Reason Morning Links: Sherrod May Be Re-Hired, War on Terror Hits $1 Trillion, New Penalties for North Korea


NEXT: Day Two of JournoListMageddon: Not Very Convincing

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Really? Taking delight in a man’s blindness? Wow.

      1. I intend to hold off celebrating until he dies.

  1. From the texting story…

    “Some road safety advocates are encouraged. “One thing we don’t know is how broadly accepted this technology will be by drivers,” says Russ Rader of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.”

    Well, it won’t be accepted at all by this driver. I will not own a phone that has this software in it or a car that has a feature like the Ford models talked about in the article. Ever.

    It’s not even a freedom issue. You never know exactly what will happen. I will not purposely disable something that I can use in an emergency for an overblown threat thats solution lies not is its prohibition, but it’s severity of punishment if guilty of doing.

    1. Sheesh. What’s next? Cover locks on food processors?

    2. So if you’re on a train or a bus, a passenger, no texting.

      1. I’m sure you understand. Thanks for your cooperation.

      2. Exactly. No one will go for this because non-drivers will be penalized as well. Why can’t we just promote responsible behav– oh yeah, nevermind.

    1. Totally unrelated but it made me want to ask you…

      Pinnacle of Zakk Wylde’s playing?

      (I know he’s not in or related to your post. I just thought to ask the question because of it for some reason.)

        1. A man of great taste.

          That and Book of shadows is where I think he really peaked.

    1. Look at the related videos! I had no idea Steve Smith was being so thoroughly documented on video.

    2. I had no idea that Giganthropicus rape was such a common thing.

      1. I wonder if Steve Smith could interbreed with Gigantopithecus blacki or if there has been enough divergence for genetic drift to make his kind a new species.

        Gigantopithecus constupravi, perhaps.

        1. Gigantopithecus blacki


  2. USDA to reconsider firing of Shirley Sherrod.

    I smell another discrimination lawsuit.

    1. She said recently she is not sure she would go back in light of the way she was treated.

      1. I wish I had that option with you!

      2. They might treat her like some white farmer coming for help saving his livelihood.

  3. The Sherrod story just keeps on giving. Let’s recap, shall we?

    (1) NAACP accuses Tea Parties of racism.

    (2) Breitbart posts video of NAACP muckety-mucks voicing approval of a black woman’s story of treating a white person as a second class citizen (Note: NAACP muckety-mucks were missing the point of her “racial reconciliation” story).

    (3) NAACP decries Sherrod as a racist, even though the video shows it their own membership that was showing, shall we say, racialist sympathies. (Note again: apparently, the NAACP President was at that speech, and knew the full racial reconciliation story).

    (4) The Obama administration forces her to resign in a particularly brutal fashion (pull over to the side of the road and email your resignation on your Blackberry), without apparently conducting any investigation at all.

    (5) Sherrod blames the NAACP and the administration for throwing her under the bus.

    (6) The NAACP blames Fox News and Breitbart, even though the NAACP had the full tape and their President saw the full speech. (Note: NAACP continues to miss the point of the original video.)

    (7) The administration flops around like a fish on the dock.


    1. Sherrod, herself, blamed FOX news and others too.

      1. Fox News didn’t fire her. And the point of the tape was not her anyway. It was the NAACP brass who thought what she did was Aok that was the point. And if she is so innocent, why didn’t the administration look at the whole incident instead of just firing her? That is not Breitbart or Fox’s problem.

        1. Now the NAACP president is saying they were “snookered” into believing she was saying something racist. When he was right there…

          1. “snookered”
            Does the term “snookered” actually mean anything to the average American? I am only familiar with the term because I lived in the UK for a long time. Being “snookered” isn’t even an issue using standard US bar rules 8-ball, as you do not have to give up two shots if you hit the black or opponents balls first as one does in UK pub rules 8-ball. I have never actually played real snooker.

    2. yes it is. But it is better than that. Every lefty journalist and hack is now on record talking about how her statements needed to be taken on context and how one statement doesn’t make the whole person.

