Reason Morning Links: CPAC, Spending, and a Suit

|

NEXT: Cedar Rapids

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. Krauthammer Says US Should Offer Freedom Doctrine To Middle East*

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..inionsbox1

    * Offer not available in Palestinian Occupied Territories

    1. It is funny how when you read pieces like this you’ll read things like: “America need to do this,” or “America needs to support this faction.”

      Usually when America gets involved the policy consequences are exactly opposite of the original stated goals. Maybe we should try to keep our noses out of it for once just to see what happens; things couldn’t be that much worse for it.

      It has been said on these very pages that foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

      Also, Krauthammer has to be the creepiest pundit out there.

      1. I’ve always assumed Kraut has “had some work done” on his face hence some of the creepy look.

        You’re point is spot on too. It also occurs to me that as the US is a bit suspect over there supporting a faction may be the last thing the faction needs…

        1. I understand Krauthammer is paralyzed due to a swimming pool accident when he was a kid.

          1. You’re not supposed to tell people that quickly. You’re supposed to see how many people will make crass remarks about his demeanor because they don’t like him because he’s a right-wing pundit, and then feel smug watching them backpedal once you do finally break it to them.

            1. Although maybe an hour or so was long enough.

            2. Everybody here is aware of Krauthammer’s walkless status, as some asshole brings it up everytime crass remarks are made about him. Libertarians are heartless beasts who give no quarter…especially to the handicapped.

              1. fuck the ADA!

            3. I wouldn’t backpedal on Krauthammer even if he was a Holocaust survivor who subsequently fought and defeated the Saw villain.

              If pools are his nemesis, all I can say is: More pools, please.

              1. I might go harder on him because of that. Jigsaw was badass. The first two movies are way up on my list.

          2. Krauthammer isn’t creepy just because of his physical appearance. It’s the fact that when he speaks nothing comes out but bellicose imperialism but without any affect. A mooslim hating robot, if you will.

            The wheelchair makes just him all the more supervillianesque.

            1. It’s the fact that when he speaks nothing comes out but bellicose imperialism

              I rather enjoy his scathing skepticism and unlimited contempt for the current administration, personally. He has a gift for explaining everything they do in terms of their self-aggrandizement and short-term political calculation.

              1. True, but it always comes back to Israel and the mooslims.

          3. Huh, I honestly never knew Kraut was a crip. Well, they can be assholes too…

            1. My understanding is it occurred during his college years and he managed to finish his MD after the event.

            2. They can be assholes too? Careful, MNG, your anti-Bloods bias is getting pretty blatant.

          4. You know who else was in a wheelchair?

            Samuel L. Jackson’s character (“Mr. Glass”) in Unbreakable.

            And he was a supervillain.

            PS Oh yeah: spoiler alert.

      2. I found two things interesting in this piece:

        1) He doesn’t seem to understand why people would oppose the Iraq War, but support these protesters. Is he so dense to think that supporting an organic revolt is the exact same as supporting an invasion.

        2) Interesting to see how Krauthammer, and many other conservatives, have pivoted from realism and propping up the Mubarak regime to getting involved to help the democratic protests.

        1. Most of those so called conservatives are NeoCon refugees from the democrat party.

      3. That’s why China has the advantage. They set goals and see them through.

        1. *YELLOW PERIL YELLOW PERIL*
          Shut the fuck up asshole.

        2. Goals like The Great Leap Forward that killed millions of people?

          1. Eggs. Omlets.

    2. Re: MNG,

      Offer not available in Palestinian Occupied Territories

      “Only to participating members”

      Oh, and “PURCHASE necessary for participating” of “American Fuck-Yeah” military equipment.

      1. Not true, you can write in to request a game piece. The American People will cover it.

  2. Microcredit industry in India facing backlash

    Designed to give poor women easy access to small loans, India’s microcredit industry is battling for survival amid a political backlash, dwindling cash flows and high default rates.

    To rein in the $4 billion industry, the government recently proposed a set of regulations that would require credit checks and crack down on the strong-arm tactics some lenders use to collect payments.

    A government-appointed review panel has also recommended capping loan amounts and prohibiting women from borrowing from more than two lenders.

    But microfinance advocates say such rules could kill an industry that has helped lift millions of women out of poverty.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..eheadlines

    1. Alt Headline: Government ruins sector of economy. Feels their cut too small.

    2. The microcredit sector has helped millions of people, but it’s unpopular for the simple reason [true for thousands of years] that people who borrow money don’t always like having to pay it back.

      “Banks Unpopular With Debtors” is kind of a “Dog Bites Man” headline.

