Reason Morning Links: Dems May Ban Earmarks, Drink To Lose Weight, SCOTUS Looks at Free Speech and Funeral Protests

|

NEXT: Finally, a Candidate With Ultra-Private-Sector Experience Who Reads Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Rand...

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.

  1. Dan Rather: ‘Articulate’ Obama Couldn’t Even ‘Sell Watermelons’

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/g…..atermelons

  2. Democrats to cut congressional pay?

    And ban earmarks?

    And post bills for public viewing 72 hours before final vote?

    And bring back PAYGO?

    And be the most ethical Congress in history?

    And so on.

    1. Rand Paul has taken a no earmark pledge while his Porker backed opponent refuses to do so.

      Rand Paul “Give Me Liberty” Money Bomb on March 23rd:

      http://www.WinRandWin.com

  3. Fuck this guy up the ass with an anchor.

    The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.

    “When the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) completed their successful campaign to convince the Ontario government to end one of the best scientifically managed big game hunts in North America (spring bear), the results of their agenda had severe economic impacts on small family businesses and the tourism economy of communities across northern and central Ontario,” said Phil Morlock, director of environmental affairs for Shimano.

    “Now we see NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the administration planning the future of recreational fishing access in America based on a similar agenda of these same groups and other Big Green anti-use organizations, through an Executive Order by the President.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/outd…..id=4975762

    1. Obama really needs to get out and talk to some people who aren’t radical leftists. We have environmental problems in this country, and recreational fishing is not one of them. I noticed they didn’t mention restricting commercial fishing, presumably because they have lobbyists.

      1. Thank Neptune for PETA!

  4. The Supreme Court case is interesting. I will admit I am totally biased. If I lost a child or a sibling and those assholes showed up at the funeral, I would put several of them in the hospital and gladly go to jail.

    It seems to me that “right to free speech” can’t mean right to any speech in any matter no matter how harmful to other people. No question, these cretins are free to believe that US soldiers are dying as divine retribution. And they are free to say so. They are free to print pamphlets, web pages, newspapers TV show and so forth. But, as a citizen I should have a right to turn them off to. I don’t have to buy their newspaper or go to their website.

    But when they show up at my son’s funeral, I have kind of lost my ability to ignore them. Further, this is not a case where my son’s funeral just happens to coincide with their demonstration. They are targeting the funeral for the specific purpose of inflicting as much emotional harm on me and my family as possible. Moreover, the soldiers in question were not public figures. Neither they nor their families asked to be a part of the anti-war debate.

    This is not a case of a group of people with extremist views trying to get their voice heard. They don’t go protest at the Whitehouse or the Pentagon or at the home of any public figure responsible for the policies to which they object. No. This is a case of a bunch of sick assholes who are trying to inflict as much emotional harm as possible. I don’t see how it is not intentional infliction of emotional distress.

    1. “Neither they nor their families asked to be a part of the anti-war debate.”

      They are not debating the war. They just hate gay people. If I have learned anything in this life, it is that anyone with such a visceral hatred of gays is undoubtedly gay too. They just cannot deal with it.

      1. yeah. And they are not trying to make any coherent political points. They are just trying to fuck with people. I don’t think this case calls for anything but a really narrow decision limited to its facts. But, I think they ought to have to pay.

      2. “If I have learned anything in this life, it is that anyone with such a visceral hatred of gays is undoubtedly gay too”. Or you can just follow politics and cut the learning period to less than a year.;-)

      3. Under Skid Marx’s reasoning, Phelps is probably a secret Catholic, since he has a visceral hatred for Catholics, too:

        ‘The Westboro Church searches the Internet for notices of military funerals it can picket to get attention for its message of hostility to homosexuality *and the Roman Catholic Church,* and its claim that battlefield casualties represent divine retribution for what it views as America’s sins.

        ‘In March 2006, Mr. Phelps and several of his relatives selected the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq, at *St. John’s Catholic Church* in Westminster, Md.

        ‘The Westboro group, bearing such signs as “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “God Hates You,” along with more vulgar messages, complied with local ordinances. It wasn’t until Cpl. Snyder’s father, Albert Snyder, saw television coverage of the protest that he learned of it. Mr. Snyder later discovered a screed on the church’s Web site *attacking him for raising his son a Catholic* and supporting his service in the armed forces.’

        [emphasis added]

        1. Well I say he’s gay.

          1. He probably just has a wide stance.

          2. From today’s paper:

            ‘I am gay,’ state Sen. Roy Ashburn acknowledges

            Republican state Sen. Roy Ashburn of Bakersfield announced on a Kern County radio station Monday that he is gay, but said he likely will continue to vote against legislation that would expand rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Californians because his constituents would want him to do so.

            Ashburn, 55, has come under scrutiny after he was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving just after 2 a.m. Wednesday. A Sacramento television station reported that the senator was at a large gay club in the city before the arrest, and some sources said they have seen him at gay bars and clubs.

            Ashburn has one of the strongest records in the Legislature of opposing legislation that would expand rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Californians, including marriage rights, anti-discrimination measures and protections for gay students in public schools.

            http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…..z0hgzsTTct

            1. Republican state Sen. Roy Ashburn of Bakersfield announced on a Kern County radio station Monday that he is gay, but said he likely will continue to vote against legislation that would expand rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Californians because his constituents would want him to do so.

              Why would a gay man want to seek a political office where his constituents would expect him to vote against gay rights, let alone actually oppose gay rights?

              Would a CCW holder in political office support strict gun control laws? Would a city mayor who has a security detail of armed bodyguards support a handgun ban?

              1. “Why would a gay man want to seek a political office where his constituents would expect him to vote against gay rights, let alone actually oppose gay rights?”

                It’s called Internalized Homophobia. Rev. Phelps suffers from it too.

                1. So the reason that Jack Chick opposes Catholicism is because of internalized Catholiphobia?

                  1. That is just fucking obtuse. Unlike homosexuality, Catholicism is a choice.

                    Rev. Phelps is gay, but he cannot do anything to change that, so he lashes out at other gays. This guy hates gays (and being gay) so much that he has contrived the most bizarre way of dealing with it ? crashing funerals spewing his internalized hate and venom.

                    We hate most in others, that which we hate most in ourselves.

                    1. @ Michael Ejercito, BTW. Fuck nested threads.

                    2. That is just fucking obtuse. Unlike homosexuality, Catholicism is a choice.

                      Rev. Phelps is gay, but he cannot do anything to change that, so he lashes out at other gays. This guy hates gays (and being gay) so much that he has contrived the most bizarre way of dealing with it ? crashing funerals spewing his internalized hate and venom.

                      We hate most in others, that which we hate most in ourselves.

                      Why does this logic only apply to hatred against homosexuals?

                      No one seriously entertains the notion that David Duke and Kevin Alfred Strom are closet blacks, or that Osama bin Laden is a closet Jew or a closet American.

                    3. While your overall logic is sound, in this Phelps-specific case, I’m inclined to agree with SM that Phelps is a queer.

    2. I’ll disagree with you on one point. They are very much trying to get their viewpoint heard. They started picketing funerals because all of their other tactics for media exposure had been rendered ineffective. Nobody was paying attention to them anymore until they started showing up at the funerals. The very offensiveness of the tactic is what continues to garner media attention, which is what they want. If news organizations quit putting them on TV every time they did this, they’d move on to another tactic.

      1. The solution? A good sniper. You take out one or two of these motherfuckers at a funeral and the rest of them will just slink away.

      2. Freedom of speech does not imply the right to an audience — and that is what you’re granting these assholes when you say they have the right to hurl insults at funeral attendees.

      3. Freedom of speech does not imply the right to an audience — and that is what you’re granting these assholes when you say they have the right to hurl insults at funeral attendees.

    3. The solution to the “Phelps” problem is jury nullification.

      As ugly as it is, the phelps speech is political speech. So it is absolutelty covered by the 1st.

      Howwever, if I was sitting on the jury of a someone that shot up the Phelp crowd, I would whole-heartedly vote not guilty for any charges resulting from this shooting.

      1. I think a lot of people would join SFB in jury nullification of murdering any of the Phelps crew.

      2. As dangerous as exceptions to the first amendment can be, they pale in comparison to exceptions to murder statutes. I’ll join Louis Brandeis in accepting a “captive audience” exception to the 1st rather than endorse vigilanteism.

        1. I could have been more clear I suppose.

          If one of the bereaved exits the church with a Streetsweeper and blows away the Phelps clan, they get a walk

          If someone sets up in a sniper nest a few blocks away, that dude or dudette goes to prison.

    4. I think it’s a tough first amendment case, but in the end I have to come down in favor of the constitution. It’s not the government’s place to restrict someone’s speech, no matter how deplorable. If someone else with some other message at the same volume could stand in the same place and engage in legal speech, then making the Phelps’ speech illegal would be unconstitutional as it would be message-dependent.

      I’ve encountered the Phelps clan on more than one occasion. They have targeted me personally for the things I’ve written against them.

      But the thing is, the Phelpses aren’t just gay-obsessed lunatic religious nuts. They are also champions of the first amendment. And I say that as a gay man.

      1. They are not “champions of the first amendment” by any stretch of the imagination. They are abusers of it, at best.

        And you can bet that if the positions were reversed, they would prevent their opponents from speaking by force.

        1. Actually their raison d’etre as far as I can tell is to push the boundaries of the first amendment. They are extremely careful in acting lawfully, and are highly litigious.

          Make a first amendment exemption for these cretins and they’ll be stronger than ever.

    5. It seems to me that “right to free speech” can’t mean right to any speech in any matter no matter how harmful to other people. No question, these cretins are free to believe that US soldiers are dying as divine retribution. And they are free to say so. They are free to print pamphlets, web pages, newspapers TV show and so forth. But, as a citizen I should have a right to turn them off to. I don’t have to buy their newspaper or go to their website.

      So far, so good.

      But when they show up at my son’s funeral, I have kind of lost my ability to ignore them.

      And there you drive over the cliff.
      From the WSJ link –

      The Westboro group, bearing such signs as “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “God Hates You,” along with more vulgar messages, complied with local ordinances.

      Phelps and his tiny cult of retarded closeted fags are despicable beings. They still have the right to free speech. The Snyder family does not have the right to not be offended.

      It is not fun defending people who are complete asswipes, but that’s what the whole freedom of expression thingee leads to.

      1. I gotta go with ProLib on this one. Yes, they are detestable jackasses. Yes, if they were protesting my kid’s funeral, I’d probably punch a few of them. Yes, they have every right to be there and let everybody know what despicable filth they really are.

        Putting up with people like Phelps is the price we pay for being able to be the offensive bastards we often are on this website.

        1. The difference is, no one is forced to read this website. A person offended by those who comment here is free to not look at it.

          Funeral attendees don’t have the same option when the WBC fucktards show up.

          1. First off, you’re factually wrong about funeral attendees being unable to ignore Phelps. Not only can they ignore them, in this case they were blissfully unaware of them until after the fact.

            From TFA:

            “It wasn’t until Cpl. Snyder’s father, Albert Snyder, saw television coverage of the protest that he learned of it.”

            They weren’t getting right in there and pissing all over the flag on Snyder’s coffin. They were protesting at enough of a distance that people who attended the funeral never knew about it.

            Second, what part of “shall make no law” is unclear? This is hateful, awful, repugnant speech, but it is undeniably religious and political in nature.

            It don’t see any point in making an audience-would-rather-not-leave exception to the 1st Ammendment prohibition on government interference in speech.

            I hate these guys with the fire of a thousand suns, and would have to restrain myself mightily to avoid punching them in the face if I came across them in the wild, but fuck if I want to grant the government the power to take their money and give it to somebody else, just because they were offended. Because that power, if granted to the government, will be abused against somebody who’s not as unsympathetic as FuckingPhelps (to borrow a Lonewhackoism).

      2. “The Snyder family does not have the right to not be offended.” They have the right to their feelings but not to prevent free speech. I believe that the police can prevent harassment/violence by barricades and permit restrictions.

    6. The courts have recognized exceptions to the freedom of speech when dealing with a “captive audience”. That exception would seem to apply here, since it’s not like friends and family members can just walk away from a funeral to avoid listening to the Phelps drivel.

      1. You gotta admit, though, if the whole Phelps Klan was out protesting some funeral and got totally vaporized by a bolt of lightening, that would be some pretty ironic shit.

  5. The internal affairs office of the Minneapolis Police Department is investigating an August 2009 incident in which a Minneapolis man was stopped for a traffic infraction and ended up in a fight with several police officers.

    Video shot from the dashboard of a police car shows the man, Ira Stafford, 52, stepping out of his car, having a conversation with a police officer, then being handcuffed, shoved against his car, pushed to the ground and zapped with a Taser.

    A police spokesman said he could not comment on the case because of the investigation.

    http://www.startribune.com/loc…..ec8O7EyUsl

  6. Moderate drinking linked to moderate eating! I love studies!

    1. are studies good in moderation

      1. Double posting is correlated with heavy drinking.

    2. are studies good in moderation

  7. 10 feet? 10 feet?

    Damn.

  8. So women who do a lot of social drinking try to stay in shape and look good. Who knew!?

  9. It seems to me that “right to free speech” can’t mean right to any speech in any matter no matter how harmful to other people.

    Your feelings aren’t entitled to protection from harm.

    All – every last one – claims based on “intentional infliction of emotional distress” are crap. Every last one. They create classes of preferred viewpoints that are entitled to compensation while excluding all other viewpoints. The state has no authority to say that this guy’s feelings about his son’s funeral are more entitled to compensation than my feelings about every article in the Huffington Post. If he’s entitled to $5 million, I’m entitled to $5 million each for every article that has ever appeared in the Huffington Post.

    But when they show up at my son’s funeral, I have kind of lost my ability to ignore them.

    Get buried in the middle of a large parcel of private property. Have the property owner ban this group from the property. Problem solved.

    1. I am not entitled to anything beyond being left alone. You have no right to follow me around and harass me with your views. You have a right to think anything you want. But at the point you show up outside my house with a bull horn blasting your views in my house you have crossed a line.

      Your right of free speech doesn’t trump my right to live in peace. We have to compromise. And the compromise is, you can’t go around just harassing people with your views. And showing up at a funeral with the specific purpose of inflicting emotional harm, is just harassment.

    2. I agree with you, Fluffy. Also, sadly, when Phelps finally dies, people might picket his funeral with hurtful signs.

      1. Does Phelps actually hold church services? Everyone should show up outside his church holding all sorts of demeaning signs and shouting obscenities at him, or whatever else is legal and fun. Gay Pride Parade maybe?

      2. I weould join that group. Paaarrrty Time!

      3. And then when whatever Bible belt jury nullifies the convictions of the Westboro crazies who assault/murder those people, you guys will be squealing like stuck pigs. Perhaps then you’ll understand my concerns about installing jury nullification as a legal doctrine.

    3. “The state has no authority to say that this guy’s feelings about his son’s funeral are more entitled to compensation than my feelings about every article in the Huffington Post. ”

      That is just complete horseshit. If this were about a web site you would have a point. But it is not. What if I show up outside your house with a bullhorn and I follow you around wherever you go for days screaming my view that you as a libertarian are responsible for the deaths of millions. You don’t like it, fuck you, spend your life in seclusion on private property. Anytime you are in public I am going to be there telling the world what a scumbag you are. Do you honestly think that the 1st Amendment gives me a right to do that? If it gives these assholes the right to go to funerals, why wouldn’t it?

      1. The bullhorn violates noise ordinances, other than that, you can do it.

      2. That could be done to Phelps. We could all take turns. Then it would be justice. Why do you hate sweet, sweet justice, John?

        1. That would be awesome.

          If the Phelps people come anywhere within 3 hours’ driving distance of southern Vermont, if anyone wants me to show up to scream that God hates them, just email me.

          1. You’re from Vermont? Hmm. I thought I was the only Hit and Runner from up here.

        2. As much as I hate our current unprincipled statist “leaders”, this is one of those moments I’m glad you guys are relegated to 0.5% of the vote and eternally sealed off from the levers of power. You’re so wrapped up in your ideology that you ignore how miserable life would be if your views were actually implemented. Thank you very much, I don’t care to live in a society where my enemies are free to stand on the sidewalk in front of my house and shout insults at me 24 hours a day, and my sole recourse is to go to their houses and do the same. This isn’t fucking fifth grade, it’s supposed to be an adult society.

          1. Tulpa,

            You’re so wrapped up in your fear of freedom that you invent absurd scenarios that would never happen.

            I assert that I have the freedom to demonstrate against you [and the freedom to boycott you, and the freedom to encourage others to do the same, etc.]. But do you really live in fear that without the power of the state to keep me in check, I’m going to bother to stand in front of your house and heckle you 24 hours a day, forever?

            Seriously?

            I’ll never get bored, never go take a shit, never get something to eat, never go to work, etc.?

            We already have the right to stand outside Obama’s house 24 hours a day and protest against him. And in this entire nation of 300 million people, only about 100 people actually do that. And Obama is universally known and is the face of government. How many people do you seriously think are going to demonstrate against your obscure unimportant ass? Or do so 24 hours a day?

            1. I didn’t say individual enemies — maybe there are 10 of them and they work in shifts. And the 24 hour bit isn’t necessary for my point — even if they just make life at my residence miserable for four hours a day that’s too much. But the mechanisms aren’t important here — since you’re espousing general principles of absolute freedom of speech, you have to apply them to any remotely plausible scenario.

              1. And I do.

                But one element of each scenario we have to consider is how plausible it is.

                Unless you think we should abridge fundamental freedoms on the basis of events with extremely low likelihoods of occuring.

                The odds of me, or you, being the target of a “demonstration vendetta” are extremely low – so low, in fact, that the threat of social retalitation [i.e. “we demonstrate right back at ’em”] is sufficient to keep it in check.

                Right now, you could easily greet your neighbor every morning with a “Good morning, shitface!” and as long you did so in a conversational tone, no law in the land could touch you. But I bet you don’t do that, even to people you don’t like. Now why is that? Personally, I’m civil to people to make sure they’re civil in return. I think the desire to not be shunned or heckled is plenty sufficient to keep the public in line, for the simple reason that it already is keeping them in line. See?

                even if they just make life at my residence miserable for four hours a day that’s too much

                On the basis of your downgrade of your scenario, we can now conclude that you just don’t think that any free speech whatsoever should exist, if you’re the target of that speech.

                This makes you pretty much the epitome of the “freedom for me, but not for thee” brigade. But we already knew that about you, didn’t we?

                On the basis of this statement, you don’t even in believe in free speech and assembly even when limited in time and manner; you demand perpetual quiet for yourself and consider any speech against you at all, if you can hear it, to be actionable harassment.

                1. I think the desire to not be shunned or heckled is plenty sufficient to keep the public in line, for the simple reason that it already is keeping them in line. See?

                  Right, and I don’t rape and murder people for reasons unrelated to the fact that those acts are illegal. The point of criminal law is to tamp down on the small minority for whom moral codes and social cohesion is not enough discouragement. If even 30% of people want to commit an act, having a law against it is not going to be enough to prevent it (e.g., speeding, marijuana use) unless you’re in a totalitarian regime. Indeed, even though you and I don’t protest at funerals due to the abhorrence of such an act, that abhorrence is not enough to prevent WBC from doing so — they’re the sick minority that needs more stern measures to make them behave.

                  On the basis of your downgrade of your scenario, we can now conclude that you just don’t think that any free speech whatsoever should exist, if you’re the target of that speech.

                  If someone wants to post billboards all over town criticizing me, that’s protected by the first amendment.

                  If every person on the street hurls insults at me as I walk by, perhaps shouting or using bullhorns, that’s protected by the first amendment.

                  If someone starts a TV or radio station which broadcasts criticism and insults of me 24/7, that’s protected by the first amendment.

                  But if they continuously shout at me when I’m a captive audience, at my residence or at the funeral of a loved one, that is NOT protected.

                  The difference? I can’t be expected to walk away from either of those places to avoid the speech. Freedom of speech does not imply the right to an audience.

                  1. If every person on the street hurls insults at me as I walk by, perhaps shouting or using bullhorns, that’s protected by the first amendment…

                    But if they continuously shout at me when I’m a captive audience, at my residence or at the funeral of a loved one, that is NOT protected.

                    This is a meaningless distinction, and not one that deserves to be enshrined in law.

                    If you concede that I have the right to stand on the street shouting insults about you, what possible difference could it make what street I’m on?

                    I see how it makes a difference to you. I just don’t see why you think it should make a difference to me, or to how the state treats my speech.

                    If I did it at 2 in the morning, and your town had a content-neutral restriction saying that no one can wake people up in their homes at 2 in the morning – THAT, I can buy.

                    But you seem to be saying that I have the right to stand outside your house yelling “Obama is a bastard!”, but no right to stand outside your house yelling “Tulpa is a bastard!” And that’s just absurd.

      3. Yes, absolutely you do.

        If I have the right to go to every Obama public appearance and boo, you have the right to go to every Fluffy appearance and boo.

        Those are the breaks.

        In any event, the Phelps people were so far away from the funeral they couldn’t even be seen by the attendees. This father is suing on the basis of the claim that the mere knowledge that Phelps held a protest emotionally damaged him. And if he can sue based on the claim that he is harmed by the thoughts and speech of people at great distances from him, then the Huffington Post FUCKING OWES ME FIVE MILLION DOLLARS. Or our government is corrupt and tyrannical.

        1. By the way, before anyone brings it up, I don’t recognize a distinction between Obama and myself based on the notion that Obama is a “public person” and I am not.

          No such distinction can be constitutionally supported.

          As soon as I declare that someone is a public person, they are. My declaration is efficacious at making them so. The answer to the question “What is political?” is always “Whatever anyone says is political, is” because the act of saying something is political is sufficient in and of itself to make it so.

          As the Phelps people are proving.

          The fact that you and I disagree about these protests MAKES them political.

    4. That is so wrong. Do you think you can show up at a wedding and just start screaming anti-gay bigotry? They can haul you away for that, as well they should.

      1. You can, as long as you stay off the property.

    5. Skid Max makes a good point. What some asshole went to California and went to every gay wedding and stood outside yelling “God hates fags, Die fag Die!!” And they targeted gay weddings specifically to ruin the occasion and make it hard for gay people to have weddings?

      How the hell is that free speech? That is just harassment disguised under the blanket of political ideas.

      1. Well, because the church or owner of wherever the wedding was happening would have the right to remove them.

      2. Skid Max?

        Best RC’z Law ever.

      3. If they did in on a public sidewalk?

        Too bad.

        1. Unless they are blocking the rest of us from walking down the sidewalk.

  10. Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), said Republicans would welcome the policy. “For more than two years, we’ve been asking House Democrats to join us in an earmark moratorium and real earmark reform,” he said in a statement. “I hope they are finally ready to get serious about ending their out-of-control spending spree, which is scaring the hell out of the American people.”

    John Boehner- “Mister Credibility”.

    1. John Boehner- “Mister Credibility”.

      He’s just lucky the clerk at Ellis Island didn’t anglicize his ancestor’s surname.

      1. It would probably have taken decades for that to become truly hilarious but it would have truly been worth it.

  11. Canadian lawmakers serve up seal meat.

    They finally realized that they were never gonna survive unless they get a little crazy.

    1. I see what you did there. Nice.

      1. They have good taste, but they better bring a friggin’ wheelbarrow, yo.

  12. Study co-researcher Howard S. Sesso, ScD, MPH, cautions that people who do not drink alcohol should not take up the habit to keep from gaining weight.

    Ummm…why not? How come every study that shows some benefit to moderate alcohol consumption has a line like this? Are doctors really that much of pussies?

    Apparently its a US thing. I recently saw a UK study in which the doctors bluntly stated that 1 drink a day while pregnant was perfectly fine. Two would be bad, but no need to go all teetotally for 9 months.

    1. For all their faults, Europeans are more sane about some of these habits than Americans. I remember reading, a few years ago, that some prominent Dr. in Britain said that smoking was fine as long as you kept under 10 cigs per day, exercised, and ate a healthy diet.

      1. I remember reading that in the UK a drinking binge was defined as “getting drunk and staying drunk for at least two consecutive days”.

        At that time (and still AFAIK) in the US a drinking binge was defined as “more than three drinks in a single sitting”.

        And for what it’s worth, with all the things that I could rag on Obama about, smoking eight cigarettes a day ain’t one.

        1. And for what it’s worth, with all the things that I could rag on Obama about, smoking eight cigarettes a day ain’t one.