      Thanks to that and Breitbart, they will find it a little difficult to run the next conservative who misspeaks breaks with racial PC orthodoxy out of public life. The race card just got harder to play.

      1. Except she didn’t misspeak. What she said was taken out of context and a completely legit story. This wasn’t a case of her saying something stupid and then backtracking.

        1. That is not how the NAACP took it. They took her to mean giving a story about discriminating against white people and thought it was just great.

          1. What does the audience have to do with your comment about how, “Every lefty journalist and hack is now on record talking about how her statements needed to be taken on context and how one statement doesn’t make the whole person.”?

            1. Because leftists would never in the past at least give a situation involving someone from the right that kind of context. They would only see the statement and the crowd cheering. Just imagine if someone on the right got up and said “I once was a racist but decided against it” as a crowd cheered, the outrage would be deafening. That kind of outrage is going to be harder and harder to pull off.

              1. I’d cheer that too, wouldn’t you?

              2. During the election I remember a whole lot of media opinion-sharer types demanding that McCain-Palin refute comments yelled from the crowd during their rallys.

                Seems to me that if some random person in a crowd yelling “Obama isn’t a citizen (or something similar)” requires that a speaker immediatly refudiate the statement, then criticizing a crowd’s positive reaction to a racist sentiment from a speaker is wholly justified.

                1. Look, the word is rePudiate not that Palinism. So if everyone can just toe the lion on this we can send it out on JournoList and it will be fine. OK?


                  1. Hey, it’s tow the lion, godammit.

                    I just learned that fefudiate was a Palinism, myself. Just like Shakespeare she is, making up words and all.

                    Just watch, it’s the new irregardless.

                2. Sort of like some Reason commenters I know blaming all Muslims for terror killings and such because they don’t publicly refute radical imams.

        2. It’s the audience, stupid.

      2. “Thanks to that and Breitbart, they will find it a little difficult to run the next conservative who misspeaks breaks with racial PC orthodoxy out of public life.”

        No, they won’t.

    3. (8) Offended news organization MSNBC, without apparent irony, blames FOX News for having an “agenda.”

    4. And don’t forget this.

    5. What they should do is pick somebody, I dunno, Beck, Carl Rove, The Pope … it doesn’t really matter, and start calling them racist. That way all the rubes will stop paying attention to this.

    6. +3

      “Delicious” was the exact adjective I had in mind.

  4. New software could lock texting/emailing cell phone functions while driving.

    I demand software that will lock up the brakes as soon as you start texting!

    1. Maybe Toyota can make a training program to teach their customers the difference between the brake and the throttle.

    2. Or if there is a small dog on the driver’s lap!

      1. That’s where it starts. Soon they’ll be banning drunk driving, applying makeup in traffic and other harmless distractions.

        1. They should ban traffic.

          1. As soon as they ban oil refining you will have your wish.

  5. One person? Oh my, clutch the pearls! How about abolishing the entire g-dforsaken organization? They steal our money to subsidize grains, again to encourage people to eat them, and again to pay for the health problems caused by them!

    1. Nuke USDA from orbit.
      It’s the only way to be sure.

    2. The USDA inspection regime is defensible from a libertarian perspective. The farm subsidies and forced speech by independent dairy producers and such, not so much.

  6. Notice how only spoof Max/Morris/Edward/Leftiti posts have gone up as of late?

    I guess you can’t troll from prison.

    1. Even Steve Smith wouldn’t do that.

      1. I just hope they don’t start using British libel and defamation laws against me. The truth is not always a defense over there, you know.

        1. The US Senate did something to ease your mind.

  7. Instead of hiring Shirley Sherrod back they should fire everyone in the USDA. Sherrod’s firing was a mistake on the grounds that she was fired (or forced to resign) before all the facts were known. Even taking that into consideration she and everyone else in the USDA has a job that should not exist.

  8. Cost of war on terror tops $1 trillion.

    Thank you. Thank you very much.

  9. I think the only way Tony Haywood could have done a worse job at handling the Gulf situation is if it had said “Well at least it wasn’t the North Sea”.

