyes are nothing like the sun was one of them, I remember clearly.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    We shared what we liked about Shakespeare for a while. He finished his beer, said "God bless you" and left.

    That's pretty much all there was to it.

  • kibby||

    That's really cool! I need to start making more fun things happen in my life so I can have cool stories, too.

  • ||

    You're so confusing.

  • kibby||

    Uh, duh. It comes as a package deal with the vagina.

  • ||

    Good to know, I'll stick to my sodomitical ways.

  • kibby||

    You're smart to do so. Women are very difficult.

  • Derpetologist||

    This is a Derp News special bulletin: I saw an armadillo at the gun club on Saturday. As I have already seen a tumbleweed and heard someone say "Howdy!" the only item left on my Texas list is to walk through saloon style doors.

    In other news, John Stossel hurts a poor bureaucrat's feelings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMkuy86jStQ

    Skip to the 5:30 mark.

  • anon||

    Ahahaha;
    JS: "Well, I'd argue competence."
    Asshole: "Well, I'm not sure how uh I got here.."

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Well said.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Moynihan is positive... ly the whitest person there.

  • SweatingGin||

    I for one liked the crack about "alcoholic with an irish surname".

    I don't actually have an Irish surname, though.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    I turned off Lou Dobbs for that?

  • Irish||

  • SIV||

    Atlantan's were fighting over bread and milk today before the CATASTROPHE of ICEMAGEDDON!!11!

  • SIV||

    We're so traumatized by the impending storm we're inserting apostrophes where they don't belong.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

  • Winston||

    MUTHAFUCKA!!

  • Raven Nation||

    He wasn't just a newscaster if the version I saw was correct, he was actually the entertainment reporter for the station.

  • widget||

    I confuse Miley Cyrus with Traci Lords, to be vaguely on topic.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Dirk + SKYHOOK = ????

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Luge doubles tomorrow.

    Who's excited!

  • kibby||

    Nobody!

  • widget||

    Meanwhile, the singles competition with top fuel dragsters:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqx1KgOBCic

    329 mph.

  • Sevo||

    Been a while since anyone's been hurt as I recall.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Shaun White chokes on his first run. Sitting #11. Perhaps if he hadn't gone all Ricky Vaughn, sold out, cut his hair, put on a suit and tie and pussed the fuck out on the slopestyle, he wouldn't have sucked so bad.

    Nothing worse than a bad-ass gone good.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    4th. CHOKER...SELLOUT...LOSER!

    Nice haircut Shaun.

  • Snark Plissken||

    What do you expect from someone who doesn't even know how to spell Sean properly?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Winners always want the ball.

    I knew he lost it when he said he was too ascared to compete in teh dangerous Slopestyle.

  • Snark Plissken||

    [insert Glengarry Glenn Ross quote]

  • widget||

    I have been able, with much pain and practice, to do a backward flip off of a diving board into deep pool water. I have tried doing a forward flip until my stomach was red with no success.

    My observational statistics put the ability to do a forward flip at about 1 in 5 people. I am not one those 5. When you get into landing on the water with your body less than 30 degrees askew from plum you're talking about 1 in 20. If you're talking about landing on a semi-hard surface, like snow, you're talking about 1 in a 50.

    If you go skiing in the west, you will see this. All the kids do tricks of some sort or another, but only 1 in 50 will turn himself upside-down. Half of those 1 in 50 are just running on bravado. Only 1 of those 50 will land gracefully half the time.

    Well now I'm will into the observation that all people are not naturally alike and should shut up.

  • anon||

    This thread is fucked up.

    Just sayin'.

    Also, most "kiddie porn" is of barely underage girls.

    That which isn't is disgusting and reprehensible; however, viewing such doesn't mean you produce it or contribute to its production, and if you pay for it well... Good luck when it's billed to your CC as "KIDDIE PORN R US"

  • Snark Plissken||

    Yeah I skipped it for the most part. A while back someone was grouping Gary Glitter, et al, with Pete Townsend. I pointed out that Townsend just downloaded kiddie porn, and got the hysterical, "He's contributing to its production!" response.

  • widget||

    "Also, most "kiddie porn" is of barely underage girls."

    How do you know this?

    That's a cheap shot, but I doubt there are any 1960's "free love, anything goes" libertarians left in the 2014 gene pool.

  • anon||

    How do you know this?

