Reason Morning Links: Obama Wants $50 Billion More in Stimulus Spending, Record Spending in Mid-Terms, 'Shrooms for Cancer Patients?


NEXT: Obama: Now is The Time For an "Important Departure From the Federal Government's Traditional Way of Spending..."

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. Don’t call it stimulus.

    1. It is a Keynesian Hail Mary meant to stave off an election disaster.

      It should be called a “Hail Barry”.


    Real life baseball heroes. Dock Ellis pitched a no hitter in 1970 while tripping on LSD.

    1. Recently Bernie Carbo said that when he hit the grand slam in game 6 of the 1975 series — a classic moment in a classic game — he was filled to the gills with booze, grass, coke, and speed.

      1. Ahh, here we go. I guess there’s no mention of coke — Carbo was a pussy. Also, it was a 3 run shot, not a granny.


    Repressed memories have been scientifically proven not to exist. I guess all those people wrongly in prison because they were convicted of child abuse thanks to such memories will feel better now. But hey, it was the “scientific consensus” back in the day.

    1. I think there was a great deal of scientific skepticism about that “back in the day.”

      1. Actually no. Those people were convicted in no small part because it was hard to get defense experts to dispute them. I think there would have been a lot of skepticism in outside fields. But within the field it was dogma. It was only later after the harm was done that people started to question it.

        1. It’s all ok, John. You wouldn’t want a scientist to have to give up his next grant simply because someone’s freedom was at stake.

        2. Do you have any citation for the claim that defense counsels could not find opposing experts and that within the field (psychology?) there was a consensus about this? I honestly remember this being hotly debated back then.

          1. Man-made global warming is being hotly contested right now. Yet you insist there is a scientific consensus.

            1. As a political matter its hotly contested, as is evolution for that matter. But as a scientific matter not so much.

              1. Piltdown Man!

                1. Don’t ask me why I blocked research on Kennewick Man!

              2. MNG,
                Are you still that guy with a PhD? I guess you confirm my personal theory that “believing” in evolution made folks stupid.

              3. Oh sure, AGW and evolution in the same breath. Talk about out of touch.

                When, exactly, are the ‘mutation’ taxes going into effect?

                1. I didn’t say evolution and AGW had the same level of scientific consensus, just that both are “hotly contested” politically. And that’s pretty irrelevant for either’s truth.

          2. According to the rules of scientific evidence, if courts had not held that there was a consensus about repressed memory, prosecutors would not have been allowed to introduce the evidence in the first place.

            Judges aren’t supposed to allow prosecutors to just wing it.

  4. Hallucinogenic mushrooms found to decrease anxiety in terminal patients.

    Shrooms are awesome, even if you aren’t dying.

    1. Why Shrooms? There are much better alternatives in PIHKAL or TIHKAL, I’m sure. I mean, really, the Good Doctor went through all that trouble to synthesize, test and document all of those analogs, might as well put it to use.

      1. Easier to get, at least around here.

      2. A lot of those Shulgin analogs are pretty dangerous and/or unpleasant. I’d rather eat up some naturally evolved psilocybin than roll the dice on some hallucinogenic powder cooked up by some amateur guru-chemist in his basement.

        Don’t get me wrong, Shulgin has an incredible body of research that deserves wider exposure in the scientific community, but if I’m going to drop something to have a good time, shrooms are a pretty safe bet.

        1. Speaking of Shulgin, anyone ever tried 2CB? I was curious about that, although I probably couldn’t take it (or any other stimulant, for that matter).

          Also, what did they do to the font?

          1. My experience is limited to shrooms, and there are some classics — peyote, ‘cid, DMT — that I would seek out before I went for the designer stuff.

  5. Hallucinogenic mushrooms found to decrease anxiety in terminal patients.

    They must not have been driving a “borrowed” van, without a license, staring into the setting sun on Highway 101. Or wearing a dress at a wig party.

    1. I love the mental picture that this gave me. Ensconced in Insanity.

      1. Not a bad band name, either.

        1. It’s always a bad band name. Trust us.

  6. What would stimulate the economy is leaving us the fuck alone. Oh, and maybe the cessation of most federal spending. And tax collecting.

    1. I suspect that a sudden dump of federal economic activity would be bad. Economies are adaptive systems and this on is adapted to lots of money flowing into and out of the government. Time is needed to adapt to a miniarchist legal and tax environment.