  10. These apps … block the ability to text when the car is going faster than 5 or 10 mph.

    I understand injuries resulting from texting while *walking* are on the rise …

    1. Superfreakonomics has a chapter on drunk walking accidents are more common than drunk driving accidents…

  11. I can’t wait to hear how big Tony Hayward’s golden parachute will be.

    The guy has really done a fantastic job.

  12. LOL, “War on terror”? Too funny. If the US would mind its own business and stop sticking its nose where it doesnt belong there probably wouldnt be any issues!


  13. The truth is not always a defense over there, you know.

    Some things are more important than the truth. If they look into your soul, you’re fucked.

    1. Ha! I have no soul, you British fools!

      1. They spell it “souul” over there.

        1. Dumbass. It’s not ‘souul’, it’s ‘al-oo-min-e-um’.

          1. I thought it was “lorry.”

            1. Wrong. It’s “right minger.’

              1. In Sf’s case, I believe that’s spelled “proper munter”.

  14. 1) NAACP threw her under the bus without doing any investigation.
    2) Tom Vilsack threw her under the bus without investigation (remember, he ran for president. imagine the knee-jerk reactions he could have made there)
    3) Andrew Breitbart now has zero credibility and, neither does anyone referencing him from now on.
    4) the media whose job is to investigate this sort of thing ran with the story without doing any sort of investigation.

    1. “3) Andrew Breitbart now has zero credibility and, neither does anyone referencing him from now on.”

      Why? He just played the tape. He is not the one that fired her. And the point of the story was the audience’s reaction not her. The story wasn’t “there is a racist at the USDA”. The story was “the NAACP cheers when a women tells them she once discriminated against white people”.

      Try another KOS talking point.

      1. JournaList hasn’t fully discussed the issue. 🙂

      2. He just played a heavily edited tape, asked no questions about what was edited out, and refused to apologize for wrecking a person’s career by disseminating misleading information.

    2. “Andrew Breitbart now has zero credibility”

      And how about those conservative lemurs who blidnly followed him over the hill in a stampede of frothing mouths?







        Ahh the frothing masses blindly following, oh the pretty shades of rouge and cyan they come in.

        1. Hmm, now who’s meme is “everybody does it!”


          1. You just completely missed the point and managed to instill a new one.

            Maybe the disgust should occur that everyone does it, and take that was me making fun of you for being one of the oh so enlightened “everybody.”

            1. that = because

            2. What kind of pretentious prick use the word delightful and an exclamation point?

              Seriously? Were you sipping tea, wearing a monocle and top hat, while sitting next to a fire place in a highbacked leather chair?

            3. Because yesterday you responded to this story with “everybody does it” right?

              1. I didn’t respond to this story yesterday.

                Is that “Delightful!”

                1. I see you posting down there my little conclusion jumping buddy. Can I get a call on the “is it delightful” question?

                  I’m trying to transition from flaming asshole to pretentious prick and could use your guidance.

                  1. It is delightful to watch the cons in libertarian clothing flip and flop.

                    1. The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain.

                      You are the most non sequitury of them all.

                      Is it disturbing that after context is given people change their mind about the situation? Oh say like some bat shit retarded assclown Harvard professor incident and Big O? Or was his changing his mind okay?

                      Oh crap, now we’re back to everybody does it.

      2. Lemurs?
        Is that a “Macaca” slur?

      3. Way not to respond to the point that the story was about the audience not the speaker. I believe that is play number for from the MNG playbook; hey look over there.

        1. And Matt explains that too…

          Face it John, conservative bloggers put a piece of bullshit pie out there and you had your face smeared with shit in less than 3 seconds.

          You’re busted Cap’n Guillible.

          1. If the play doesn’t work the first time, just run it again. Hey look over there at Matt. Don’t respond to the point that the story was about the NAACP cheering a a woman saying she had discriminated against white people. Nope, just ignore that. Just talk about bullshit pies.

            You are like the old Green Bay Packers, everyone knows what play is coming, except your plays never work anywhere beyond you own head.