      1. Yeah, it’s always the problem with credit — it’s really popular in the “I got a bunch of money without having to earn it!” phase, not so much “I have to pay back even more money. And what did they ever do for me (besides give me a bunch of money when I needed it)?” phase.

        1. Speaking of payables:

          $14,000,000,000,000 and counting.

          1. I hope you spent it on more than your favorite stripper.

    3. “Designed to give poor women easy access to small loans, India’s microcredit industry is battling for survival amid a political backlash, dwindling cash flows and high default rates.”

      Easy credit
      Easy credit
      Comes and goes
      Like tides or snow
      There’s no capital
      as there’re no savings
      So easy credit
      Is just flim-flam.

    4. What’s the definition of “strong-arm tactics?” Beating them up for not paying it back, or just dissolving the business assets and doing whatever they can to legally get the money back? If it’s the latter, it’s not a real problem.

  3. # Libertarians at CPAC heckle Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

    # Freshman Republicans push for deeper spending cuts.

    Well that’s sorta interesting. Wake me if charges are filed against Dick and Don, or the House actually passes a balanced budget.

    1. This is how Rip VanWinkle got started.

  4. Ugh. I read some of the comments at TPM regarding the Cheney hecklers. It’s bad enough that Roots of the Libertarian Party have destroyed the very meaning of the word “libertarian,” but some of these guys on the Left are blaming “Libertarians” for the wars?! I’m a libertarian and I want my label back!

    1. That’s some world class dumb on display in there,

      Let’s see — you were counting on a slate of Ron Paul for President with Trump for vice, or was it the reverse?

      John Yoo for AG, Michael Steele for treasurer, Michelle Bachman for Education (makes abolishing the Department sooo much easier), Palin for Sec. of State (it’s high time she got to actually see Russia), Romney for HHS or maybe Transportation, Gingrich for Press Secretary and Cheney for DOD (heartlessness helps). Have I got it all straight now?

      1. “[Speaking] as a libertarian, that’s not really the type of person who should be getting Defender of the Constitution,” he added.

        Relax, Justin. It’s not a real award. It’s the equivalent of Miss Congeniality or something. It confers no power.

  5. GOP in Montana Push Teh Freedom In Medical Marijuana Vote

    The Montana House of Representatives voted Thursday to repeal the state’s six-year-old medical marijuana law.

    The 63-to-37 vote, largely along party lines in the Republican-controlled chamber, pushed Montana to the front lines of a national debate about social policy, economics and health as medical marijuana use has surged in the 15 states and the District of Columbia that allow its use.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02…..?_r=1&hpw;

    1. It is a good thing the Democrats are so good about the WOD or we would be in a lot of trouble.

      1. They seem to be the better party here.

        1. YEah,

          That is why the drug war really slacked off over the two years the Democrats owned the federal government.

          1. Face it John, on the issue of medical marijuana you’re party is in the wrong and Democrats tend to be better. Just say it.

            The GOP talks freedom, but the minute gays, muslims, immigrants or drugs is mentioned, watch out. And if you mention gay muslim immigrants smoking drugs then you can expect an AUMF from them…

            1. How about some support for the proposition that the Dems are any better in the WOD than the Reps?

              I’m not seeing it. They both want to appear strong in making sure nobody cops a cool buzz.

              1. They support medical marijuana more, they reduced the crack disparity, and they seem to have reduced the fed raids on medical marijuana.

                Look, the WOD is something I oppose, it’s one of the reasons I read libertarian stuff. I realize the Dems are not the perfect nor even the good, but they are better than the GOP.

              2. Face it John, on the issue of medical marijuana you’re party is in the wrong and Democrats tend to be better. Just say it.

                90% Democrats in the Hawaii state legislature. Marijuana is not legalized. The WoD continues apace. Civil unions legislation fails to pass.

                Would it be your theory that the 10% Republicans are the stumbling block to progress, MNG?

            2. Face it John, on the issue of medical marijuana you’re party is in the wrong and Democrats tend to be better.

              LOL

              Democrats totally dominate the CA government and they were universally opposed to Prop 19.

              But idiots like you keep thinking that the democrats really want to end the WOD but the nasty reps won’t let em.

              1. Come up over the grapevine, John. Most towns in the valley are run by team red and they don’t give two shits if someone is smoking weed. In Fresno County, however, they are serious about the drug war. The one team blue county in the valley. My liberal friends are amazed a city like Bakersfield, with the redneck okies running it, is much more tolerant of medical pot than Fresno, which is so much more “enlightened.”