      If you made me dictator, I’d lock all existing programs in at their current dollar values (i.e. steadily falling real funding levels as inflation whittles away the value of those dollars), then get a couple of interns busy identifying the least successful programs to be killed outright. Not too many interns, mind you: I want it to be a slow process.

      I don’t have a plan for taxes, though, so it’s just as well no one is trying to conscript me as dictator.

  7. I heard Obama chose this infrastructure plan over the Robert Reich proposal to lower payroll taxes (while raising them on top earners) described here.


    I liked that plan. What do you guys think? It’s got tax cuts for most folks, allowing them to spend their own money to stimulate the economy and lowers a burden on employers.

    1. It is still throwing money out of airplanes. That money that is forgone via the tax cuts still has to be taxed or borrowed from somewhere else. Worse still, it would be a temporary tax cut. Just cash for clunkers with income. It would cause people to take future income now raising income levels now only to see them crash again when the tax returns.

      You want to help the economy, repeal the uncertainty that is Obamacare, tell the President to stop making rhetorical war on anyone who makes a buck, repeal the monstrosity of a credit regulation bill, and cut spending so that the government is no longer on a path towards bankruptcy by the end of the decade. In short, give people some freedom and some certainty, and they will do the rest.

      1. Well, Reich makes it plan the cut should be permanent. And he claims the increase at the top pays for the cut. If that were true it seems like a good idea to me.

        1. If you cut spending to make up for the tax cut and the tax cut is permanent, then yes it is not a bad idea. You still have the disincentive effects of regressive taxation. An across the board cut would work a lot better.

          1. Then it’s not a tax cut. It’s shifting the tax burden from one income class to another.

            1. Yes. It involves tax relief for millions combined with tax raises for thousands.

              I think its better than taxing everyone and building a bridge…

              1. Neutral revenue!=tax cut.

                Of course, as already pointed out, and what should be obvious to anyone, there’s no possible way that the wealthy will be able to figure out how to shelter their income from the tax increase. No, no way at all.

                That’s what you get for listening to someone who got a degree from the University of Loompaland.

              2. OK Ozymandias. Go back to Antarctica and play with your cat.

        2. So he’s suggesting we raise taxes on one group of people and then give cuts to another that’s equal to the raise? How is this not stealing from one group to benefit another group?

    2. I think regressive taxation is a failed idea. You’re trying to tax people who can afford to pay accountants to hide their money. You end up closing the barn door after the horse every time. Why not just make paying taxes cheaper than the marginal cost of hiring squads of accountants?

      1. Maybe I’m misreading you, but I don’t see how a cut in the payroll tax is regressive. The payroll tax itself is regressive isn’t it?

        1. The second part about raising on the high earners? That’s my quibble. If income was the only way of “paying” high earners it might work. However, many would be in a position to take higher retirement contributions, more sick time, or other benefits in lieu of pay. The whole point of being well off is that you don’t need the last $300 of your salary to make the car payment, so you can defer it to get around the payroll tax.

          1. Taxing high-earners is “progressive”; taxing low-earners is “regressive”.

            Sales tax and payroll taxes are progressive. The income tax is progress and Robert Reich wants to make it more progressive while cutting the regressive payroll tax.

            1. Sales tax and payroll taxes are progressive regressive.

              Preview, Preview, Preview.

              1. A tax that collects the most from the big spenders and exempts the poor with a prebate can hardly be called regressive.

            2. Great. Doesn’t change the fact that high-earning people can alter their compensation to dodge changes in tax law, and do.

              1. The fundamental flaw in the many theories of wealth distribution pushed by “progressives” is that all laws are written by laywers to be read by laywers; rich people can afford to help the law-writin’ laywers get elected; and rich people can also afford to hire law-readin’ laywers to find the secret path through the laws.

                In practice, progressive politics is nothing but keeping as many tax lawyers as possible fully employed.

                Of course, the entirety of conservative politicis is to keep law-writtin’ and law-readin’ laywers busy prosecuting/defending poor people.

                {Be sure to check the calibration of your snark meter John}

                1. Point taken. This is why some liberals, like Jerry Brown in 92, saw the wisdom in a flat tax combined with something like the earned income tax credit. At the very least liberals should support tax simplification.

                  1. The best way to get money out of rich people is to go to a flat tax with absolutely no deductions.

                    If you want to help poor people it should be with direct assistance. The earned income tax credit is one way to go.