            1. As Matt says if you watch the story from the beginning along with the set up, and you are not a conservative hack with reverse racism as your chief obsession, it’s clear it’s a story of overcoming reverse racist predilections. The NAACP (an organization I have no love for btw) agreeing with the story is appropriate.

              Hey John, you got a little still on your cheek there.

              1. “The NAACP (an organization I have no love for btw) agreeing with the story is appropriate.”

                You have switched plays now. Now you will just lie. You are good at that one. That is not what Breitbart’s story was about at all. His point was about the audience. And indeed, when you watch the video they seem to be very happy about the fact that she stuck it to some white farmers. The fact she later repented seems to be lost on them.

                Keep hacking away MNG. Eventually you will just lie and obfuscate enough everyone will forget about the whole thing. Those are your marching orders right?

                1. Face it, you were duped.

                  Careless, again.

                  1. “Face it, you were duped.”

                    Come on MNG, That is just taking a knee.

              2. I’m a bit late to this thread, but can I point out that if the races were reversed, it would be irrelevant to the NAACP if the person later repented?

                If a white person told a story where they said, “I told that nigger to go ask their own kind for help” but then later in the story they said, “But later I decided that wasn’t fair” no one would give a shit about their repentance.

                Unless we’re talking about Senator Byrd, of course.

    3. #3 assumes Breitbart had any credibility before this.

  15. Unintended consequences, the new instant version.

    S&P, Moody’s & Fitch “are all refusing to allow their ratings to be used in documentation for new bond sales

    Bond sales put up this week? 0
    Bond sales last week? 3b…..lenews_wsj

    *shamelessly direct to WSJ article by Kids Prefer Cheese.

    1. Since WSJ is behind a paywall, I had to go elsewhere. According to this:

      “Under the new law, ratings agencies can be sued for making bad ratings decisions, if the ratings are included in formal documents that companies file with the SEC when they issue bonds.”

      You know what? Good. Those fuckers escaped practically all consequences of their piss-poor rating ability regarding CDOs. They should be held accountable for their shoddy work. Congress probably got the details wrong (as usual), but I have no sympathy for those incompetent insulated bastards.

    2. …because their ratings are garbage and now they’re accountable for their work.

      Just let EganJones put bbb- on every new issue. There’s your grade. Up the yield or suck it.

    3. Don’t read that as my endorsement for the ratings companies. To do so would be a mistake. The comment is on the fact that no bonds were issued, without bonds a whole lotta’ things are going to come to a grinding halt. For starters the “Summer of Recovery.”

      1. Days until the Fed announces its bond rating arm in order to free up liquidity?


        1. the Fed announces its bond rating arm

          A ‘pure balls’ announcement is in the pipeline fer sure.

  16. This is amazing. Yesterday John and the rest of the conservatives around here waxed poetically about Brietbart’s amazing reporting. Now that his story has imploded under more scrutiny they point at the WH and bleat about them firing the lady!

    1. Clearly this woman should not have been fired, and Breitbart fucked up on this one big time.

      By selectively editing the video in a way that made her look bad when it wasn’t necessary, he did exactly what the left-wing scumbags like you in the media do all the time.

      Those of us who oppose your ilk shouldn’t sink to your lowly gutter level of destroying innocent people, because it’s just wrong. Shirley Sherrod is definitely owed an apology by a lot of people.

      1. I don’t understand. Do you mean to say that it is Breitbart’s fault that the USDA didn’t ask for the whole tape before asking for her resignation? Breitbart wasn’t hunting for her scalp. She got fired because she works for people who can’t be arsed to get the whole story when their phone lines light up with reporters. And I hope she takes another $13M out of their hides for it.

      2. Can we get a fact check on this:

        When you say “selectively edit” do yo mean:

        (a) just didn’t show the end (which is clearly at least the case).

        (b) spliced stuff in and out/changed the order to make it look worse.

        (c) just didn’t show the end, because he didn’t have the end.

        I’m unclear on what he actually did.