              2. If you think republicans and democrats are equally receptive to marijuana legalization, you’re fucking kidding yourself into a state of false equivalency.

            3. Face it John, on the issue of medical marijuana you’re party is in the wrong and Democrats tend to be better. Just say it.

              The tallest kid in the dwarf family.

              1. Are we talking regular sized kid in dwarf family though, like Little People, Big World? Or tallest dwarf in dwarf family?

            4. “”And if you mention gay muslim immigrants smoking drugs then you can expect an AUMF from them…””

              That why Iran claims no homos in their country. It would trigger a US invasion. 😉

            5. “”Face it John, on the issue of medical marijuana you’re party is in the wrong and Democrats tend to be better. Just say it.””

              What did Clinton and Obama do different from Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr.?

              Pot smoking had a lot to do with hippies. John would never agree with anything they did. 😉

          2. “I am entirely blind to reality when it is inconvenient.”

        2. Yeah because they have to vote against Republicans…

      2. Apparently they were in this case, unless I’m misunderstanding that statement.

  6. Charges Against Muslim Students Prompt Debate Over Free Speech

    When administrators at the University of California, Irvine, decided to suspend the Muslim Student Union for a quarter over the disruption of a speech last year by the Israeli ambassador to the United States, most thought the latest controversy on campus had ended.

    District Attorney Tony Rackauckas of Orange County, however, disagreed ? and filed misdemeanor criminal charges last week against the 11 student protesters, accusing them of disturbing a public meeting and engaging in a conspiracy to do so.

    The charges have not only reignited campus debate about the event but have also prompted a feisty argument about the role of free speech on a college campus, in this case one whose politics can seem as complicated as peace negotiations in the Middle East.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02…..e.html?hpw

    Charges were probably too much, but I support the suspension, if they didn’t like the speech they could have held their own, they don’t have the right to disrupt it.

    1. I read that article last night.

      The MSU at UC Irvine is pushing their luck by holding fundraisers for Hamas. The Feds don’t take kindly to that sort of thing.

    2. Why are charges too much? Either it is a crime to disrupt a public event or it is not. Suppose a bunch of jackasses showed up at a public symphony concert and ruined the show for everyone, wouldn’t charges be appropriate in that case? How is this any different?

      1. I’m always hesitant to see law enforcement be called in when other ways of dealing with a problem are available.

        1. Like what? Expulsion?

          1. Suspend the students, bring college honor charges against them, cut off the group’s student organization fund, that kind of thing. I would think libertarians would share my reluctance to get the most coercive arm of the government involved.

            1. The cops and courts are there to defend rights, one of which is to speak freely without being shouted down or intimidated. If the JSU shouted down a pro-Palestine speaker, I’d have the same opinion. Its not about politics, its about the ability to have a platform to convey unpopular ideas without mob veto.

              Also, funny as it sounds, I actually would rather trust my future to a prosecutor and judge than an academic review board or dean.

              1. Whuh? What is this right not to be shouted at? Sounds like a positive right to me…

                1. Shouted DOWN not shouted at. If you can’t be heard by people who came to hear you, in what way are you engaging in speech instead of making noise? Its like freedom of the press that doesn’t include a right distribute. WTF kind of freedom is it if you can print anything you want but it can’t be read by anyone?

                  1. Actually, the only right being disrupted was the property right.

                    If I’m on your property and you don’t like how I’m acting and ask me to leave, I’m trespassing if I don’t.

                    But if you are holding an event on your property and I show up at it and yell, but then leave when you ask me to leave, I haven’t violated any right.

                    You have the right to control access to your property and I have to respect that right, but if I do respect it, the fact that you might be inconvenienced by the process of communicating with me to actually undertake the enforcement of your property right really isn’t my concern.

                    So if I stood up during a speech and yelled that the speaker was a dick, but then when you came over to my seat to tell me to leave I left, we’re totally square.

                    1. Oops, uh-oh, just noticed that this is a public university.

                      In that case, CA is bound by the 14th’s incorporation of the 1st against the states, and the university had no right to remove people from public space based on their speech.

                      So I guess they couldn’t even ask them to leave.

                      Oh well.

                      Of course, I acknowledge that it would be impossible to operate public universities if you weren’t allowed to remove or arrest citizens who disrupted events for the purpose of making political statements. But that’s not really my concern, either. Close the public universities and that problem goes away.

                    2. Having secured the use of the place for the purposes of speech is definitely part of it, but if, say, the government allowed for public speech but showed up and played propaganda so loudly that your speech couldn’t possibly be heard, are they infringing? I think so. And then does a similar right exist in regard to non-government actors, and I think so.