                  2. a flat tax combined with something like the earned income tax credit

                    Essentially, a flat tax with a negative income tax.

  8. Terminally ill cancer patients struggling with anxiety may get some relief from a guided “trip” on the hallucinogenic drug psilocybin

    You fucking hippies just never give up, do you?

    1. If you didn’t raid my lab, and revoke my Schedule I permit, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

  9. So that’s the secret to not completely bugging out on shrooms? I guess I’ll take the intense introspection over a terminal disease, but man I wish I could just chill the hell out on a shroom trip.

    1. Yeah, making yourself feel OK during a freak-out is really tough. Of course, it doesn’t take any effort at all really, just a release of effort. Something stupid distracts you from your Black Hole for two seconds, and then you’re rolling on the floor laughing.

      It always reminded me of the trick of flying in the Douglas Adams books — you need to throw yourself at the ground, and then miss. At least during my freak-outs, the best way out was to forget, not to focus.

      And, of course, setting and surroundings go a very long way. Feeling comfortable around the people you’re tripping with is critical.

    1. Why would they guess the numbers? MNG and Neu Mexican tell me that there are perfect numbers available.

      1. Our guesses are peer reviewed.

      2. I’ve never said anything about “perfect numbers.” I’ve said there is evidence supporting AGW from many more sources than implicated in the East Anglica project scandal.

        1. The science is settled.

          …In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. …

          1. Neu Mexican finally had to give away the case and admit the Hockey Stick was a fraud. His “and but” was that the lack of the hockey stick just means that the doomsday scenerios are not true but that it doesn’t mean AGW is not true. Fair enough. But if the warming caused by AGW is out of the ordinary, why should anyone care about it much less want to spend billions to prevent it? That question was avoided.

            1. As I understand it the “hockey stick” thing was a graphic representation of some temp findings. It would be like saying Murray & Herrenstein’s entire book was bogus because they did some “shaping” of their bell curve graphs to say that the entire IPCC was bogus because of the Hockey Stick.

              There were entire chapters on findings from fields other than climatology that supported AGW. Mann et al., did not even work in those fields iirc.

              1. The problem (or scam, as it actually is) goes quite a bit deeper than the single Mann graph.

                Those ‘entire chapters’ from other fields can be reasonably called into question as well, given the well known (to researchers at least) link between grant money and positive AGW findings.

                I’ve personally spoken with many scientists in non-AGW fields who flat out admit that there is a pro-warming fast track for grant funding.

                After all, if the evidence is so overwhelming, why the need to force square pegs into the round AGW hole?

    1. In contemporary America, no respectable person would advocate, say, the involuntary sterilization of blacks or Jews. Why, then, should it be any more respectable to advocate the involuntary sterilization of everyone? Or even of those who cause “social deterioration?”

      Likewise, references to particular ethnic or religious groups as “viruses” or “cancers” in need of extirpation are socially unacceptable, triggering immediate thoughts of genocide and mass murder.

      Why, then, should it be acceptable to refer to all humanity in this fashion? Does widening the circle of eliminationist rhetoric somehow make it better?

      I don’t see why it should, and I don’t see why we should pretend — or allow others to pretend — that hate-filled rhetoric is somehow more acceptable when it’s delivered by those wearing green shirts instead of brown.

      1. “Why, then, should it be any more respectable to advocate the involuntary sterilization of everyone?”

        IS this a respectable position today or ever? WTF?

        1. Obama has an advisor who once suggested putting birth control chemicals into water supplies as a matter of government policy. He’s disavowed that now, but still….

      2. Because the former is racist and latter means you care about the planet. Next question!

      3. Well, remember, leftists prefer equality to liberty.

        So they naturally prefer a policy where everyone dies [“equally”] to a policy where just a few people die based on the unfair evaluation of one of their personal characteristics.

        1. True. Easiest way to tell an aequitard is to ask why the Holocaust was wrong. If they say “millions of people were murdered”, they’re fine. If they say “It was directed at Jews and other minorities”, you’ve found one.

    1. Yeah. I’m having my own insurance fun right now. The single most irritating thing to me about the current system is the difference between the book rate and the insurance rate. The book rate is typically anywhere from 2x to 10x what the insurance company rate is.

      Therefore, if you have to get a procedure that is not covered (maternity), you pay double or more to the hospital what you would pay if the billing rates were adjusted to what insurance rates are. In other words, you get f*cked.