      3. The USDA should have never fired her. But she was never the point of his story. The audience was.

        1. John, you didn’t call for her firing?

          1. Of course I did. But the fact that I took that from the story doesn’t mean it was the point of the story. I hadn’t seen the whole video. But seeing the whole video made feel better about this woman not the NAACP.

            1. “John, you didn’t call for her firing?”

              “Of course I did. I hadn’t seen the whole video.”

              Ladies and gentlemen, we have our conservative Lemur!

              Hey John, what bs conservative meme will you be all guillible and fall for today?

              1. Make sure to show a level of being guillible so high that you exhibit actual outrage and call for someone to be fired BEFORE you look into the evidence presented!

              2. MNG play number four “hey look over there”. Again don’t respond to the argument just talk about something else.

        2. The USDA should have never fired her. But she was never the point of his story. The audience was.

          I agree, but he should have just shown the entire video.

          To lowlifes like the Shit Facktory, this kind of stuff is nothing but a political football game, but when it comes to the lives of innocent people, we should be better than they are.

        3. On July 25, 2009 Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack appointed Shirley Sherrod as Georgia Director of Rural Development

          USDA Rural Development spends over $1.2 Billion in the State of Georgia each year.

          On March 27, 2010, while speaking at the NAACP Freedom Fund Banquet…

          Ms. Sherrod admits that in her federally appointed position, overseeing over a billion dollars…

          She discriminates against people due to their race.

          That’s from the text of the video that was put up. If she’s not the point of the story, than why is the into about her?

    2. The story hasn’t imploded. It’s gotten better. It was just your normal “see you are the real racist” thing that the right always throws at the left*. Now it has turned into an object lesson on why knee jerk cries of “racism” are stupid and overused, and demonstrated, in real time, by the NAACP, on a black person.

      *NTTIAWWT. When somebody is about to accuse you of a Maoist thought crime, the best defense is to accuse them first.

      I will digest any Breitbart stuff a little slower now though.

      1. I will digest any Breitbart stuff a little slower now though, rather than swallowing conservative memes like a Taiwenese whore as I usually do.

        1. Good for you. We can all make improvements. Don’t give up all your Taiwenese whore skills though, they have definite value in the free market.

  17. Great Moments In Deliberately Missing The Point.

    The sad part is anyone thinking that they need to coordinate groupthink like this behind the scenes. The reason I don’t care about Journolist all that much is because leftist journalists have internalized the narrative for decades. Right journalists do it too, of course, but the flocking patterns are more irritating based purely on volume on the left.

    1. Right journalists do it too…

      It’s not as dangerous because that internalized narrative falls completely silent every time the mail server crashes.

      1. The rightwing people don’t get along as well. They don’t agree on immigration or tax structures. Some of them are evangelical prudes, others are pro porn libertarians. And there is much less a sense of “we got to do it for the cause” than there is on the Left.

        1. That’s hilarious seeing as how they were enraged at Stephanopolous and the major networks whom the right calls a Democratic hack and part of the liberal MSM cabal respectively.

          Only someone like John who frankly admits at times he doesn’t know a liberal periodical from a hole in his ass would say the left isn’t as if not more fractured than the right.

          1. And why did they criticize him? For not being leftist enough. It is all about lying and doing whatever it takes for the team. Anyone who doesn’t do that gets called out. Come on MNG< you have spread your legs and sold your integrity so many times, you know the drill.

            1. So at the least it shows the “MSM” is not monolithically liberal, right?
              So Steph and the major networks must not be willing to lie “for the team”, right?

              Peddle faster John, faster!

              1. “So at the least it shows the “MSM” is not monolithically liberal, right?”

                No. It shows that they are monotonically liberal and the only criticism these guys can ever have is when someone is not completely left. It is like saying that because enemies of the people when to prison in the old Soviet Union, it wasn’t monotonically communist.

                1. So Steph and Gibson are liberal tools, but they were criticized by liberal tools only for not being liberal tools.

                  Or something. It’s getting Orwellian here.