    Wow, you just made me google up "child porn ." Going to be great explaining that one to the FBI.
    However, I did find this 2008 report by the Internet Watch Foundation.

    Shows I was wrong; most is 7-15 year olds. I'm skeptical though; then again, this is pretty much the only time I've done legit research on the subject.
    2012's report shows things far more dire even as more money pours into the charity.

    I just always have a feeling that "IT'S ALWAYS SO HORRIBLE AND GETTING WORSE" whenever someone's trying to get money from me.

  • anon||

    Also I'd like to add that there are people that post child porn on a site SPECIFICALLY to have the content of the site blocked/removed, and I sincerely doubt the IWF filters that, since it doesn't even filter reports against Wikipedia.

  • Snark Plissken||

    I just always have a feeling that "IT'S ALWAYS SO HORRIBLE AND GETTING WORSE" whenever someone's trying to get money from me.

    That's my impression of human trafficking also. At least here in Central Europe.

  • widget||

    Wow, you just made me google up "child porn ."

    No, I didn't make you do that. I am just a random commenter on an obscure blog.

  • anon||

    No, I didn't make you do that. I am just a random commenter on an obscure blog.

    Tell that one to the FBI pal!

  • widget||

    You're the one wrote that wrote he Googled "child porn", not me. You think the FBI can't read?

    The problem with me is that I've Googled "IQ by race".

  • widget||

    that who

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

  • Snark Plissken||

    And 20 years ago the English thought coffee was supposed to come in granules.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Actually it's interesting how fast trendy foody stuff travels these days. When I was a kid it was impossible to get good Mexican food anywhere outside parts of the Southwest (I grew up in NM), now you can get it everywhere, perhaps not the same as in Hatch, but pretty damn good and plenty spicy. England has gone through similar transition I believe.

  • anon||

    , now you can get it everywhere, perhaps not the same as in Hatch, but pretty damn good and plenty spicy.

    You can also get mexicans everywhere now. BOOM! Low blow! har har.

    England has gone through similar transition I believe.

    Nope, english food is still shit as of 4 years ago. Sandwiches at the grocery store were about the only things edible in that god forsaken city of London. PS: Fuck England.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Really? But they have tons of Indian restaurants where you can actual spicy food, natch? I've only been to Heathrow, and have no plans to venture further inland.

  • anon||

    But they have tons of Indian restaurants where you can actual spicy food, natch?

    English people are really fucking racist. All Indians are "paki's" and basically treated like a black person would be treated by the KKK. So no, I didn't actually see an indian restaurant.

    Saw a few places serving fucking chicken liver for breakfast though. Seriously, what the fuck? No wonder we kicked their asses back across the Atlantic.

  • ||

    Libertarians definitely need to spend more time focusing on the injustice of jailing creepy pedophiles who get their jollies innocently whacking off watching other creepy pedophiles exploiting, abusing and raping children. That's a good hill to die on.

  • Plopper||

    It's people like you who are the only reason why I feel the need to defend people who haven't hurt anyone or contributed in any way to someone's abuse.

    You're the one who is pushing for a violation of the NAP.

    Just because someone is in possession of child porn doesn't necessarily mean they are a pedophile, and even if they were it doesn't mean they contributed to the abuse in any way. It also doesn't mean they're anymore likely to go out and molest children as someone who enjoys watching "gore porn" movies going out and killing people in a grizzly fashion.

  • ||

    Just because someone is in possession of child porn doesn't necessarily mean they are a pedophile

    Actually, it does. If you weren't sexually attracted to children (the definition of "pedophile") you wouldn't be looking at child porn, unless you're a caped crusader trying to sniff out exploitation or something - I'm sure that's what your motivation is. Being a pedophile doesn't inherently make you a violator of the NAP. Beating off watching actual children being exploited does - I doubt you got any form of permission from the child in question, who isn't legally allowed to consent anyway. If it makes you feel better to rationalize your behavior on the basis that the child's rights were already violated initially by the first child sex predator and any consequent violation of their rights doesn't "count", then happy jacking. I don't see why you need to make the pretense though - it's not like it would change your behavior.

  • Plopper||

    Actually, it does. If you weren't sexually attracted to children (the definition of "pedophile") you wouldn't be looking at child porn,

    So you didn't even read the article this blog post links to?

    Let me quote some of it for you.