      The root cause is that hospital systems (which are nothing more than billing machines) are set up to cater to the insurance providers and not to the customer. You can’t pre-negotiate with them. Any billing adjustments are usually based on a “need” review. Frankly, I don’t care what my “need” is, I don’t want to pay triple what the insurance company does for services because the services are obviously not worth that much or the insurance rates would be higher.

      The regulations placed on the medical and insurance system have created and contributed to this debacle. It’s only getting worse.

      I’m done venting. Time to go back on hold with the hospital billing group.

      1. I had health insurance with the company that I was interning with over the summer. My last day was at the beginning of August and I needed new contacts before I went back to school, but the prescription was expired, so I had to go get an eye exam.

        My family’s eye doctor didn’t take the vision insurance I had gotten through my company, so I had to pay $140 out of pocket.

        This angered me for a few reasons: Why is everyone hating on us young, irresponsible college students for not wanting to get health insurance? I had health insurance, tried to use it, but my choice of doctor is limited based on what insurance they accept. Why don’t they design the system so that you can use any health insurance you want?

        It’s no wonder that younger people don’t want to dive into this. You have to take time to pick a health insurance company, read all the policies, figure out how much you can afford, go find a doctor who accepts the plan you’ve chosen, etc.

        Talk about barriers to entry.

        Anyway, I was just a little irritated that my generation took so much flack for not being insured, and then when I tried to use my insurance, I had to pay for everything out of pocket anyway – which I would also be criticized for.

        1. Maybe it’s because our generation can tell the difference between “catastrophic mishaps” and “periodic medical expenses?”

          1. I’m assuming you’re from the “older” generations.

            I’m perfectly aware of the difference between the two. I was merely pointing out that it’s really frustrating when you HAVE insurance and you still can’t use it.

            Also, there’s always the argument that a “catastrophic” event is likely to occur because I’m in my 20’s with absolutely no health issues and I take care of myself.

            Seriously, if you’re going to give young people shit about not having insurance, then the least you can do is make it easier to GET the insurance.

            I was a co-op student, so I would spend part of the year in Colorado, Alabama, and Indiana. If I were to be diligent about my healthcare, I would find a doctor that would accept my insurance in each state, but since insurance can’t compete across state lines, it can sometimes be difficult – ie, in Colorado Aetna was popular, in Alabama, Blue Cross/Shield is popular.

            I have every right to complain about douche bag congress critters not knowing how to efficiently design a system.

  10. House and Senate candidates in this election cycle raised nearly $1.2 billion

    Let every candidate formally announce its candidacy on a prime-time TV special. Each may use, say, a few thousand dollars to develop and maintain a killer website. End of campaigning.

    1. No. Put them together in a big house and make them debate their platforms, all while getting them drunk and depriving them of sleep the entire time.

      You might not get better politicians, but it would certainly be more entertaining.

      1. Put them together in a big house and make them debate their platforms, all while getting them drunk and depriving them of sleep the entire time.

        You mean Big Brother style? I really don’t want to see politicians hooking up on hidden cameras…

  11. Jezebelles share their anal sex adventures

    The second time I had sex (I was 16), it was particularly of the furious and flexible variety. I moved, he slipped out went to slip back in and TOTALLY WENT UP MY ASS, ALL THE WAY. Now, this completely was an accident. But still the shock and pain caused me to burst into tears. He pulled out and said sorry about fifty times. I just rolled over, curled up trying to calm down. Then an hour later he took me to Burger King because he knew I liked their onion rings.

    It took years after for me to be comfortable with ass play. And I don’t think I’ve had onion rings from BK since.

    1. I love how she believes it was “accidental”.

      1. Seriously — the rules of physics pretty much eliminate the possibility of “accidental” buttsecks. That accident would become apparent before it really even took place.

        1. Well, I suppose it would be possible if one part was larger than average and the other smaller than average….

        2. You’d have to have a really small dong. That’s all I can figure.

    2. Backdoor for onion rings? Talk about your cheap dates.

      1. Haven’t you heard we’re in a recession?

        1. $50 billion will buy a lot of onion rings.

          Cue the “stimulus package” jokes.

    3. And I don’t think I’ve had onion rings from BK since.

      I smell a Jack in the Box ad.