                  1. Team Hillary PUMAs vs. Obamatons? That division still runs deep with many.

                    1. You know, Puma is just another word for Cougar.

    2. Right journalists do it too

      Both of them?

      1. Rightwing writers are all opinion writers. No one calls Jonah Goldberg or Matt Welch a reporter. The closest thing to a “rightwing” reporting I can think of would be Balko’s work on SWAT teams or the stuff John Stossel does. Left wingers in contrast always claim to be unbiased reporters. Until that is someone reads their e-mails. And then they are opinion journalists and everyone always knew that.

        1. How many of those people that made those kind of statements claim to be unbiased reporters?

          Show your work.

          1. The producer for NPR to name one.

            1. A producer is a reporter? Funny, I thought the fact that there are two different terms for those occupations is because they do different things…

              1. yeah the producer just approves the script and decides what shows to do. God you are pathetic. You can never give an inch about anything.

      2. Fox News has more than two people working for it. They really should drop the “fair and balanced” shtick.

        I’m a fan of making fun of both sides, but the hypocrisy of the left is particularly piquant during Democratic administrations.

        1. If Left wants to admit that all of the MSM is just as biased for the Left as Fox is for the Right, I don’t think we have an argument anymore.

          1. There would still be the volume problem. But such a confession probably would twist the knob to the left some.

            1. But it would take away all of their pretentiousness. And they live on the pretense that they are better and smarter than everyone else. Admitting that they are no better than Fox would kill them.

            2. That’s why I depend on the channel button. Shuts ’em up real good.

              1. The “off” button is an amazing thing.

          2. It’s such a stupid statement. What is the “MSM?” We’ve seen the Guardian lumped in with ABC and Mother Jones with the NYT, but clearly they are not all equally “liberal” (otherwise their criticisms of each other, as highlighted by this very story, are nonsensical).

            Is Mother Jones as biased as Fox? Yes. Is the NYT or ABC? No.

            1. Is Mother Jones as biased as Fox? Yes.

              I would say “yes, and then some.”

              Is the NYT or ABC? No.

              I would say Fox’s pro-Red slant is about as pronounced as the One-Party Media’s pro-Blue slant.

            2. Lumping those outlets together as the “MSM” is foolish, but no more foolish than lumping most of the commenters here with our resident righties.
              I wonder, when the R’s take over the government again, will the roles of MNG and John be reversed?

            3. “Is the NYT or ABC? No.”

              IN bizzaro world maybe. Of course they are. The NYT’s own obudsman has admitted they are a liberal paper. And Breitbart is destroying any conceit that they are not. And that is why you are so pissed off and are on here trolling.

  18. “internalized the narrative”

    SF getting all post-modernist on us!

    1. “Libertarianism has a rigorous ideological coldness at its core.”
      Michael Gerson, on the other hand, has a warm steaming pile of shit at his core.

    2. [Libertarianism] involves not only a retreat from Obamaism but a retreat from the most basic social commitments to the weak, elderly and disadvantaged

      Because, as every “responsible Republican” knows, compassion towards the weak, elderly and disadvantaged can be shown only through massive government programs.

    3. Just to be clear: A Republican Senate candidate has identified the United States Congress with tyranny and contemplated the recourse to political violence. This is disqualifying for public office.

      Just to be clear: Michael Gerson believes that anyone who can imagine any scenario whatsoever that would justify revolution against the state is not qualified to hold any public office. Any. Scenario. Whatsoever.

      So if there’s any action any government anywhere could take that would make you stop and say, “You know, that justifies armed revolution,” Michael Gerson thinks you are forever unqualified to hold public office.

  19. I wonder how hard you would have had to scratch, back in the glory days of The Clinton Plentitude, to find a “lefty journalist” who thought James Carville was an obnoxious douchebag, and would freely say so in private.

  20. it would take away all of their pretentiousness.

    Yeah, right.

  21. ITT:

    MNG denounces his and Johns love child, The Point. John is an evil conservative who won’t apologize. Saccharine digs up the past. I post stupid shit as usual. Some other people make points here and there, and the frothing lemurs take over the world.