                    3. if, say, the government allowed for public speech but showed up and played propaganda so loudly that your speech couldn’t possibly be heard, are they infringing? I think so. And then does a similar right exist in regard to non-government actors, and I think so.

                      Absolutely not.

                      In the case of the government actor, since undertaking that kind of activity wouldn’t be free, we would have to deal with it by restricting the ability of the state to expend funds in that manner. Is “hiring guys to engage in propaganda” listed as a power of the Congress in the Constitution? Nope. So they can’t do it.

                      But as for private actors: if we live next door to each other, and you decide on Saturday to stand on your front lawn and give a political speech, and I stand on my own lawn at the same time and give a political speech, and because we’re speaking at the same time all anyone else can hear is white noise…that’s really too damn bad. You don’t have any right to have me be silent while you speak. Your right to speak would have to be superior to my right to speak for such a “right to silence” to exist, and it’s not. They’re exactly equal.

                    4. Yep. I see that. Property rights is a better way to resolve this with fewer pitfalls.

            2. —“cut off the group’s student organization fund, that kind of thing”—

              Many Libertarians would not give funds to any group to begin with.

            3. Fluffy as right, as usual.

        2. How do you deal with them? Beat them up? This is exactly when LE is needed. The people running this thing face the choice of either allowing their event to be ruined or getting into a physical confrontation with them. The better option is for the police to show up, ask them to leave, and if they don’t arrest them.

          1. I’m not against having police or security make them leave. This case invovles charges filed well after the fact. As I said, perhaps you reflexively like to see the coercive arm of the state called in to take official action in such matter, I tend to reflexively be hesitant to see that. I think there were many administrative ways to punish the group for ruining the event.

            1. No. you just see thugish behavior by people you like and want to justify it. Just because they didn’t arrest them at the time, doesn’t mean charges should never be filed. If we would start arresting people for shit like this, our civil discourse would be a lot better off.

              1. Er, John, in your lust for arresting people you may have missed this from my first post:

                ” I support the suspension, if they didn’t like the speech they could have held their own, they don’t have the right to disrupt it.”

                I don’t support them, they’re creeps and they deserve punishment. I’m just reluctant for that punishment to be a criminal charge, but that doesn’t mean that they can complain a lot even about that imo.

                You can go back to getting a boner over siccing cops on folks now, conservative.

              2. Exactly. This is why we should have rounded up the teabaggers the instant they started to get out there and question health reform. How many people would still be alive today?

          2. “How do you deal with them? Beat them up?”

            There is the option to just fucking deal with it when other people exercise their rights in a way that inconveniences or annoys you. Speak louder, or speak on private property and remove them if can’t play nice.

        3. I agree with MNG. There’s no need for cops.

          I was at a play in San Francisco a few years ago and this really drunk woman kept yelling stuff during the performance. And while no one did anything about it, which really sucked, but I find that preferable to having the cops bust her for disturbing the performance.

      2. Ah, Israel, music to my ears. This is like when the Black Panthers came to my school and white people were arrested for wearing makeup and dressing up as ghosts.

      3. The charges aren’t too much, as long as every other body of students who disrupted any speech by any figure anywhere in the US any time covered by current statutes of limitation for that kind of thing are also going to be charged.

        I personally guarantee you that a bunch of Jewish students protesting at a speech by Ahmadinejad would not be similarly charged.

        1. Ibet they would. If they showed up and disrupted the event they would. And further, we don’t have to charge everyone. We have let this crap go on for decades now and allowed people to shout down other people. Enough is enough, arrest anyone who disrupts a public event. If they want to make a political statement, getting arrested is a good one. So everyone wins.

          1. And the first people we need to arrest are those teabagger libertarians who shouted down OUR elected representatives under orders from the insurance corporations.

        2. I have no problem with this. In fact, why don’t you Google up some stories of Jewish students disrupting a planned speech so we can point to a particular case.

          1. As I recall, the JSA was moderately polite when Farrakhan was speaking at Johns Hopkins about 20 years ago. They asked pointed questions and protested outside, but that was about it.

          2. Would you advocate charges filed against the libertarians who heckled Cheney and Rummy at CPAC?

            1. Did they prevent the speakers from speaking? That’s my bright line test.

              1. What? Speakers vary in sensitivity, what would make one stop might not make another stop. I don’t think that is a good test.

                1. Why cater to the mob? If the time and place of a speaker are pre-arranged and the hall lawfully rented, they can protest outside or they can come in and listen. They can’t come in and disrupt. I’m not an intentionalist. I don’t care what they were or weren’t trying to do. My test is: Did they stop a person, who had gained permission from the owner of a property to speak, from expressing his or her views to other interested parties?