      1. That’s fucking funny.

    4. for some reason, i seem to attract guys who are into butts (um, prolly ’cause of my ample hiney). so i’ve tried it more than a few times. i’m not really blah about it (it can feel good when done right — and when it’s not like “surprise! buttsecks!”), but there are other things i prefer more.

      i’ve had some luck in that i’ve been with a couple of guys who have let me reciprocate. now there i could tell some stories.

      I hate you for alerting me to Jezebel, SugarFree. I hate you at least 1% as much as I hate Tulpa.

      1. You really hate me that much? Jeez.

      2. I hate you Warty as much as you hate Sugar Free for posting that. At least Sugar makes you hit a link. Seriously, what sadistic rage caused you to make everyone read about this chick’s “ample hinney”. I just stopped throwing up a few minutes ago.

        1. C’mon, John. What would Warty be without sadistic rage?

          1. Let’s not even think about that.

      3. …or perhaps you just hate the reflection of your soul that my shiny white legs provide.

        1. Your “shiny white legs”? Jesus, I fucking despise you, fuckstain.

  12. On the one hand, one could argue that defending an attack by insurgents is not a “military operation” in that the US forces are not planning and executing an “operation.” On the other hand, it leads to the question whether declaring an end to “military operations” means anything. Put differently, we see yet another example of the recurrent “Humpty Dumpty” theme of the Obama Administration: Words mean what BO says they mean.

  13. I think we should auction Congressional seats.

    Aspiring Senators and Representatives should just get in there with their bidding paddles and have at it. The winning bidder writes a check to the Treasury, which goes into a fund to retire debt.

    Instead of the vast parasitic electioneering economy we have now, where enormous sums of money are captured by pollsters, consultants, teevee networks, and all the other assholes who inhabit the landscape, the Treasury captures those expenditures.

    And we dispense with the pretense that people like John Murtha have been “called” to public service by their desire to help their fellow man.

  14. You know, if we’re going to have more stimulus spending, I wish they’d do it for good stuff, instead of giving billions of dollars to incompetent local governments and millionaires.

    Better ways to spend $50 billion:
    -Completely digitalize the national archives, making research much easier. This legitimately needs to be done.

    -Build a high-speed cross-country train. We don’t really need this, but it’s better than what they’re planning.

    -Start construction on what will become the world’s largest freshwater lake somewhere in the middle of the continent. My initial location would be at the head of the Red River in Oklahoma, but land might be cheaper in the Dakotas or Montana, so I’m open to ideas.

    1. I would suggest damming up the Potomac and turning all of D.C. into a recreational park.

      1. How about setting aside a million dollars or so to develop some new Fallout 3 DLC where the additional mobs are modeled after current congressfolk?

      2. Leave Capital Hill above water as an island. I want to see mobs of Hill hipsters huddled on the 395 viaduct and the upper deck of Nationals Park.

        1. I see a reality show . . . .

    2. Build two hundred new nuclear power plants.

      1. try 10, that’s right, they cost 5 billion each

        1. What would they cost without the lawsuits?

          1. List price of an Airbus A380 (currently the largest commercial jet in operations) is about $300M. Bought in bulk, $5B might get you 20 of them.

            $5B to build a nuke plant sounds low to me actually.

        2. A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.

    3. Some useful infrastructure projects that should pay for themselves by eliminating inefficiencies:

      1. Interconnect the patchwork of electric power grids; install smart-grid technology that can communicate power pricing in real-time to households and smart appliances.

      2. Upgrade the national air traffic control system to 21st century technology.

      3. Toll highways. Privately built, owned and operated.

      1. Or, you could eat less and exercise.

      2. “Interconnect the patchwork of electric power grids”

        This is basically done. Texas does its own thing, and the West and the East are separated by the Rockies, but otherwise…

  15. I liked that plan. What do you guys think?


    Just what we need; more complexity, social engineering, and vote-buying.


    1. Tax cuts=social engineering and vote buying now?

      1. Without addressing the insane spending, it doesn’t matter what label is attached to that or any plan.

        It will not work.

        1. But the plan includes measures to make it pay for itself. Certainly some spending cuts should be enacted, but apart from that if there is a truly deficet neutral way to give millions tax relief and perhaps stimulate spending, that sounds good to me.

          1. But the plan includes measures to make it pay for itself.

            You shop at stores with 50% off sales, don’t you?

      2. I keep hoping that someone will try to buy my vote, but every election comes and goes without any candidate trying to corrupt me. Actually I once got a tiny package of Lifesavers from a candidate.