    Dean Boland, an Ohio defense attorney specializing in child pornography cases, says a substantial share of defendants were themselves victims of sexual abuse as children and look at these images as a way of working through the trauma. That is how Ryan Loskarn explained his attraction to child pornography. “I found myself drawn to videos that matched my own childhood abuse,” he wrote. “I pictured myself as a child in the image or video. The more an image mirrored some element of my memories and took me back, the more I felt a connection.”

    Taking Loskarn at his word (and what is essentially a dying declaration probably should be given considerable weight), he not only had no desire to abuse children; he was not even titillated by the videos he collected.

    Being a pedophile doesn't inherently make you a violator of the NAP. Beating off watching actual children being exploited does.

    How does beating off to anything a violation of the NAP?

    Do the molestation beams warp through time and space, re-molesting the poor kids over and over every time someone views it?

  • Plopper||

    *How is beating off to anything a violation of the NAP.

    Feature request: edit button.

  • ||

    Try reading for comprehension:

    I doubt you got any form of permission from the child in question, who isn't legally allowed to consent anyway.

    Even in Plopper-land where 3 year old kids are perfectly able to consent to getting fucked by piece of shit child abusers, you don't have consent by default. I doubt most of the pedo content producers get consent waivers from the kids they fuck on video for your amusement. So at best you're violating their rights to privacy and control of their content. Presuming, of course that children are capable of giving consent. In reality, where children are not legally allowed to give consent for much of anything because they aren't capable of higher order thinking, those are tangential rights violations.

  • Plopper||

    Actually I'd agree a 3 year old can't consent to sex.

    Anyway, as for the rest of your vomit.

    So when someone watches a video of someone being executed they're violating the privacy of the individual being executed?

    Is a newspaper reporting on a child being abused a violation of their privacy?

    This "privacy" you speak of has nothing to do with the NAP anyway. I'd be violating the NAP if I went onto your property which had a "no trespassing sign" and then looked through the window and watched you change, but I wouldn't be if I recorded you from plain view.

    Plus, once someone has uploaded something to the internet, it is there forever, there can be no expectation of privacy.

    Further making possession and distribution illegal only encourages people to destroy evidence which might otherwise have brought the aggressors to justice.

    For example there was a case (I'll look it up if I have to), not too many years ago where the only reason why a girl was rescued from her abuse was because one of her acquaintances saw cellphone video being circulated of her abuse.

    I'll continue my answer in the next post since I think I'm running close to the max character count now...

  • Plopper||

    Anyway, continued from the above post...

    It's a common policy at PC repair shops to simply destroy any child porn they may find on a customer's PC. Not because they enjoy covering it up, but because the FBI is known to just jack all of the computers in your residence/business if you report having found it and obviously this is bad for business.

    Plus if the prosecutor wanted to be a dick they could just prosecute you. If you report you found child porn on a PC currently in your possession they can charge you even if you report it, assuming over 2 images by current federal law.

    Does this help the children who were abused, what if as a result evidence was destroyed that could have not only alerted authorities to abuse that was happening, but also use to convict the abuser(s)?

    Anyway, unless you want the government, yes the government, (because that's where copyrights come from) give people copyrights to child porn then your argument doesn't make any sense.

    And if you're going to automatically give copyright to all child porn to the children being depicted in them, then wouldn't by the same logic they be totally within their rights to release the footage and even sell it once they reached the age of majority?

  • Plopper||

    Anyway, if the the possession and distribution of child pornography were legal it would make it much more likely someone who might recognize the child would see it and report the abuse to authorites.

    Also, since the evidence would be freely accessible by anyone, destroying it all would be near impossible and those responsible for abusing children would be brought to justice much quicker, and those being abused would likely be saved from their abusers in a much more timely fashion, vs maybe not at all.

    By encouraging people to hide and or even destroy evidence you're certainly not helping any victims.

  • ||

    This "privacy" you speak of has nothing to do with the NAP anyway. I'd be violating the NAP if I went onto your property which had a "no trespassing sign" and then looked through the window and watched you change, but I wouldn't be if I recorded you from plain view.

    Uh, yeah, dumbfuck, thanks for making my point. Not a lot of pedobears go fuck little kids in the streets in full view of the public and then upload the surveillance footage from a public ATM that happened to capture the event.

    Even IF fucking little kids weren't illegal and predatory, even in your fucked up fantasy land, presumably the kid would still have the same rights that govern adult porn production. It's illegal to publish videos of grown-ups without their consent too.