          I don’t care if he smokes. I am curious about where he smokes, though, because as far as I can tell, it is illegal to smoke in any federal building or within 25 feet of its entrance.

          Where does he go where its legal to smoke?

          1. Perhaps it’s weed?

  13. this is not a case where my son’s funeral just happens to coincide with their demonstration. They are targeting the funeral for the specific purpose of inflicting as much emotional harm on me and my family as possible.

    I think this is a good point; how much weight is given to malicious intent in a situation like this?

    I would say they should be free to protest at recruitment locations, on the steps of the Capitol, or the Whiter House lawn, before targeting the funerals of individual soldiers.

    There is zero likelihood of a conviction if I was on a jury trying somebody who stomped the shit out of one of these guys at hios kid’s funeral.

    1. Accidents happen.

  14. Another Solution:

    http://atheistexperience.blogs…..nfran.html

    1. Not a single “God Hates Figs” signs. Disappointed.

  15. It’s easier for the dems to be against earmarks when there is a democrat in the white house.

    **Did you know?**

    Earmarks increase spending transparency.

  16. Oh wow, drink to lose weight? Now thats just too cool dude!

    Jess
    http://www.total-anonymity.us.tc

    1. It doesn’t work with opium though.

  17. A man reaches pre-eminence, he’s expected to have enthusiasms…..enthusiasms…enthusiasms…..

  18. Every time I hear a politician talking about transparency or accountability, I flash back to Robert Miller describing the stages of drunk.

    “As God is my witness, I’ll never drink again.

    ……….And this time, I mean it.”

  19. http://www.slate.com/id/2247172

    hope one of the editors makes an H&R post on this today…

    1. I am interested in hearing a liberal (or conservative for that matter) who is A-OK with with the concept of disparate impact argue that the folks behind the campaign don’t have a point.

      1. That article is based on a fallacy, the name of which I can’t immediately recall. But they did (accidentally) show how contradictory the “liberal agenda” really is.

  20. Check this shit out.

    It’s HuffPo, but not anything stupid. I hope the cop gets fired to the other side of the world, but he probably won’t.

  21. It’s funny — you guys condemn prosecutors and police supervisors who tolerate officers shooting dogs and terrorizing innocent civilians during drug raids — but then you yourselves wink and nod about letting those who assault and murder annoying (but, in your view, legal) protesters off the hook. More evidence that you just hate cops qua cops.

    1. My comment above in the thread was simply to note that a lot of people wouldn’t vote “guilty” against someone who went after the Phelps while they were screaming at their son’s funeral. I stated something I thought (and still think) was true. If you read a value judgment into that, that’s your own readong comprehension problem.

      If you weren’t referring to me in the above comment, please ignore this one.

      1. My main target was “short fat bastard” at 10:06. But I disagree with you that people would vote not guilty in a murder case simply because the victim was annoying them.

  22. Smells like straw in here.

  23. Hmmm… The UK article I saw on the same study was headlined “Binge drinking linked to obesity”. Can’t find it now, but love the spin.

  24. God hates signs.

  25. Re: John and others’ consistent insistence that Phelps was following Snyder around and harassing him. That ain’t what happened.

    “It wasn’t until Cpl. Snyder’s father, Albert Snyder, saw television coverage of the protest that he learned of it.”

    Snyder then went to their website and saw nasty things that Phelps said about him and his son.

    Snyder only found out about it because the news broadcast it. Then he had to go to Phelps’ website to find out the rest of what they’d said. Phelps said stuff, but they didn’t say it in Snyder’s face where he couldn’t ignore it. If the news had ignored it, Snyder would never have known. That’s not harassment. It’s being a complete dick, but it’s not harassment.

  26. To reiterate, I fucking hate Phelps as much as he hates fags. He’s a despicable douchebag, and no one should do business with him, even to sell him a crust of bread to keep him from starving. Leave him shunned by society and forced to beg on the streets.

    But don’t send the police to take his property just because he said things we don’t like.

  27. They saw the church members waving signs and protesting the funeral. ….. So, cattle weight loss, destruction of fences, breaking our pipelines, they break them .Special Report Panel Looks at Dem Bullying of Corps Revealing Huge ObamaCare Costs ….. Despite a newly enacted ban on earmarks to for-profit firms
    http://destinationsoftwareinc.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.