        1. Planning to get Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, mortgage interest deduction, etc.?

          Yeah, you’re being corrupted and don’t even seem to realize it.

      3. Yes, MNG, tax cuts = social engineering. ALL tax policy = social engineering. And government needs to get out of the social-engineering business, in ALL ways.

  16. That’s a rhetorical question, right?


  17. I’m interested to see whether the Democrats will feign a more market-focused strategy for the next couple of months–extending the tax cuts, maybe throwing in a couple of more market-friendly bills–just to stop the bleeding in November. Naturally, they’ll turn the screws afterward, whether they get slaughtered or only barely lose control of the House.

    1. . . .of course, assuming they lose one or both houses, their ability to turn any screws will be limited.

    2. I heard there is this proposal to cut (or extend a cut) on business RD tax.

      Or something.

    3. It’s already happening, but I’m not sure that this easily identifiable electioneering will fool anyone actually paying attention.

      And those that don’t pay attention probably won’t notice.

      It’s a good way to piss off the true believer base, however.

      1. What strikes me as politically odd is that they didn’t start doing this months ago. I have to believe that they really thought the economy would magically recover by this summer. While I think we could conceivably bounce back despite the government’s continual efforts to throttle the Golden Goose, the summer recovery timeline was nothing short of delusional. Then again, what do you expect from a faith-based government and political party?

        1. It’s vote-buying, ProL. Plain and simple.

  18. I’m interested to see whether the Democrats will feign a more market-focused strategy for the next couple of months

    I think they have had a rude awakening on the bash the rich” front.

    Apparently, their squishy-lib-guilt Wall Street contributors have been taking some of their rhetoric personally. Apologies are in order.

  19. I heard there is this proposal to cut (or extend a cut) on business RD tax.

    This is just “good” economics, though; no vote-buying involved.

    1. I know that my trust for government knows no bounds. Their motives are pure, and their wisdom boundless.

      1. “I know that my trust for government knows no bounds. Their motives are pure greed, and their wisdom funding boundless.”

        1. It’s naysayers like you that prevent the government from imposing Utopia on the rest of us.

  20. Is anybody else seeing a formatting change?

    The annoying video links seem to have shrunk into a little window, which is an improvement.

    1. Your typeface has changed, man.

      1. If only we could get per-user type faces… maybe Comic Sans for Max, Tony, and Chad.

    2. What is the like button for? For liking the article on FB? And tweet counts now? Shit, ignoring these things is becoming tougher and tougher.

    3. I like how it was one format when I went into a meeting and completely changed when I came out of it.

      I had to make sure there wasn’t some issue with Firefox first.

      1. Parallel universe, dude. Your “meeting” was simply your perception of a wormhole.

    4. I wonder how the computer knows which video links are annoying?

  21. I like the new font. I can read it from halfway across the room.

    1. Yeah, I’m not too bothered by it either. The date and time stamp font isn’t awesome, but it’s not horrific either.

    2. The headline font is good, but the text font is all big and spidery. I am not pleased.

  22. The New York Times reports that the administration is in a quandry regarding housing – it can help existing owners, or future owners, but not both.

    What a shock.

    1. Best comment:


      1. I didn’t bother with the comments – I figured they would be about “YouTube” quality (SECRETE MUSLUM PRESADENT!!!). However, there were a few decent, if obvious, ones out there.

        1. Also this gem:

          check my name, you will get surprised–the premiere online community for mature wom ?n who prefer to date young ?r men. Or a younger woman who prefers dating old’?r man…


        2. secret muslum

          I don’t wanna know what orifice produces that secretion.

          1. secrete

            Damn fingers.

  23. OMG, what is going on here? This new H&R format is not the change I voted for!

  24. I just returned from a business trip to find the new issue of Reason magazine waiting for me. It has one of those cool “magic image” pictures on the cover. If you concentrate really hard on the photo, you’ll see a gun!

  25. If you concentrate really hard on the photo, you’ll see a gun!


    The awesomeness never fades.

  26. So what do we think about Burn a Quran Day guy?

    Everyone seems mad at him, but to me it just seems like another version of Everybody Draw Mohammad Day.

    1. Nobody likes a plagiarist.

  27. Five days after Obama declares an end to U.S. combat operations in Iraq, U.S. combat operations in Iraq continue.

    They are not combat operations. They are security operations with a combat element. Geeez, can’t you tell the difference?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.