                  1. If this had been a private university, that would be true.

              2. Couldn’t security or law enforcement just escort the dirupters off of the property and charge them with trespassing if they try to return.

                Arresting people for disrupting a public gathering rubs me the wrong way. Seems like one of those laws that could all sorts of (un?)intended consequences.

                I guess it depends on what your aims are. My aim would be to have the people speaking be able to do so and trouble makers forced out. If you seek punishment for disruption(definition please, an offending sign perhaps) then what John is advocating would be appropriate.

          3. Google is not helpful, unfortunately, because of the 50 billion News hits related to “protestors” and “arrests”.

      4. They were already suspended. Leave it at that for now. If they disrupt another one in the future, then pursue charges.

  7. MNG, what have you done with Johnny Longtorso?

    1. I have subsumed him!

      1. I have only vague memories of my captivity under MNG. Why can’t I get the song “My Sharona” out of my head?

        1. Did he make you watch The Golden Girls too?

          1. Still bitter about that?

            1. It’s my Alamo.

              1. Then you’d be dead, wouldn’t you?

                1. capitol said he was playing the part of Santa Ana

        2. It could be worse – he could have prepped you with Good Girls Don’t.

  8. Washington Post: Why 33 rounds makes sense in a defensive weapon

    LA Times: Guns tracked by firearms bureau found at firefight scene
    …As the allegations have come to light, gun dealers across the southwest border have said the ATF has for years been quietly gathering information about questionable multiple purchases and even asking gun dealers to gather information, including descriptions and license plate numbers of suspicious buyers.

    Dick DeGuerin, who represents Houston gun dealer Bill Carter, owner of Carter Country, said the company is now being threatened with a federal indictment as a result of multiple sales to purported straw purchasers ? sales he said were not only reported to the ATF, but which federal agents encouraged Carter Country employees to complete.

    “What’s going on now is some of these agents are scared of their own careers, and are afraid to own up to the fact that they encouraged Carter Country to go through with these sales,” DeGuerin said. “The breakdown came with, what did the ATF do with the information that Carter Country was delivering to them? Apparently, they didn’t do much.”…

    1. BATFE could fuck up a bowel movement. If they were completely infiltrated by a foreign power attempting to turn Americans against Feds they would do less damage.

      1. Isn’t this one of Robert Conquest’s laws of politics?

        1. Yeah. Probably just a corollary of “the best way to predict the actions of a bureaucracy is to assume it is being run by a cabal of its enemies.”

    2. For FUCK’S sake – a bait and switch from ATF? Whoda thunk it?

      Fucking….fuck! God they suck…

      1. Is that a poem?

    3. Wasn’t BATF the agency quoted in the story about the undercover agent who, after suing the agency for some reason, had his cover blown to the gang he had infiltrated and his house got burned down with his family inside?

      Christ, even as federal jackboots go, what a worthless fucking agency.

  9. I need a camera installed in the back of my head so I can see which politician is effing me in the a each day. Am I right, people?

    1. Do you really want to know?

      1. They’re not that attractive – but they don’t like it when people watch.

    1. For: 233 GOP, 15 Dem
      Against: 4 GOP, 172 Dem

      Good for Ron Paul, one of the few GOPers voting nay.

      1. Good for the Democrats who can now cast meaningless votes that they know won’t make any difference. They had two years of a 59 vote majority in the Senate and a huge majority in the house and the President. They did nothing. Now they cast votes they know won’t make a difference to give people like you talking points. Woo Hoo.

        1. I fucking hate both parties.

        2. Yeah whatever John, TEAM RED RAH RAH RAH!

        3. TEAM BLUE BOOOOOOOOOOOO

          1. I think that’s a false equivalence. I will readily tell you when not only the Dems (cap and trade, Obamacare, high speed rail [WTF?], etc) are wrong imo, but also when liberals are wrong (on guns, affirmative action, eminent domain, etc). But hey, bias is in the eye of the beholder to a certain extent, I’m not going to argue about it.

            I’ll also admit that for libertarians the GOP is simply better on some issues than the Democrats. They are less likely to restrict gun rights, to regulate business and to raise taxes. Unlike some of the GOPers around here I have no interest in duping libertarians into voting for Democrats. Hell, I only voted Democratic about 50% of the time in my life.

            1. How did the votes break down when the Democrats controlled both houses? Frankly, I think a good number of Democrats don’t want the responsibility of actually voting down the Patriot Act (just in case, you know, something happens afterward). Both parties are guilty of this sort of thing–welfare sucks, GOP expands it while in power. Patriot Act sucks, Democrats vote to extend it while in power.

              1. I think the majority of politicians seek power merely to posture themselves to seek more power later.

                Very few actually seem committed to using their power to implement policy changes that reflect coherent world view.

                The only time in recent memory that I can think of a group of politicians bucking public sentiment to actually enact a major political goal was Obamacare. Even that really doesn’t count, because the people that drove that monstrosity through to conclusion really believed that public sentiment would change.

                The vast majority of politicians are attention whores and nothing.

              2. Overall vote for 2010 renewals in the house was 315-97-20 with Democrats voting 162-87-5 in 2010 – that’s 64% support among Democrats alone. Total bipartisan pro-Patriot Act blowout.

                It’s hard to look at the reversal as anything but partisan obstructionism (which given the quality of legislation over the last 10 or so years is generally a good thing these days). It’s not anticipated that there is going to be any problem getting the reauthorization through the Senate or White House – Feinstein has introduced a bill that reauthorizes the provisions to Dec 2013 rather than just for a year and that’s also the date Obama is pushing. I’m guessing the Democrats don’t want a vote on it during the 2012 primary season – better to give their base a year to forget that they’re fucking them on the issue.

                1. As for the senate in 2010 – voice vote, unanimous consent, even Feingold.

                  1. Problem is that the Dem base will only remember the feigned opposition, not the actual support.

                    Same goes for the GOP base on their “But we’re different!” issues.

        4. I don’t get it John, at least they are on record for being against. That seems to mean something to you only when a republican does it.

        5. John, let me put it this way, too bad there wasn’t enought republicans to vote against it so it would have failed. Regardless of what you think the dems are doing to look good to a base, those provisions were renewed because of the republican vote.

          1. And they were renewed for 2-4 years in a row with Democrat votes. What’s your point?

            Both parties suck, as a few others have already said. If they’re not blatant flip-floppers and opportunists then they are just plain stupid.

            1. “”Both parties suck,””

              That’s part of my point, the other is how partisan John is being about the issue by focusing on what the Ds did and not what the Rs did. They both suck. It was a bi-partisan bill to begin with, the Rs had plenty of time to make changes when they held 2/3s of government. The Ds could have done it too. But the current reauthorization is because of how the Rs voted, not the Ds.

              Or perhaps I’m looking at this the wrong way by thinking John is against the reauthorization.

              If you buy into the notion that the Ds are being dishonest in their vote, wouldn’t it have been great if enough republicans voted against it so it would not have been reauthorized, suprising the Ds that voted against it?

          2. If there were enough Republican votes against it for it to fail, the necessary number of Democrat votes would easily have been “found” to get it to pass.

            There are some real differences between the parties, but this is not one of them.

            1. “”the necessary number of Democrat votes would easily have been “found” to get it to pass.””

              That’s a big assumption on your part.

    2. Re: Corduroy,

      Patriot Act passes last night

      Wait…what? I thought the science was settled!

    1. Yeah, but she was Canadian. Shouldn’t her response be something like, “I understand why they did what they did I just wish it didn’t happen to me”?

      Some of the Canadians I’ve met seem to have no problem having their rights steamrolled, eh, Americans too.

      1. I’m just trying to reinforce the newly agreed upon definition of the word Weigel, which means “cavity search”.

  10. Thank God Johnny Longtorso showed up! I thought MNG had completed a hostile takeover or something.

    *standing in front of a mirror*

    Also – Friday “Funnies”, Friday “Funnies”….FRIDAY “FUNNIES”!!!!!

    *waits…*

    1. A comment or two in last week’s Friday Funnies [sic] may have crossed a line for the Reason political cartoonists.

      1. Last week’s “cartoon” used that stoopid ass style where the humans have a flat head and their noses protrude from the top of the forehead. It looks like a giant penis with eyes.

        I don’t know why cartoonists are so fond of freudian anthropomorphism. Maybe if Payne spent some more time working on the “Funny” and less on trying to make people look like giant dicks, then he might not get skewered so badly.

        1. Forgot:

          Staal = Beast

  11. Just for Radley. Illinois State Troopers try to cover up details of fatal accident involving a cop.

    http://www.sj-r.com/top-storie…..crash-case

    1. Authorities say state trooper Matt Mitchell was driving 126 mph, talking on his cell phone and e-mailing when he caused the crash that killed 18-year-old Jessica Uhl and 13-year-old Kelli Uhl of Collinsville on Nov. 23, 2007. He is seeking worker’s compensation because of injuries suffered in the wreck, claiming the crash has left him with limited mobility.

      1. Use this fucker as a pinata and stop beating when his fucking spleen falls out.

        Oh, excuse me, is that hateful rhetoric. I hope it is.

      2. If they had been my daughters, he wouldn’t need worker’s comp or BarryCare.

        1. Death is too kind a punishment for some people. They really need to experience “the pain”.

      3. He is seeking worker’s compensation because of injuries suffered in the wreck, claiming the crash has left him with limited mobility.

        If he’s still mobile, he hasn’t been punished enough.

        Seriously, we need to build a new inner circle of Hell for these degenerates.

    2. Someone brought this up yesterday.

      Remember: accidentally hit a cop, go to prison for 15 years. Cop neglegently hits you, worker’s comp.

      1. From the article,”Mitchell resigned from his job last year after he pleaded guilty of two counts of reckless homicide in a deal for 30 months of probation.”

        Must be nice. I’m sure I’d get 30 months probation if I drove 130 and killed two people. Was he on an emergency call? Will dunphy come in and keep claiming that cops don’t get special treatment when they fuck up?

        1. THEY’RE NOT DRIVING EXPERTS! Yes, the have licenses, but that doesn’t make the EXPERTS!!!11!1!11

  12. Saw a unique — and incredible depressing — argument yesterday against the construction of a Wal-mart in DC.

    “Brenda Speaks, a Ward 4 ANC commissioner, actually urged blocking construction of the planned store in her ward at Georgia and Missouri avenues NW partly because of that risk. Addressing a small, anti-Wal-Mart rally at City Hall on Monday, Speaks said young people would get criminal records when they couldn’t resist the temptation to steal.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..0111705954

    1. That cheap shit is just too tempting.

    2. Walmart is one word. No hyphen. No star. Just Walmart. Thank you.

      1. I liked them better back in the hyphen days.

    3. Did anyone point out how fucking racist her arguement was?

      “These black kids just can’t resist the shiney things.”

      1. “What are they going to put in it?”

        Anvils. And books.

    4. ” Ward 4 ANC commissioner”

      African national Congress?

  13. Dude, if you add Senator Jeff Flake to accompany Senator Rand Paul, Senator Tom Coburn, Senator Jim DeMint, and Senator Pat Toomey, you have the beginnings of some sort of “fiscal sanity” contingent.

    1. I was thinking about the same think. Plus, Flake’s positions on interventionist foreign policy, Cuba and immigration make him a pretty acceptable Senator. Actually, I can see myself donating to his campaign.

    2. I was thinking about the same thing, maybe there’s the critical mass in place to start influencing some stuff, especially if the republicans need their votes to build majorities – which is a possible-to-likely scenario in the next session. Additionally , Flake’s positioning on stuff like foreign/defense policy, Cuba, immigration and DADT makes him quite acceptable from my point of view.

      Heh, I may end up donating to a blue/red establishment candidate for the first time in some time.

    3. You don’t change the Senate. The Senate changes you.

      1. @Fist

        Truer words…

      2. When you stare into the face of the Senate, it stares back at you.

        Or maybe just outlaws staring at elected officials.

  14. There is an unholy (but hardly unique) alliance between “concerned mothers” and the cops on the medical marijuana issue. The cops, of course, are chomping at the bit to bust hippy heads, and the people who fled teh DrugGangz of California are now attempting to make dope more profitable, guaranteeing the presence of criminals in the market.

    If there has been any increase in crime directly attributable to increased availability of dope, I have never seen any evidence of it.

    1. If there has been any increase in crime directly attributable to increased availability of dope, I have never seen any evidence of it.

      That’s because you’re not an idiot.

    2. not all moms are concerned…

  15. Here’s a happy story, for a change – sorta.

    Jury gets so miffed that the prosecution even brought charges against this kid that some of the jurors want to give the kid their juror pay. They say they don’t believe the alleged attack even occurred at all and are fed up with the incompetence of their prosecutors.

    1. They could be far more productive voting out the douche prosecutor, and most productive spending time working for his next opponent’s campaign.

    2. Last November, The Plain Dealer reported that Cuyahoga County Prosecutor William Mason had pursued criminal charges against hundreds of people over the last 10 years with little or no evidence against them.

      Time for a promotion and raise!

  16. Freshman Republicans push for deeper spending cuts.

    But they could end up making “too many” cuts off “important” “federal programs”! “Some” economists said so!