    1. Frothing Lemurs would make a great name for a band.

  22. There in an apostrophe, or an apostate, missing there somewhere.

  23. I’m having a full length frothing lemur coat made.

    1. I hear the red and blue coated lemurs are protected under EPA law. Might want to be careful.

  24. New Jersey governor Chris Christie wants to take control of Atlantic City and the Meadowlands.

    I really like what Christie has done there so far, but I’m not too sure that I like the sound of this.

  25. That $1 trillion figure sounds low. 9+ years in Afghanistan, 7+ years in Iraq, 7+ years of the Homeland Security Dept — I’d have guessed $2 trillion at least.

  26. Holy shit.

    Tucker Carlson — proving that he’d much rather be the pretending-he’s-thinking man’s Andrew Breitbart then practice the actual “Conservative journalism” he promised when he launched “The Daily Carlson” — is just going to keep running stories on JournoList, forever, until his reporter, Jonathan Strong, runs out of emails.

    JournoList was an email listserv of hundreds of liberal-leaning and non-partisan journalists and academics. (I was not on it, and didn’t particularly wish to be.) Recently, emails from the list were used to smear libertarian journalist Dave Weigel, who reported on the conservative movement for the Washington Post until they fired hm because they’re cowards. Now, more emails have been leaked to The Daily Caller, and they will presumably have new, misleading stories on these emails every day until they run out of them.


    I particularly like the part about “libertarian journalist David Weigel”.

    “Tucker Carlson is a big fat rat-bagger, and I’m going to cry myself to sleep because he’s mean to us!”

    1. Weigel is a “libertarian”. Jesus Christ. But that is the whole point. Just lie repeatedly so the water gets so muddied that no one remembers the underlying problem.

      1. I heard that Weigel is boning Rachel Maddow. Or was it the other way around? Anyway, why won’t anyone bone me? Oh, and Where’s Caylee?!!

        1. Don’t we have a word for that already: masturbation.

        2. Let’s keep the MSNBC personality shipping fan fiction to a minimum, shall we?

  27. Sherrod May Be Re-Hired

    There’s still hope for me!

  28. So I have a question: If John and MNGs bitchfest is a good proxy for the TEAM RED vs. TEAM BLUE does that mean that this thread is libertarian? Or does it require recognizing that the libertarian folks understand this issue objectively and from a principled standpoint. Cause with those two I could swear I was reading the “Troll Diarrheas”. Perhaps more death metal would help. Warty, queue it up.

    Back to your regularly scheduled programming

    1. The libertarians focused on the frothing lemurs and the means by which they could generate some sort of income by filling a potential market for frothing lemur coats or retro punk bands named Frothing Lemurs.

    2. How about some death metal from a dead guy?

    3. I think I agree with John, mostly. But I really don’t get what they are arguing about. They seem to agree on the facts, as they pertain the state of hackery,punditry, and dooshbaggery, but there is some disagreement as to the political and/or cocktail party consquences of the recent information added to the system. I think.

  29. I could swear I was reading the “Troll Diarrheas”.

    Pee Wee Herman would be proud.

  30. If only the government were in charge of oil production, the oil spill would never have happened. Oh, wait.

    Large China oil spill threatens sea life, water

  31. I’m still not sympathetic to Sherrod given the following:

    1.) “One of his own kind” – as if all whites are a separate species from blacks. When white commentators make similarly insensitive or politically incorrect comments about African Americans, they are broadly lambasted as racist.

    2.) her realization that she should help the white farmer comes not from a realization that people all of all races deserve equal rights but out of sympathy for the fact that the farmer is impoverished. So she can only set aside her racial lens when she feels personal sympathy instead of trying to always keep it set aside.

    I hate that this discussion even needs to be had, but I want any person in any position of power to be as colorblind as possible, and they should be held to the highest level of accountability when they fail to act in a colorblind fashion with regards to our personal rights. It’s as simple as that.

  32. So she can only set aside her racial lens when she feels personal sympathy instead of trying to always keep it set aside.

    Just so. She sets aside her racism so Marxism can fill the void.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.