  • Plopper||

    You still haven't explained how it's a violation of the NAP.

    You just went on to cite other illegal things.

  • widget||

    I don't know. I taught my 5 yo boy to sing 'Home on the Range'

    How often at night when the heavens are bright,
    With the light from the glittering stars,
    Have I stood there amazed and asked as I gazed,
    If their glory exceeds that of ours.

    He runs around the house singing this song butt-naked. For better or worse the cameras on the iPhone or Android are off.

  • Plopper||

    Child abuser!

  • ||

    Yep, because that's totally the same thing as widget, say, fucking his 5 year old on video, uploading it to the internet, and disseminating it to a community of pedophiles. All nudity is child exploitation.

  • Plopper||

    Maybe you should lighten up a bit?

  • Plopper||

    You do realize people get put in prison for child porn when all they have are nudies, right?

  • ||

    You do realize people get put in prison for child porn when all they have are nudies, right?

    Yes, and in the cases where overzealous prosecutors throw a guy in jail for having nude video of his 5 year old singing "Home on the Range" I'll lead the parade calling for the prosecutor's head. If they happen to find the same video buried in a massive cache of explicit images and videos downloaded from a kiddie porn irc channel or usenet community or something, it's more difficult to pass off as an innocent video.

  • ||

    That aside, you're a perfect case in point for why this is such a dumb issue to make into a public face for libertarianism. Even the kiddie fucker apologists in the libertarian movement think you're a deranged piece of shit. When the word "libertarian" pops into people's minds, the last thing anyone who cares about the advancement of liberty wants them to think of is you.

  • Plopper||

    So we should ignore the issues which are unpopular?

    We should have ignored the war on drugs even when it was extremely popular and it was popular to ban pot?

    What about banking deregulation? Since that might make us unpopular with people who hate banks.

  • ||

    No, that's not quite it. Like I said, even the kiddie fucker apologists don't want to be associated with you. The right to fuck kids isn't something the vast majority of libertarians support, and opening up the word "libertarian" to NAMBLA morons like you to co-opt and turn into a punchline is pretty idiotic.

  • Plopper||

    LOL, so now I'm a NAMBLA supporter? Hahahaha

    I'd defend their right to say what they want and associate with who they want, but it sounded more like they were more concerned with finding boys to rape.

    So, I can't say I support NAMBLA in any way at all.

  • ||

    I can't say I support NAMBLA in any way at all.

    They support the exact same view of adult sex with children that you do. But, uh, other than that, I guess...

  • Plopper||

    They support the exact same view of adult sex with children that you do. But, uh, other than that, I guess...

    I've never read their exact publicized view. But I've read from other sources their views are absolutely unlike mine.

    But hey, when you can't win an argument, you go for ad hom, amirite?

  • widget||

    It's a messy problem. I've been to jail. Here's what happens. Some Guido will tell you to show him your paper. That's not optional. The paper is your booking receipt with a code for the offence you've been charged with. It will just be a number with the infraction coded into it. Guido knows the numbers and what offenses the number relate to.

    You cannot go to jail with some numbers on your booking receipt and expect to be treated innocent until proven guilty.

  • ||

    That's a problem with the incarceration system, not with child porn laws.

  • widget||

    That your bitter ex-wife could have you gang raped in a jail cell for having you booked as a child molester, before arraignment, is the system. How naive are you?

  • Plopper||

    Yeah but, if you look at a picture you download off of a public site on the internet and rub your dick to it you are violating the NAP because the molestation breams warp through time and space and re-molest the poor kid, even if the kid is now 70 and buried in the ground, dead from natural causes.

    So fuck the innocent! It doesn't matter someone could plant it on your PC, report you, and get you gang raped or even spend 20 years in prison as a result.

    Because those devil pedophiles lurking behind every corner are justification for railroading innocent people.

    Gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelette, amirite?

  • ||

    Child molestation != child porn. Try again.

  • Plopper||

    Child molestation != child porn. Try again.

    That wasn't my argument at all. On the other hand one could easily think this was your argument.

  • ||

    By the way, the exact same argument could be made for any crime for which you are booked into jail that your fellow inmates don't like. A guy arrested for cross burning getting booked into jail in Compton, for example. Or a black shoplifter booked into jail in the deep south. Those issues are completely divorced from the legitimacy of outlawing cross burning and shoplifting.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement