Reason Morning Links: Wikileaks Saga Hits Canada and Russia, GOP Vows to Block Dems in Senate, Death Penalty Days Numbered in Texas?

|

NEXT: Making Parks Decent Again

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. Nothing? I give you guys a cane toad raping a dead salamander and you give me nothing?

      1. We like all forms of slashart except amphibian.

        1. You’d have loved it if it was Steve Smith and a dead salamander.

          Now if Steve Smith could rape a contrail while collapsing WTC7 during 9/11, we’d have postageddon.

          1. STEVE SMITH NO RAPE CONTRAIL. CHEMTRAIL GIVE CANCER OF THE RAPE. STEVE SMITH HEARD THIS WHEN RAPING ALEX JONES.

            1. I AM STEVE SMITH!

      2. Don’t listen to them, Johnny. I love all forms of necrophilia.

        Homosexual necrophilia in ducks

        1. Again – this is why I log on to H&R every day

    2. Sorry, JL. Before my coffee kicked in I read that as “McCain toad” and skipped it.

    3. Ok, that’s kind of funny – “the cane toad is a firm believer in the “hole is a hole” attitude, and an even firmer believer in the “if there’s no hole, just make one with your boner” attitude.”

      1. Toads don’t have boners. Or penetrative sex.

        1. Sounds like all the lies that teenage dude-toads tell Roman Catholic schoolgirl toads.

        2. There’s a bit of disappointment in your tone, there.

          1. Actually, I think toad mating is closer to some form of bukake in practice.

            1. Bed bug males don’t even need a hole.

    4. Way too many pictures of snakes in that article.

      The one of the honey badger eating a snake kind of made me want to throw up.

      1. Homophobe.

    5. The weird thing is just yesterday i was talking about Wolverines Vs Bears.

    1. Don’t even have to click on this. Every liberal I know, including myself, and many non-liberals btw, who support the estate tax do not do so because of some insurance company we have never heard of. We do it because we think it one of the most fair ways to get tax revenue. We find it preferable to taxes on income or smaller estates.

      1. Life insurance is used to get around your precious estate tax, which is why life insurance companies support it.

        Brag about your ignorance, but aren’t you even curious about WHY large corporations would be pushing for something you think only hurts “the rich”?

        1. If you think a “giant life insurance company” is the or a “key force” behind estate tax then it is you who are ignorant. As a supporter I just told you why we support it.

          1. Had you clicked on the article, it said it was the industry lobby, not “a” giant life insurance company.

            If large corporations support something you think only hurts “the rich”, do you consider the possibility you may be missing something?

            1. MNG – you might like the estate tax in principle, but in practice doesn’t it make you upset at all that there is a major loophole that benefits Life Insurance Companies and lots of richity rich people (while not benefitting the poor)?

          2. Jesus you can be an arrogant fuck stick. I’m guessing your piss ant wealth distribution after death scheme musters some support for fucking people and their surviving family over after they are dead. But the insurance lobby is a billion times larger than you and your retarded ilk trying to get money to your almighty god government.

          3. Here’s a little secret: the “rich” do not pay estate tax. They pay fees to insurance companies, lawyers, and accountants that end up costing much less than the tax on their estate, instead.

            1. ^ True, that.

            2. CFP, your personal tax evasion specialist.

              1. Tax avoidance, thank you very much.

                1. Normally I’d agree, but come on man. C FP’s are basically straight up tax evasion specialists. With a few other aspects of will and and trust thrown in.

          4. Sure, and Baptists don’t support alcohol prohibition because they like bootleggers.

            But life insurance proceeds are tax free to recipients. Surely you would at least admit that it’s a massive loophole that renders the estate tax nearly pointless?

            It’s a tax on dying unexpectedly and poor financial planning, a tax on not taking advantage of loopholes.

            It’s also a tax on having non-liquid assets, like a small business, instead of liquid assets. It encourages people to go into, say, finance, instead of small business.

      2. I have no doubt that your rationalizations for looting the dead are quite elaborate indeed.

        1. Once again, let me remind everyone that if you allow the deceased to use their living fortune however they see fit, you just encourage zombieism, and furthermore you allow them the resources to carry out their brain-gathering endeavors more efficiently when they reanimate.

          I don’t care how many insurance companies offer policies to cover that, it’s not worth it.

        2. It’s incredibly unfair when you think about it. You get taxed on earned income for 50 years, and if you manage to accumulate a few assets* after all the income and payroll taxes, you get taxed again on what you accumulate. There’s nothing fair about it. It destroys wealth and robs your descendants of what you worked your whole life for.

          If your descendants are assholes you can bequeath your estate to whoever you believe deserves it.

          *For 2011 the estate tax will revert to 55% with an exclusion of $1 million in assets; so if you die with a home in a major metro area you’re already on the cusp, with retirement accounts easily capable of pushing you over the limit.

      3. “We find it preferable to taxes on income or smaller estates.”

        Because if you are going to steal, steal big.

      4. MNG, how you rationalize to yourself doing the bidding of the big life insurance corporations and Warren Buffett at the expense of mostly small business people is your business. But stop kidding us and pretending that when you and other liberals push for an estate tax you are doing anything but fucking the little guy for the benefit of big corporations. Super wealthy people don’t pay estate taxes. They pay lawyers and life insurance companies to get around it. The estate tax hasn’t ever broken up a huge fortune. People like the DuPonts and the Kennedys are rich and probably always will be until finally enough idiot sons spend it all. The estate tax is an inconvenience for them and a money making opportunity for big business.

        In contrast, it is the absolute ruination of small businesses. Your support of the estate tax just confirms people’s worst suspicions about liberals, that they hate self made people more than they hate anyone else.

        1. Never associate malice to that which can be explained by sheer stupidity.

          1. A lot of guys would consider willful ignorance to be malicious.

      5. Don’t even have to click on this. Every liberal I know, including myself, and many non-liberals btw, who support the estate tax do not do so because of some insurance company we have never heard of. We do it because we think it one of the most fair ways to get tax revenue. We find it preferable to taxes on income or smaller estates.

        Are you really this ignorant?

        The only real net effect of high taxes is to direct more money through loopholes. This leverages the power of politicians, it does not increase government revenues.

      6. “We do it because we think it is one of the most fair ways to get tax revenue.”

        FTFY. Really, if you want other people’s stuff so bad, why make up elaborate rationalizations for taking from others what they deserve? Just say “I want it, and I have the power to take it”. It would be more honest, and the truth shall set you free.

        1. Even liberals understand that theft is wrong.

          This is why they claim to pay their taxes willingly.

          This way when they raise taxes on others they can say it is not theft.

          By the same logic they could say that because they will willingly have sex with any representative of the government it is not rape if a representative of the government forces someone else into sex.

          1. Majority rules, sarcasmic. Rights are always at the whim of the biggest gang of idiots that cooperate long enough to ensue a non-optimum outcome for the largest number of people possible.

            Democracy is a hate-fuck that will never fully empty its balls.

            1. Democracy is a hate-fuck that will never fully empty its balls.

              Sometimes I miss being single.

            2. That last sentence is one of the best I have ever read anywhere.

      7. I assume you plan to will your entire estate to the government.

        1. Taxes are for little people.
          — Leona Helmsley or any given liberal

      8. Hey, MNG made a comment!

      9. But it’s an amazingly inefficient way to get tax revenue. In fact, most studies suggest that it costs far more to the ecnonomy than the revenue it collects, and it may even cost the government more to collect than the government taxes. It certainly costs the government more in net tax revenue, once you take out all the inefficient tax avoidance it generates.

        No informed and intelligent liberal can possibly believe that it’s a good way to get tax revenue. You can only support it if your goal is simply to reduce inequality by preventing the accumulation of wealth. It’s actually a program that costs the government money while attempting to reduce inequality by destroying wealth at the high end. Some people think that inequality is a bad enough thing that that’s worth it.

        I also don’t particularly see the “fairness” in taxing sole proprietorships when their owners die but not taxing corporations. I also don’t see the “fairness” in taxing someone for dying unexpectedly.

        Eliminate the tax, and eliminate capital gains step up to balance it (which is what the bill did), and you’ll get similar revenue and achieve similar goals.

        1. You can only support it if your goal is simply to reduce inequality by preventing the accumulation of wealth.

          I believe Teddy R sold the estate tax on the grounds that it would prevent European style aristocracy from emerging in this country.

          It’s sole purpose is to prevent the accumulation of wealth.

      10. We do it because we think it one of the most fair ways to get tax revenue.

        Then you’ve got one majorly fucked-up understanding of the meaning of the word “fair.”

    2. Warren Buffett owns six life insurance companies. Yet, the media (which MNG swears isn’t pro statist much less pro liberal) portrays him as some kind of selfless public servant when he advocates for a higher estate tax.

      1. I think Warren Buffett is just a general douche. He already has more money than god, so promoting the estate tax is probably just a personal opinion or at most a hat tip to his friends that made him rich, not for personal gain.

        1. He also made $$ off buying family businesses they had to sell to pay estate taxes. Total ghoul.

          1. Agreed, he’s scum. The biggest tipoff is that the liberal media normally despise the rich, and they love the guy.

          2. This. Anybody who advocates for the estate tax should be forced to sit through some auctions and watch a family’s grief at the death of a loved one compounded by having to parcel out a farm that’s been in the family for over a century. All because some folk hate success.

        2. You don’t make a billion dollars because you are ever capable of thinking you have made enough money. If Buffet had that ability, he would have retired and enjoyed his life long before he made the money he has. To make that kind of money, making money has to be an end in itself and an addiction.

          Nothing that bastard does doesn’t involve him making money in some way.

          1. To make that kind of money, making money has to be an end in itself and an addiction.

            Like liberals and power……

            1. Like liberals politicians and power…..

              1. Money and Power will always find each other.

          2. What about Gates?

            1. He was addicted to his company. He just stayed at microsoft because that is what he did. It is a similar but slightly different addiction than Buffett who never really did anything beyond invest and make money. NTTAWT. But lets not pretend that Buffett does anything that doesn’t involve him making a profit.

            2. Have you read “The Tipping Point”?

              Gates became fabulously wealthy as a side effect of being the world’s single biggest computer nerd at the right time in the history of computing, and from having an aggressive, single-minded focus – not on making money, per se, but on developing the product.

      2. He also benefits from lower forced sale prices of medium sized businesses caused by the estate tax.

        He’s a complete statist douche bag and the idea that he’s a sensible businessman is complete bullshit.

        Next time he’s selling higher taxes to some reporter they need to ask him why he doesn’t just pay the higher rate if he believes in it so strongly. No on forces him to take all the deductions available or prevents him from reporting capital gains as ordinary income.

        1. Wow, everyone got their two minute hate out, eh?

          OK, for those who want to genuinely know what supporters of the estate tax are thinking, here it is.

          We think it more fair to tax estates than income. That doesn’t mean we tax estates with glee and envy (anymore than you oppose taxes on the rich out of slavishness to them or hate for the poor), it means that IF we must tax something we think it more fair to tax estates than income, and IF we are going to tax estates we think it more fair to tax really big ones.

          Of course we oppose any loophole that allows this to be subverted. Duh.

          1. That doesn’t mean we tax estates with glee and envy

            MNG, that may be why you support a higher estate tax, but it is simply false to assert that there are not massive numbers of liberals [maybe a plurality] who support it specifically out of envy.

            The argument is routinely advanced that a higher estate tax is needed to “stop the increase of the gap between rich and poor”.

            That is not arguing, “Hey dude, we need the revenue from somewhere, let’s tax estates rather than incomes!” That is directly, specifically and explicitly arguing, “Big estates are bad so let’s take them away using the tax system!”

            1. That’s just an added bonus fluffy.

          2. Wait, so your argument is that it is more fair to tax the asset again that was already taxed once in an unfair manner? I am confused.

            1. My argument is
              1. earned income has more moral worth than gifted income
              2. wealthy people can better shoulder the burden of taxation than poorer people

              Hence I support taxation of large estates.

              1. So, taxation should be based on the “moral worth” of the activity that generates the asset being taxed. Interesting perspective.

              2. “earned income has more moral worth than gifted income”

                Fuck you up the ass you ignorant piece of shit. I inherited my mom’s house (worth about $40K at the time) and $13k in cash and bonds after she lost a 3-year battle with cancer. I was with her the whole time taking care of her. So let me ask you this you worthless cunt. If someone told you that all you had to do to make an extra $53k was to spend 3 years taking care of someone 24/7 while they threw up blood and soiled themselves. Oh and you have to spend tons of time in a cancer ward and the emergency room and deal with Heparin IV’s and everything else. Would you take that deal? And I hope your mother dies a brutal lengthy death because you, another useless cunt (like your mother) feels that what I endured wasn’t as moral as working in a factory for those three years.

                Stupid cunt.

                1. No, he’s saying it is moral. It only becomes immoral for estates greater than 1 million. I guess wealth is evil or something and 6 zeros is the marker.

              3. Jeese I could have sworn that I earned the income I will leave to my children, but I guess i was wrong.

                Just because you don’t like people saving money to give to their children, it doesn’t mean that money is of less moral worth.

              4. So, if your employer pays you more than you “deserve” (as defined by… well who knows), then you haven’t earned all of your income and should pay a marginal tax rate of 100% on that additional income?

              5. 1. Based upon what idea of morality?
                2. Just because one is capable of shouldering burdens does not mean that one should be made to, any more than anyone over 6’0″ and 200 pounds should be forced into manual labor because they are clearly larger and more fit than an average person.

                1. From each according to his ability.

                  – MNG (Marx’s Nasty Groin)

              6. earned income has more moral worth than gifted income

                Because you say so, apparently.

                I deny your proposition.

                Besides, this type of line-drawing based on some subjective and nebulous judgment of morality has or should have no bearing on determining what to tax.

          3. OK. Why is it more fair to tax estates than income?

            We already know your “what,” minge. Now give us a logical “why.”

          4. That would not be a remotely accurate representation of the larger support behind the estate tax. It might reflect your personal view, but those who promulgate the laws think differently.

            The primary motivations of the true believer supporters are “easy target” (the guy is dead, after all) and prevention of an aristocracy. The primary motivations of the true powers behind the maintenance of the tax are greed – estate taxes drive massive amounts of money into estate planning: Insurance, Lawyers, Accountants, Financial Planners, Bankers… everybody gets a big cut from the fallout of a large estate tax. Almost every large value insurance policy is purchased for estate planning purposes (i.e. to prevent the government from forcing the sale of the family business). This is a trillion dollar industry – they write the tax code.

          5. So, income is payment that you get because the giver thought you deserved it, while an estate is payment that you get because the giver thought you deserved it. So it makes sense to tax the latter at the giving and receiving end, while taxing the former only at the receiving end. Because… um… fuck dead people?

            Seriously, why not just say — we want this money, and we have the power to take it. That’s your justification, fairness has fuck all to do with it.

            1. “So, income is payment that you get because the giver thought you deserved it, while an estate is payment that you get because the giver thought you deserved it.”

              You say that because libertarians sear allegiance to an axiom that non-libertarians do not, that is “money that is gotten via consent is all equally morally worthy.” I don’t buy that and neither do most people I would guess. Money that you expend effort in exchange for seems to most people to be more deserved than money that was gifted.

              1. “swear” not “sear”

              2. And the default home for any money that is less than fully “deserved” is in the government’s pocket. Good to know.

              3. “Income” covers a lot of shit that doesn’t take effort. Aside from easy jobs, it also covers gifts, windfalls, etc. For that matter, it also covers estates, from the beneficiary’s side.

                And “estate” covers a lot of shit that you couldn’t pay people to deal with — say, taking care of someone with they’re shitting themselves on a regular basis, watching someone slowly die, or having someone carry half your genome in their cells.

              4. neither do most people I would guess.

                [Citation needed]

                You’re projecting to justify your belief. Your morals also suck ass.

              5. Fuck you and your ridiculous and incredibly childish notion of “deserved.”

                And your an incredibly arrogant prick to be talking about what you think “most people” would think.

                Taxing a transfer of money that you have absolutely no relation to just because you have decided the recipient doesn’t “deserve” it is nothing more than greed, envy and theft.

                Face it, you hate people who have more than you do and you want to bring them down a notch or two.

          6. “We think it more fair to tax estates than incomeome”

            But they are the same thing.

            1. MNG seems to be under the impression that estates just magically appear out of thin air and at no time is any portion of an estate ever income.

              1. MNG has a depressingly naive, childlike and simplistic view of the world and how it works. Pretty much like most progressives.

                1. He also believes laws should be enacted based on his perception of what most people “feel” – including (or particularly) law affecting “other” people – specifically, anyone having more than he does.

  1. consider whether the risk of executing an innocent person makes capital punishment war unconstitutional

  2. It was not known how many of the Senate’s 42 Republicans had signed the draft letter, which the leadership intends to make public quickly

    before Wikileaks can scoop them.

  3. Senate Republicans vow to block Democratic legislation.

    The system works. Dodd weeps.

    1. “I fought the good fight.”

      Barf.

      1. Three Dog fought the good fight, Senator.

        1. I thought that was Triumph.

    2. Dodd weeps.

      And God smiles, as another criminal is on his way out of congress. Too bad there’s so many more to go.

    3. Could the Republicans be doing this to force the Democrats to address spending?
      “No way. It must be to block bills to help gays and immigrants. Those bigots!”

      Should the Democrats address the issues the Republicans care about in some way, in order to get support on DADT?
      “No way! Waaaaa! The Republicans are being partisan by having different priorities than us!”

  4. The Dems deserve some scorn for not ramming DADT repeal through (no homo) but certainly the GOP’s current blocking of the legislation is prime douchebaggery.

    1. The Republicans are also blocking the DREAM Act because they hate immigrants, unemployment benefit extensions because they hate poor people, and votes on ethanol subsidies because they hate agribusiness.

      Or, they think the winning strategy is to just hammer the shit out of the Democrats on taxes until they new Congress when they’ll control the House.

      1. And holding up the rights of immigrants and gay military members (no homo) for short term political gains is not douchebaggery?

        1. Nope. I guess if DADT is only a repeal, I can get behind it (no homo), but DADT is a dead letter now. I’m much more concerned about the taxation issue.

        2. And holding up the rights of immigrants and gay military members (no homo) for short term political gains is not douchebaggery?

          Hey, minge, whose administration challenged a court ruling that essentially threw out DADT earlier this year? Perhaps in an effort to stop some of the midterm bleeding?
          Perhaps to keep the gay vote in the hands of team blue? Because had a court been allowed to overturn the denial of equal rights for gays, they wouldn’t need to vote for you disingenuous asshats any more, would they?
          You know, I laugh at the thought of a team red House putting forth the legislation that ends DADT…after a team red gay group brought the lawsuit…after a team red appointed judge issued the initial ruling (and the team blue admin appealed it).

          You dumbasses are about to lose the gay vote forever because you never really did anything but pay lip service to them. And not the kind of lip service they like. [rimshot]

          *no homo

          1. I confess, I’m genuinely confused as to the political calculus that brought about the current administration’s opposition to the court ruling. This seems like it could have been an easy pre-election win for Team Blue – keep a campaign promise, throw a bone to one’s base (no homo), & act like decent human beings. Might the POTUS not have a tight enough leash on Holder?

            1. It’s less confusing when you accept that the elected democrats do not care at all about anyone except themselves.

              1. Their support for gay rights ends short of those rights. They sure as hell don’t want gays voting their pocketbooks or wallets. The gays are better kept close enough to see the carrot yet too far to get a bite of it.

                Just like they do for the women’s rights people….and the hispanics…and the blacks…and every single group that has been labelled “disadvantaged” or “oppressed” by team blue. They don’t want them to have equality. They just want their votes.

            2. Because if ‘teh gheys’ get the prize (repeal of DADT and DOMA), what carrot does Team Blue have to hold in front of their faces after that? “We want to tax you and take your shit you rich GCWOKs?”

              Throw extra salt on the Team Blue game with the fact that a bunch of gay Republicans are the ones who fought the fight.

        3. Why didn’t the progressive douchbags in Congress vote for these essential things at some point in the last two years?

          Why ram them through now? Maybe because the would have lost even more that 63 seats if they had?

          Isn’t that putting political expediency ahead of principle.

          Oh yeah, that’s cool if your a progressive.

          1. Isn’t that putting political expediency ahead of principle.

            So? Political Expediency does WONDERS for China. Why do you hate progress? And children?

        4. And holding up the rights of immigrants and gay military members (no homo) for short term political gains is not douchebaggery?

          So you’re saying that the Democrats are douchbags for holding up the rights of immigrants and gay military members for short term political gains, then? Because I don’t know how else you’d describe the effort to put them off until the lame duck session for fear of losing more seats in the short term.

        5. And holding up the rights of immigrants and gay military members (no homo) for short term political gains is not douchebaggery?

          The dems had two years to do this shit.

          but yeah it is the Republicans fault they didn’t get it done.

          Whatever.

    2. Elections matter dipshit. Isn’t that what we heard in 2008? If the Democrats hadn’t spent the last two years telling the American people to go fuck themselves, things might be different. But they did and things aren’t.

    3. They got a healthcare plan through with huge issues, like no severability clause. That’s where their political capital went. On a government grab fashioned and written about as well as an 8th grade book report.

      Grats on that.

      1. So the Dems deserve scorn for not getting this passed for the past two years over GOP opposition, but the GOP opposition then, and the more significant opposition now, deserves no scorn.

        OK Hit and Runpublicans, OK…

        1. I’d just like to note that my comments in regard to the original post were meant to imply that elected republicans also don’t care about anyone but themselves. It is not a function of hating or wanting to deny rights to anyone. They just want to maximize their own power.

        2. What GOP opposition? The 39 senators for the first year or the token opposition in the House?

          Please, minge. We’re not cheerleading for team red just because we mock the stupidity and hypocrisy of team blue. Of course, since you are a partisan hack, I can understand your desire to pigeonhole everyone else as one.

          1. If you think DADT should be repealed than you should scorn opposition from any source. Currently it is the GOP which is blocking it. Shouting “well the Dems should have rammed it through over GOP opposition when they could have” while true does not subtract one bit from the scorn the original and current GOP opposition of th repeal.

            Unless you are just trying to score some political points…

            1. You don’t get it, do you? The dems didn’t HAVE to ram it through. It was about to be done by the courts anyway. All the dems had to do was NOTHING. But the Obama administration put a stop to that right quick.

              1. LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!! I CAN’T HEAR YOU!! BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH LA LA LA LA LA LA!!!

        3. There’s plenty of scorn to go around.

          Short answer. Yes.

          But somehow team blue will spin it to be team reds fault. It’s a marvelous symbiotic relationship designed to fuck people and lead people like you into agreeing with the fucking.

        4. Hypocrisy and double-dealing deserve more mention than the party of “no way in hell are we letting ‘teh gheys’ in our military or get marriage licenses.”

      2. written about as well as an 8th grade book report.

        I find that grossly insulting to 8th graders the world’round. 3rd Grade, maybe. “Charlotte’s W3b was a reely grate book, bhut it maid me veery veery sad at te end.”

  5. Fed ID’s companies that used crisis aid programs
    …Foreign banks also benefited from the Fed’s aid. They included Swiss bank UBS, which borrowed more than $165 billion, Deutsche Bank ($97 billion) and the Royal Bank of Scotland ($92 billion).

    Many of the individual loans the banks took were worth billions and had short durations but were paid back and renewed many times.

    Among the largest recipients were foreign central banks, such as the European Central Bank, Bank of England and the Bank of Japan. They borrowed huge amounts of dollars from the Fed to assist their own banks….

    1. THEY TUK RR TERRRPZZ!!!!!1!!11

  6. “We owe an accounting to the American people of who we have lent money to,” Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker said. … “It is a good step toward broader transparency.”

    However, the damage to our nation resulting from such politicization of the Fed is incalculable.

  7. “The 2018 and 2022 World Cup sites will be determined today”

    I hope the US bribe for 2022 was large enough to win. The World Cup committee guys are slightly less corrupt than the Olympic committee, but its still a total buy-off model.

    1. When you consider that the 2nd or 3rd man in power at FIFA is the Qatari president of the Asian Football Confederation (Mohammed bin Hammam), I don’t think there’s a bribe big enough to counter that.

      The advantage we offer FIFA is a massive profit, which was proven in 1994 and will only be bigger in 2022. No one else can come close to making FIFA big money.

    2. The Qatar bid is so damn fanciful and outlandishly inappropriate (due to them having one city of 1.7 million and almost nothing else except a bunch of US airmen at Al Udeid), that under normal circumstances, they’d be laughed out of the room. They’d easily be the most embarrassing host nation team ever, as their footballing prowess lies somewhere between bad and awful. I mean, they couldn’t advance out of their group in this year’s Gulf Cup, which is sort of like being a below-average-height midget. Hell, they barely beat Yemen, who scored their only goal against Qatar.

      But they have influence and nearly unlimited cash to build insanely-designed infrastructure.

      1. How’s their sex trade?

        1. I’m sure it can be tailored to fit.

          Their Gulf neighbor UAE has a pretty lively (barely) underground industry.

      2. Maybe they’ll build the fields a few hundred feet up, like that tennis court in Dubai.

        1. Evidently, they’re going to build the stadiums in modular fashion so they can donate them to poor nations after the World Cup.

          1. Brilliant!

            Even more awesome would be to do the entire World Cup under water, in giant domes. Instead of the vuvuzela, locals will blow on conch shells.

      3. Son of a motherfucking whore…

        Qatar wins 2022.

        Russia wins 2018.

        1. Wow, both went a way I never imagined. The payoffs must have been outstanding because Qatar hosting the World Cup is ridiculous. I thought it could go to Australia if we didn’t get it, but holy fucking shit Batman, that is some serious full on retard by the voters.

          1. The turning point in the oddmakers’ brains was probably a few months ago. For some reason, they became the odd-on favorite. As recently as an hour ago, the William Hill odds on Qatar were something like 4:5 or better.

            1. You mean right after the British journalists showed that the votes were up for sale to the highest bidder?

        2. And so it turns out we lost the Cold War.

          That’s so ridiculous as to make the whole thing into a more colossal joke than it already is. Both selections.

          1. We dropped our 2018 bid (and England dropped their 2022 bid). Evidently, it looked bad to go for both, plus two anglophone countries going after the same two bids was a bit awkward, and both FAs thought it better to not potentially split the vote.

          2. IOW, we were never directly up against Russia when it came down to it.

        3. I might be one of the only people who is glad the US doesn’t win these bids. Sure, hosting the World Cup or the Olympics (although Olympics are a bit different as it a single city) would be cool, but the infrastructure cost is so absurd that it doesn’t make it worth it.

          The United States has at least 30 NFL stadiums that could all be used for the World Cup, plus countless college football stadiums that could be converted. However, are we so ignorant and naive to think that cities all over the country wouldn’t use a World Cup bid as an excuse for a brand new stadium paid for by the citizens? We see it in every other country that is hosting one of these big events, why do we think that our country would just say, “You know what? Our football stadiums are good enough. We don’t need to spend outlandish amounts of money on new facilities.” ???

          1. The way the bid was structured, I don’t think there were ANY new stadiums proposed. Our initial cut at the bid listed something like 70+ stadiums that would need ABSOLUTELY NO mods in order to host and meet FIFA’s requirements.

            So your worries are way overblown. This is materially different from bidding an Olympics, where a ton of purpose-built venues would need to be constructed from scratch. Nearly all NFL and even some college stadiums that have been built or renovated in the last 15 years are plug-and-play for soccer.

          2. why do we think that our country would just say, “You know what? Our football stadiums are good enough. We don’t need to spend outlandish amounts of money on new facilities.”

            Because that’s exactly what we did in 1994 when we hosted?

  8. “It is often hard to distinguish between the activities of the government and organised crime.”

    Thank goodness things are different in the West.

    1. In the West, the government doesn’t allow organized crime to compete.

    2. No, it isn’t. This came up in a thread yesterday. When the mob forces you to pay protection money, they don’t turn around and try to destroy your business. They want to protect their revenues.

    3. “Fuck you, pay me” seems to be motto of both organized crime and centralized government.

  9. Federal Reserve releases information on 21,000 recipients of $3.3 trillion in crisis aid.

    That should be 7 billion recipients listed, because all of Earth reaped from the massive success of that aid effort. (Well, 7 billion minus two, because the Kochs didn’t benefit.)

    1. +6,999,999,998

    2. I think the Kochs did benefit. Think of all the free publicity. And now I can see their evil tendrils of influence everywhere I look. That’s real power.

      1. I agree that free publicity is something you just can’t buy, but the Koch puppetmasters thrive in the shadows, secretly pulling the strings of various anti-centralized-power advocates in all corners of the globe.

    3. I recognize the sarcasm, but it really is sad that everyone in the WORLD could have gotten about $500. Bill Gates, Oprah, and Warren Buffett might all scoff at that, but I’m pretty sure everyone outside of the western world would have creamed their collective pants if they received that stimulus.

  10. Canadian officials had a different potential irritant: Mr. Obama was far more popular in Canada than they were.

    Ouch. Though I imagine Mr. Obama would be more popular here if he were in Canada.

    1. Canadians like Obama? Now? That surprises me. He can mess their shit up, too, if he screws things up here badly enough.

      1. But he’s so clean and articulate!

        1. Cleanliness-ist!!!

    2. They like him so much that conservative Calgary elected a geeky liberal African muslim while I was up there. I think they were convinced that it was him.

      1. *elected a geeky African muslim for mayor

        1. Wikileaks cables show Canada’s inferiority complex.

          WTF!! It took this long for any comment on Canada’s inferiority complex… proof positive we are ignored.

  11. We’re here for your liver…

    Organ Wagons To Make House Calls

    http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/new…..101201-APX

    1. “I’m not dead. I’m getting better. I don’t want to go on the cart.”

      1. Aw, don’t be such a baby.

  12. Credit where it is due, the administration gets at least one thing right:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..06321.html

    “Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Thursday reversed a controversial Bush administration policy under which numerous defendants have waived their right to DNA testing even though that right is guaranteed under federal law, the Justice Department said.”

    1. He’s 1 for ……what now?

      I’m pretty sure it’s still well below the political Mendoza line.

      1. The political mendoza line….what is that, like batting .015?

        1. He’s the Al Leiter of political at-bats.

      2. What about the fuckup he promised AND DELIVERED like healthcare? Does that count as getting a hit or promising to hit into a double play?

        1. I think it’s more like he swung the wrong way and the ball bounced off the bat and flew into his own team’s dugout, knocking another player’s teeth out.

  13. Report: Giant life insurance lobby key force behind estate tax

    Kindly old Grandpa Buffett has your best interests at heart. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

  14. Following the procedures laid down in the Constitution, in order to amend the Constitution, is anti-constitutional: Milbank beclowns himself again – it must be thrusday.

    1. As does his editor.

      “Lest you think this is a hair-brained scheme by one Republican lawmaker, consider that the Repeal Amendment, as proponents call it, has won the endorsement of the man who will be the next House majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.).”

      “Hair-brained”? Really? How about “hare-brained” — as in, having the intelligence of a lepus?

      For all intensive porpoises, he’s just towing the lion.

      1. I dunno, that’s a pretty tough road to tow. Maybe the editor has Old Timer’s Disease.

  15. Fire Leads Police Chief To ‘Most Grisly Murder Scene In His 35 Years In Law Enforcement’

    Firefighters who responded to a hotel blaze stumbled upon a blood-spattered hotel room littered with bottles of alcohol and even a piece of a scalp.

    Police Chief J.R. Blyth, who was called in to investigate, described the discovery at the George Washington Hotel in Pittsburgh as ‘the most grisly murder scene in his 35 years in law enforcement’.

    Detectives had spent eight hours of overtime on the investigation before Chief Blyth realised the blood wasn’t real and that the murder scene was in fact the leftover set of a horror movie filmed two years ago with Corey Haim.

    The film called New Terminal Hotel shot a scene in the hotel and the owner, Kyrk Pyros, decided to leave the room untouched in case the crew had to come back for re-shoots.

    Mr Pyros was bemused by the police’s discovery of the ‘crime scene’.

    1. “Sir, this blood tastes like corn syrup. I think the vic was diabetic.”

      1. We clearly need a Federal Corn Syrup Registry. For the children.

    2. Wasn’t every Corey Haim movie a horror movie?

      1. How dare you insult Prayer of the Rollerboys thusly!

    3. Detectives had spent eight hours of overtime on the investigation before Chief Blyth realised ‘fessed up the blood wasn’t real

      Can never have too much overtime. Gotta watch out for my boys’ families.

    4. How in the hell is a fire chief law enforcement? What are the laws he is enforcing? The laws of thermodynamics?

      WTF, Yo?

      1. “Police Chief” damn reading comprehension…i blame obama care.

  16. In an absolutely stunning bit of audio, U.S. Senator Michael Bennett, a member in good standing of the majority party ruling class, is caught on a hot mike lamenting to an unknown woman in the Senate how our political system is rigged.

    Partial transcript:

    Sen. Bennett: “… what we have to do is construct a con… {unknown} …There’s nothing about, because — because, it’s all rigged. I mean, the whole conversation is rigged. The fact that we don’t get to discussion before the break about what we’re going to do in the lame duck is just rigged. This stuff’s rigged.”

    1. Wait, you mean the open debate on the Senate floor isn’t where the policy is actually decided?

    2. Why exactly is it stunning? I don’t think he’s admitting to rigging something, he’s just whining. Although I couldn’t really understand what his bitching was all about, so maybe not.

  17. I rode home on the bus with one of this guy’s kids last evening.

    As her father stabbed her mother 120 times in their Minneapolis home, 13-year-old Brianna Nash tried mightily to fend him off, managing to wrest a bloody knife from his hands.

    But her mother, Pauline Nash, died from the savage attack by her husband of 24 years, Billy Nash. The couple had six children

    http://www.startribune.com/loc…..3LGDiO7aiU

  18. Dodd, 66, who ran for president in 2008, announced earlier this year that he would not seek a sixth term. He had slipped in the polls back home after it became known that he received mortgages under a VIP program.

    Poor Chris, he went to Washington to good, but had to settle for doing well.

  19. Just think of all the economic stimulus that could be generated by all the buried wealth in America.

    Grandma’s corpse doesn’t need that wedding ring. Get a shovel, America! All those medals in Arlington would fetch a pretty penny! Don’t forget to take a pair of pliers. There’s always plenty of fillings to pull!

    Remember… something is only yours until someone else wants it!

    1. Well, using MNG’s standard, what’s more “fair”? And who “deserves” it more? The dead, rotting corpse, or the middle class who, after all, just want another hi-def flat screen?

      Melt those rings and fillings down, cash them out and distribute the checks!

  20. …to do good…

    that is.

  21. something is only yours until someone else wants it!

    NEEDS it, you mean.

    Like your insulin; some rosy-cheeked urchin needs insulin, so society should take yours by force and give it to him.

    That’s what fairness means.

    1. How about “claims to need it”?

      1. Fuck it. How about just “claims it.” It works for the feds.

  22. Well, I guess Russia answers the old anarchist question of whether or not anyone would notice if a state collapsed and organized crime took over.

    Nope. A group of people who take over a country for the purpose of keeping a monopoly on violence and forcing the residents to pay rent really is pretty much the same thing.

  23. Since the estate tax presents a choice between which of two claimants is more deserving, the state or the persons designated by the owner of the estate, you’d think we would have seen the proponents making the case that the state is more deserving.

    But I haven’t seen that. All I’ve seen is handwaving about how the heirs haven’t earned it and aren’t particularly deserving. Which would be fine, if they could finish the argument by showing that the state is more deserving than the heirs.

    1. if they could finish the argument by showing that the state is more deserving than the heirs

      There are more of us, therefore …

    2. The estate tax is a left over from the middle ages. In Angevin England, no one owned land. The King owned the land. And you got to use it for a fee to the king, usually in the form of providing military service or paying him cash. That is where the term “fee simple” comes from, the Knight’s fee associated with land. But you didn’t have testimentary rights to the land without again paying the King or the higher lord of whom you were a vassel a fee. It was the sovereign’s property not yours. You just got to use it at his discretion and in return for a fee.

      When you think about where the estate tax came from, it makes perfect sense that liberals would love it so much. In their mind’s RC, the government has the superior claim because the government owns it. You just get to use it provided you pay your taxes.

    3. I like that you consider “the state” as one of the claimants. Because in taxation issues, often the second claimant is falsely identified as “the poor.” As in, “tax the rich heirs and give the money to the poor and needy.” But when the state gets tax money, a group of politicians decides what to do with the money, and those decisions are ALWAYS politically motivated. Which is exactly the opposite of “fair”.

  24. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..06870.html

    Fed bailed out GE. But GE owned media outlets didn’t report it. Looks like Rachel Maddow and Olberman and the rest of MSDNC are real life corporate media shills the liberals are always screaming about.

    1. Seriously, how shitty a bunch of businessmen must Immelt and the rest of the GE guys be? They’re completely joined at the hip with the administration, they get bailed out by the taxpayers, and the company is still in the toilet.

      1. When you are run by a group of craven idiots whose sole interest in life making as much money as possible by any means necessary but have no clue about how to make a product anyone wants, it is hard to be profitable.

        1. Let’s not be too hard on GE. They do still make some good products, especially at the industrial level. And their consumer products are halfway decent usually, too.

          What got GE in trouble was allowing their financial services arm to get out of control.

          I say all this as a shareholder, so take that for what it’s worth. And yes, I totally object to their craven statism.

          1. But how does a solid manufacturing company like GE ever get into financial services much less let it get so out of control it bankrupts them? The answer is that the people at the top are craven MBA educated idiots.

            It sounds like a strange thing to say that they are wrong because they want to just make money rather than make a product. But it goes to the root of many of the problems with American business. It used to be that companies made things. And they were run by people who loved to make things or provide whatever service the company did. So, AT&T was run by phone guys who loved phones and knew everything about providing phone service. Boeing was run by airplane guys. And IBM was run by computer and business machine guys and so forth. Now companies are run by soulless bean counting MBA assholes who have no idea how or why the company got started in the first place. So they don’t look at AT&T as a telephone company or Boeing as an airplane company. They look at every company the same, as an investment company. So if they think the money is to be made in financial services, they will go do it even though they are running a manufacturing company and no one in the company including them knows their ass from a hole in the ground about that business. They are in the business of moving money not actually providing goods or services. And that is a road to nowhere.

            1. Financial services are used to mask the terminal decline of the American manufacturing economy, but now the mask is fially slipping off.

              Your country will not recover. Places like Camden or Detroit or St. Louis or Youngstown are not coming back.

              1. The 1995 Nebraska squad has been voted as the greatest college football team of all-time in many surveys, including the all-time Sagarin ratings.[1] An ESPN poll has them at #3, only behind the 1971 Huskers and 1972 USC Trojans.[2]

                1. Nah, they didn’t have that great of a defense. The offense was scary, though.

              2. Places like Camden or Detroit or St. Louis or Youngstown are not coming back.

                These places have gone down the crapper because they’re populated by liberal shitheads and welfare losers like you.

                1. And the places run by all the ignorant rednecks seem to do just fine. Odd that.

                  1. You mean like rural Mississippi, John? Alabama? West Virginia? Biggest, poverty and ignorance-ridden shitholes in the world. The more right wing a state is, the poorer and less educated it is.

                    1. “Biggest, poverty and ignorance-ridden shitholes in the world.”

                      In the world? Christ you are one dumb fuck.

                    2. Hyperbolic troll is hyperbolic.

                    3. You mean like rural Mississippi, John? Alabama? West Virginia? Biggest, poverty and ignorance-ridden shitholes in the world. The more right wing a state is, the poorer and less educated it is.

                      You’ve clearly never been to Camden, NJ.

              3. The “terminally declined” USA manufacturing still produces more than any other country, including China. It just takes a lot fewer people to do so. China will eventually catch up, no doubt, due to having a lot of people.

                It’s insanity to pretend that higher productivity is a bad thing.

                The US also has a lot fewer farmers that in used to.

                1. And yet more evidence discussed here.

                  The UN data agrees on this, as well.

                2. Most of that “manufacturing” is stuff like making bombs and catfood.

                  How many laptops do USins produce? TVs? Processors? Solar panels? Windmills? Cell phones? Machine tools? Steel? Automobiles? How many do you export?

                  1. “Most of that “manufacturing” is stuff like making bombs and catfood.”

                    Wow. Your ignorance is just astounding. If you are a troll, I commend you for being able to fake that kind of stupidity. If you are for real, I commend you for being able to feed yourself.

                    1. Does the US spend more money than all the other countries in the world COMBINED on weapons or not, John?

                      It’s the only thing you still export. Bombs, low-brow movies, and fast food, that’s all that’s left.

                    2. We’re still an extremely important manufacturing power. It ain’t all bombs and planes, either. In industrial manufacture, we’re still holding the cards. The consumer products, incidentally, may be made in cheap labor countries, but who the heck do you think decides where the stuff is being made? That would be the U.S., Europe, and a few other players. Not China. Not India. Not Indonesia.

                      GE is best viewed as a collection of almost unrelated companies. Some of those remain excellent. Some suck ass. Senior management sucks ass right now as well.

                    3. Don’t confuse No USA with facts and rational thought Pro. It causes his meds to produce nasty side effects.

                    4. EAP likes this

              4. I’d settle for them going away.

    2. In the electronics hobby world, GE products means “Garbage Enclosed”.

  25. The notion that taxation is theft is surely the most idiotic of all libertarian idiocies.

    1. Everybody knows taxation is the price we pay for idiocy.

    2. Troll better. This is just pathetic.

      1. Max is old news. No USA is all the rage in troll circles these days.

      2. Sorry. That was me. I thought I’d just try to see what kick Max gets from posting his thoughts here.

      3. Hey, at least he’s trying. And there are now home study options for struggling young trolls–for instance, lectures from The Trolling Company.

        I believe there are also NEA grants available for amateur trolls.

        1. I No USA one of your graduates?

          1. It’s not a college, it’s just a series of lectures on CD or DVD. What an individual troll gets out of the courses depends on the individual troll.

            1. Clearly someone has been studying hard.

    3. No, it’s a Christmas present. I wrap my return each year in pretty packaging and ribbons.

      It’s actually not crazy libertarianism to admit that taxes are coerced. They are. Try not paying. If you want to justify it in the same way that we accept criminal laws, etc., fine, but it’s still coercion. The real questions are whether taxes are justified coercion and whether the tax rate is even remotely related to that justification. In the case of federal taxation, I think the answer is clearly no.

    4. Support your assertion.

    5. Everyone knows that taxation is the price we pay to have our neighbor’s door kicked in and dog shot because the neighbor on the other side is rumored to be growing some funny-looking plants. It’s expensive entertainment, but it’s more original than anything Hollywood puts out.

    6. “Give me money or I’ll hurt you” isn’t theft? Good to know.

    7. Oh, come one. I’m sure there has to be at least ONE libertarian idiocy that is even more idiotic!

    1. What. The. Fuck.

      Also, I like the fact that they posted the definition of “Symposium” after using it. That move screams “top level academics expected”.

      1. “Important things to do immediately:

        1. Check that you have a picture I.D. and/or passport for traveling.”

        Who knew the Martians were statist thugs, too? I thought John Carter settled their hash WRT the rights of Americans to travel freely across the surface of Mars.

    2. Cost: US$1550.

      Screw that shit! I’m teleporting.

    3. It *is* tempting.

      Hey, all you people looking for Steve Smith — the Symposium lady can probably help.

      1. Did you know that Sasquatch can:
        Read
        Write
        Shape-shift
        Project Their Voice
        Create Infrasound that affects the environment
        De-materialize at will, or cause you to have an experience of lost time so you think they de-materialized.
        Travel 300 miles a day on foot.
        Live in well-lighted underground facilities
        Contact and live with Star People
        Tell us about our past and our future.
        Have lived here longer than the human race.

        STEVE SMITH ALWAYS KNEW STEVE SMITH WAS AMAZING!

        1. Steve,

          You are far too modest. While the list of accomplishments you list above is indeed impressive, you forgot to mention (according to one of the page’s sub-heads) that you impressed Joan with your “Balls of Light and Sasquatch”.

          If I thought for even a moment that I could fill your footsteps, that would be what I’d brag about above all those other accomplishments.

    4. CANCELLATON POLICY
      If you need to cancel for any reason, please notify us right away.
      We will return the monies you paid minus a $100. Registration fee.
      There are no refunds for late arrivals or early departures.

      Am I the only one who chuckles at the concept of being late to a symposium on time travel?

      Of course, the liberal granola hippie chick forgot to include a session on financial planning for time travel. She should have at least invited these guys to talk about the miracle of using compound interest to pay for time travel.

    5. Why do i get the feeling that this will end with a bunch of corpses of eunuchs on cots wearing the same sneakers?

      1. How do they all fit their feet into the same sneakers?

  26. Cantor, Bishop and the other supporters of the amendment believe they are rebalancing the Constitution in a way the Framers would like. But it’s strange that the lawmakers would show their reverence for the Founding Fathers by redrafting their work.

    I wonder how many times Dana Milbank has demonstrated his reverence for the Constitution by writing articles critical of the current SCOTUS interpretation of the Commerce Clause?

    1. More relevant here, given that the 17th amendment fundamentally shifted the balance of power between the feds and the states, it’s a little disingenuous to suggest that what they’re altering is the Framer’s Constitution anyway. Granted, you can’t be a prog without mastering the art of intellectual dishonesty.

  27. This sounds like a good idea.

    House Republicans seem intent on blowing up the staid appropriations process when they take power in January ? potentially upending the old bulls in both parties who have spent decades building their power over the federal budget.

    The plans include slicing and dicing appropriations bills into dozens of smaller, bite-size pieces ? making it easier to kill or slash unpopular agencies. Other proposals include statutory spending caps, weekly votes on spending cuts and other reforms to ensure spending bills aren’t sneakily passed under special rules.

    On some level, their plans may create a sense of organized chaos on the House floor ? picture dozens of votes on dozens of federal program cuts and likely gridlock on spending bills. And don’t forget that a lot of these efforts will die with a Democratic-led Senate and a Democrat in the White House

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s…..z16y8Y5Y3p

    1. On some level, their plans may create a sense of organized chaos on the House floor ? picture dozens of votes on dozens of federal program cuts and likely gridlock on spending bills.

      This may be the beautiful sentence I’ve ever read. Seriously, I’m getting teary-eyed and shit.

    1. This was fucking awesome – please, allow me to summarize with a few excerpts:

      Our government is dead. It’s not coming back. It’s been replaced by corporate power, the power of wealth.

      Evul Corporashuns – check. Why?

      Maybe it was the loss of so many in the past few years that has turned me to be so cynical. Dynamic and forceful individuals who stood. Paul Wellstone. Teddy. Robert Byrd.

      Hahahahahaha! Good one! What next?

      So what am I saying? I don’t know.

      Thanks for confirming what we figured out about a paragraph in. What was, again, awesomely entertaining – thanks for sharing!

  28. FIFA has officially gone insane.

    1. Yep. Helps when Mohammed bin Hammam is not only a Qatari and the head of the AFC, but is also Sepp Blatter’s biggest buddy other than Jack Warner.

      1. How can the US be so inept in these sorts of things.

        1. Drop bags of cash at FIFA delegates’ hotel rooms
        2. Supply attractive willing persons of delegates’ desired pursuation
        3. Take pictures
        4. Win World Cup

        1. We try. CONCACAF 2nd in command is giant fat bearded man, Chuck Blazer. Unfortunately, head of AFC and 3rd in command at FIFA trumps that.

    2. Not sure if it should’ve gone to Qatar, but how exactly can the US hold an international event like the World Cup (or Olympics) nowadays? You need to be welcoming to foreign visitors, and… well, we’re not.

      Same reason we didn’t deserve (and had no chance of getting) the 2016 Olympics.

      1. There’s no way that’s the only reason. Plus, entry and exit policies can always be reformed. Add to that the fact that despite all that, we’re a huge destination for European tourists anyway.

        1. They can be reformed. What are the odds they’d actually be reformed?

          We’re a huge destination for Europeans, yes. What about the people that would come over from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East? How welcoming would we be towards them?

          1. People of Middle Eastern seem to get in off the Dubai-Atlanta flight relatively unmolested.

            We appear to be very welcoming to East Asians.

            Africa, I have no idea. Most Africans the US takes in these days are refugees.

            1. “People of Middle Eastern extraction…”

              Damn brain…

    3. Wow. Russia and Qatar both? I guess they just put a for sale sign on the event. Wow. What a joke.

      1. Someone put it to me this way on BigSoccer: the US bid will make FIFA tons of money; Qatar will make FIFA honchos tons of money.

        1. At least they kept their priorities straight.

        2. BigSoccer

          Is there any part of the internet that Breitbart doesn’t control?

      2. Even by those standards this is just brazen.

    4. I just did a Google news search for “fifa world cup” and the first article that came up was from CNN. Headline: “We are not corrupt, insists FIFA official”. Too good.

    5. This will make Americans much more likely to watch the sport now, I’m sure.

      1. It really shouldn’t affect it. Each successive Cup has had increased viewership, even when it was in Japorea, 13 time zones ahead.

        It’s just really fucking annoying that a country with one city, 1.7 million people, no infrastructure, and punishing summer weather will be getting the chance to line Sepp Blatter’s pockets.

        1. Blame Salt Lake City for this. Those Mormons couldn’t pull off a bribe discreetly, now no one in the U.S. wants to do it.

          1. Another reason to hate Mitt fucking Romney.

          2. The IOC already got their revenge for that. The Salt Lake City bribery was revealed by the Swiss head of the International Skiing Federation, so when the Swiss were bidding for the 2006 Winter Olympics and had the technically superior bid, the IOC awarded the games to Turin.

  29. Jeebus H, how’d everyone miss the biggest story-within-the-stories of all??

    WHO’S THE REAL BATMAN??

    [Putin] made clear he was not amused by a US diplomat’s description of him as “Batman” and President Dmitry Medvedev as “Robin”.

    …a perception by American diplomats that Canadians “always carry a chip on their shoulder” in part because of a feeling that their country “is condemned to always play ‘Robin’ to the U.S. ‘Batman.’

    And why only Batman references? No Star Trek love? A confused nation – nay, world – demands answers!!!

  30. The US will never host another Olympics because as a Pakistani member of the IOC said , getting in and out of the US is a “harrowing experience” for certain groups of people.

    1. You mean can’t blow billions building stadiums we don’t need and billions more bribing the roving band of Eurotrash known as the IOC to have a corrupt sporting event that people care about for two weeks every four years? Tear.

      1. Pakistan isn’t nearly good enough to get anywhere near the World Cup, so we wouldn’t have to worry about it.

        Anyway, to John, the funny thing is, we bid with ZERO new stadium construction, because we have something like 70 stadiums that can easily accommodate soccer in this country at levels FIFA would be satisfied with.

        1. I was thinking more of the Olympics, which require a bunch of specialzed venues and generally bankrupt any city that hosts them. Poor Montreal was still paying on debt from the 1976 Summer Games a couple of years ago.

          The World Cup in contrast is a good event to host because as you point out we already have the infrastructure.

          1. Yeah, Montreal JUST retired that debt this year, I think. They ended up with a crumbling POS stadium out of it that ended up as rubble, IIRC, just recently.

            1. They finally tore down Olympic Stadium? I was in Montreal in October and it was still there. God was it awful. Modernist architecture ages so poorly. It may have looked sleek and modern in 1976. But by the 1990s it looked like a rusting set from Logan’s Run.

              1. I thought I heard they blew it up last year. I guess I was misinformed on that.

                1. As of Columbus Day weekend 2010, it was still there. I went buy it on the way to the Botanical Gardens across the street. It surely is going to be torn down soon. Montreal’s CFL team moved to a newly expanded McGill stadium this year. Other than the odd U2 or Rolling Stones show, what is it used for?

                  1. I went to those botanical gardens tripping on mushrooms with my girlfriend. It’s one of those rare places where the sober people acted weirder than we did….

                    That stadium could have made a sweet ass skate park at least.

      2. You didn’t want those grapes! they were probably sour, anyway!

    2. Uh, airline travel in America, both internationally and domestically, has become a harrowing for everyone. Trying read a fucking newspaper once in a while, you dickhead.

    3. Yeah because Russia and Qatar are know for their tolerance of others….

      1. Qatar is 85% non-Qatari. They accept the living shit out of others. Now, they mostly tolerate others because they do the work of running the country for them, but the fact remains…

        1. I have always found the Gulf Arabs to be okay. It is the Saudis who suck.

          1. The Saudis suck hard. Omanis are probably the nicest, most humble people in the world. Emiritis are spoiled brats, but can be great to get along with if you disabuse them of their annoying superiority complex.

    4. You mean travellers?

      Going from one city to another inside the US is a “harrowing experience” for all people.

      1. Really? Oh – you mean by plane – yes.

        I was thinking of *driving* – which I pretty much do exclusively now, CAUSE FLYING SUCKS SO BAD!

    5. I am sure that getting in and out of Pakistan is quite pleasant for Women and Jews…

  31. As to Canada having an inferiority complex–no, they just have a great deal of common sense which eludes the average USian.

    If my next-door neighbours were a bunch of loud, ignorant hicks armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons shouting about how they’re #1 even when they’re not by any standard except number of people in prison and military spending, I wouldn’t like them, either.

    1. Hahahahahahahaha!

      Canadians are so cute, with their “you’re dicks with nukes” inferiority.

      Does Robin need a bottle and a nap? 🙁

      1. USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

        1. CAN -uhduh! CAN – uhduh! CAN – uhduh! CAN – uhduh! CAN – uhduh!

        2. CAN! uhduh CAN! uhduh CAN! uhduh

    2. Yet no one abroad is more likely to be mistaken for an “USian” than a Canadian.

      1. ….and vice versa. A Roots hoodie and a couple of “ehs” at the end of the sentences – dem EU’s can’t tell the diff.

      2. And yet, USians abroad often pretend to be Canadian while no Canadian pretends to be a USian.

        Hmmm…

        1. Sad, isn’t it, that the brainless prejudice of so many people requires USians travelling abroad to stay in the closet by pretending to be Canucks.

        2. I have traveled all over Europe and never once pretended to be Canadian. Only douschbags do that.

          1. The point still stands. Many, many USians pretend to be Canadian, but no Canadians ever dream of pretending to be USian.

            Why do you think that is, John?

            1. I lived in Europe for nearly two years. I never found anyone to be overtly anti-Americans except for Canadians who are insufferable. I have never known anyone who felt the need to pretend not to be an American. The only places I have heard that is on liberal blogs. And I think they do it to score political points rather than out of any particular need.

              1. I think they do it to score. Pretending to be a Canadian means not having to compete with US servicemen for ass that just wants to check another country off her list.

                1. In the Greek holiday resorts the locals would get 10 points for an Eskimo girl.
                  1 point for a german or english

                  1. English girls on holiday counted? Did they have to be sober, or at least coherent?

              2. And in what year was that?

                Things have changed, especially since 2001, you know. Now people see you like they used to see the old Soviet Union–a grubby, powerful military state with secret prisons and torture chambers, professing a hypocritical ideology.

                1. It was well after 9-11 in the mid 00s.

            2. Wow, you mean USians are still pretending to be Canadians all over the world, even though the Cowboy is out of office and the Aqua Buddha Messiah is running America?

              How can this be possible? Left-wing dickheads like you said that the entire world was going to love America again if we put the Messiah into office!

              1. Obama is Bush Lite, just a smiling black face on the falling USian Empire.

                1. Personally it is pissing off inferiority complex losers like No U$A that really makes me enjoy wearing my Uncle Sam taking a giant bite out of the globe shirt when I travel. Only a real douchebag would think that nationality=personality

                2. “Obama is Bush Lite, just a smiling black face on the falling USian Empire.”

                  RACIST!!!

    3. Eh?

  32. But how does a solid manufacturing company like GE ever get into financial services much less let it get so out of control it bankrupts them?

    GE Capital started out as GE’s in-house financing operation.

    1. Yes. And then the good idea fairies didn’t have a den mother and before you knew it the that one division bankrupted the company.

    2. And the division kept showing profits, so it expanded.

  33. Also, if rugby were easy, it would be called “soccer”.

    Fuck the World Cup.

    1. Sorry, it shows an inferiority complex on the part of rugby fans that you still mean the soccer World Cup when you say “World Cup,” and not the Rugby World Cup.

      It’s like the ESPN commercial with Andy Roddick being upset about Alex Rodriguez being called A-Rod instead of him by the network.

  34. Let me get this straight; we “missed out” on an opportunity to enrich a bunch of crooks operating under the guise of an “international sporting body”?

    *makes sad face*

    1. Well, you still have the F1 and MotoGP circuses to look down on you on behalf of the rest of the world.

      So, depending on whether or not you accept car and motorbike racing as “sport”, perhaps that will do as a substitute for losing out on the football?

      Cheers!

    2. PS Could you please help be get these bags of money into my Mercedes Maybach?

      I’m afraid we’re still cashing in from last year – thanks every so much!

  35. Man, Al Jazeera is going to be insufferable for the next week at least. Watching them try to contain their excitement will be entertaining, at least.

    Should be interesting to see how much DXB, AUH, Bahrain and other hubs benefit. There’s no way Doha can handle it all.

    1. Lulz – I read that as “try to contain their excrement“!

      Freudian, probably…

      1. Keeping your shit together. Important for people and dung beetles.

  36. Like I said above, our bid would have made money for the organization (and our federation – USSF made a KILLING on 1994, and they’re still reaping the benefit of that).

    Qatar’s bid likely directly went into Executive Committee pockets. They have no chance of turning a profit for FIFA OR the QFA.

  37. The US will never host another Olympics

    YEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Fuck the IOC.

    And the USOC.

    1. Ah, I knew I wasn’t the only one. 🙂

  38. And- since I’m nothing, if not an equal opportunity hater, fuck Formula One, and those morons in Texas who want to make Bernie Ecclestone even richer.

    1. UAE! UAE! UAE! UAE! UAE! UAE! UAE! UAE!

    2. UAE! UAE! UAE! UAE! UAE! UAE! UAE!

    3. “UAE! UAE! UAE! UAE! UAE! UAE! UAE!”

      Hey, wait a minute…

    4. Are they trying to bring F1 to Texas? I wouldn’t mind watching an F1 race in person. But they are such a fucked up horrible organization, I can’t imagine the kind of bribery that must be involved in getting an event. They have an event in Malaysia for God’s sake. But don’t run the Nurbergring anymore. And don’t have any races in Scandavia even though the Fins have produced some of the greatest drivers in history. One race in England, no races in America or anywhere north of Belgium, but they have a race in Korea and two in the Gulf. Yeah, venues are selected on something other than who puts the most money in the top FIA officials’ pockets.

      1. Finns aren’t Scandinavians.

      2. The US Grand Prix is coming to Austin in 2012. I’m pretty sure that they’ve started construction on the track.

    5. I stand corrected. They are going back to the Nurbergring next year. That is fantastic.

      1. Bernie frequently praises Hitler in interviews.

        He hates the British Grand prix because there is no government subsidy.

        1. Wasn’t he the guy that was found with all the S&M Nazi pictures or something?

          1. that was Max Mosley, the Fia president and much hated lackey.
            He actually won a libel claim against Murdochs paper. It was an S&M orgy but no Nazi elements. He is a bit sensitive as his father was interned during WW2 as he was head of the British union of Fascists.

  39. “I actually had to Google what the meaning of “blue bloods” was, although I could surmise that it was some kind of knock against education and coming from a family of some success.”

    In other news Megan McCain is still stupid. Can’t she just go on a crash diet and pose in Playboy and get it over with?

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..z16yKbNzxa

    1. How can she grow up the daughter of a US Senator and never hear the term “blue blood”?

      I know your public education is broken, but surely she went to private school?

      1. Even the best school can’t fix stupid.

      2. It’s become boring. Switch, please. You got to keep it fresh.

        1. Does public education include those public universities that the ENTIRE FREAKING PLANET is sending their kids to?

      3. Being a blue blood, it’s probably the inbreeding that did it.

    2. Boy, you aren’t kidding. Meghan, stop obsessively reading Sarah Palin’s Twitter feed and try hitting the treadmill once in a while; you’re only 26 and you already look like a middle aged housewife.

    3. I had to just look it up.

      I did not know the meaning was as strict as it was.

      Apparently it means being a member of the aristocracy.

      Before looking it up I thought it meant being born in New England.

  40. I cannot wait until my next beer league hockey game, where I get to call all my Canadian teammates “Robin”.

    1. Make sure to refer to them as your “youthful ward.”

      1. Well, they are only 28 years old, so…

  41. He hates the British Grand prix because there is no government subsidy.

    No matter what anybody says about Tony George, at least he spent his own money at IMS, unlike that worthless parasitic turd Irsay.

  42. I hope we go to Qatar and win the whole fuckin’ thing. Just to piss everyone off.

  43. I though the GOP hated political obstructionist. Oh wait, that was when we had a republican President.

    Rs and Ds, two sides of the same coin.

  44. Rs and Ds, two sides of the same coin urinal cake.

  45. MNG argues:

    My argument is
    1. earned income has more moral worth than gifted income
    2. wealthy people can better shoulder the burden of taxation than poorer people

    This all strikes me as an expansion of the argument that the heirs don’t particularly deserve the estate. It still lacks any argument that the state deserves it more.

    The argumentum ad progressivum that rich people ought to pay taxes begs the question in a couple of ways.

    First, it says nothing about what level of taxation is appropriate, and a large part of the objection to the estate tax is its confiscatory level.

    Second, it says nothing about why an estate that was accumulated after-tax should be strip-mined, again. Even if you agree that rich people ought to pay more taxes, those rich people have already paid their taxes.

  46. The US will never host another Olympics…

    To someone like me who opposed the Tampa/Orlando application for the 2012 Games this would be very good news.

    Unfortunately it is likely not true.

  47. And yet, USians abroad often pretend to be Canadian while no Canadian pretends to be a USian.

    Have you ever actually known an American who claimed to be a Canadian?

    I very much doubt it.

    Contrary to your claims (and the unfounded fears of many Americans) anti-Americanism is quite rare.

    It’s mostly the province of Europeans and Canadians who style themselves as intellectuals.

    An evening with a bunch of blue collar Canucks or Frenchmen or Italians can be quite convivial.

  48. lp it. Our budgets have been slashed. We don’t have enough money! But as John Stossel

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.