    1. That’s ok, we’ll adapt.

  17. I couldn’t bear to watch for more than a minute, or so, but-

    Jesse Jackson on Morning Joe, muttering incoherently about evil guns. As for Mister Heller, he apparently is an ignorant dupe race traitor.

    Most surprising thing: Brokaw was the one asking about Heller. Maybe he just drew the short straw, and was forced to be Devil’s Advocate.

    1. Re: P Brooks,

      Jesse Jackson on Morning Joe, muttering incoherently about evil guns. As for Mister Heller, he apparently is an ignorant dupe race traitor.

      Any black American that does not march at the sound of the Black Establishment’s drum is automatically a race traitor… in the mind of the Black Establishment.

  18. You don’t change the Senate. The Senate changes you.

    Thurmond, Byrd, Kennedy… it’s a start.

    1. You’re right. Its much better without the zombies.

  19. Sounds like they may well be onto something dude.

    http://www.anonymize.edu.tc

    1. OMG. She was never exactly gorgeous. But she always kind of had something about her. What the hell happened to her lips? Did someone attack her with a silicone gun?

      1. Collagen injections, probably. Was there some woman who had collagen injections and ended up with amazing lips? What drives this? You always seem to end up looking like a retarded duck.

        1. Some say Angelina Jolie set an impossible standard, but I suspect it was Jessica Rabbit.

        2. I’m with you. I can’t think of a single collagen injection that’s gone well. Maybe there are a couple subtle ones I haven’t noticed, but mostly it just looks like someone punched them in the mouth.

    2. mean-spirited drug addict arrested after missing four court dates related to a ticket she received for failing to control her horses.

      are “horses” slang for something? like as in “hold your horses”?

      1. “Horse” was or is slang for heroin. I know this and other useful information from The Hardy Boys Detective Handbook, which I owned as a wee lad.

        1. I’ve been through the desert on a horse with no name
          It felt good to be out of the rain
          In the desert you can remember your name
          ‘Cause there ain’t no one for to give you no pain

          1. La la laaaa laaaa la lala la
            La la Laaaa la

    3. Ever hear the clip of her calling into a radio station? This was sometime in the past year or two. She’s insane.

    4. You never wanna go full Nick Nolte…

  20. Several people on the Politico link kept saying that the Republican freshmen weren’t “acting like men” because they refused to compromise. So apparently real men don’t stick to their promises or principles?

    Then again, there were also several people who criticized the Republicans for not cutting the defense budget despite the article stating that $16 billion of the cuts were from defense.

    1. I better get off there before I blow a gasket. House Dems think Thomas should recuse himself because of his wife. The letter doesn’t mention Kagan who was involved with the law herself.

  21. Did anyone catch the season 2 premiere of “Justified”?

    1. Yep. Apparently Raylan’s opponents this season are the bad guys from the Goonies. Also, what’s the deal with the ex-wife? The hot blonde gf wasn’t hot enough for the sex interest? Oooh, maybe Ava will shoot his ex. That’s a season ender right there.

      1. I caught the premier and was mostly lost for the first ten minutes or so. Never saw the show before, but Dish finally added FX to the standard package. So now I have to go buy the Season 1 DVD set and play catch-up.

      2. I dunno, the more Natalie Zea the better I guess.

      3. I’m going to have to check Justified out, based on 1) the commercials and 2) my wife’s sneering disapproval of the commercials.

  22. Uh… WTF happened to D’arcy Wretzky?

    That guy is a mess.

  23. So apparently real men don’t stick to their promises or principles?

    Not when those principles are plainly wrong, and do not advance the cause of Progressivism.

    1. What if those principles involve fighting the Chinese menace of 2019?

      1. It’s too late! China will CRUSH you!

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

        1. OK, see, that’s cause China be sucker punchin’. They do that all that time. So, see, Ima come out and stick and jab and I’ll be movin’, so that ain’t gonna work this time, China.

  24. season 2 premiere of “Justified”

    I eagerly await the episode in which that fat broad gets ground into paste by a large piece of coal mining equipment.

    1. Peggy Rea died today.

      1. Sorry, useless info. Different fat broad.

  25. What if those principles involve fighting the Chinese menace of 2019?

    Surrender your pathetic dream of repelling the Yellow Peril, and kowtow to your wily oriental masters, fool!

    1. I for one welcome our dog eating overlords.

      1. I prefere dog, eating-overlords. Good boy!

  26. Here’s a good one.

    Drug czar justifies shooting your pet and violent drug raids by claiming America was founded on violence.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailyc…..50ZXJ2aQ–

    1. Hey, they aren’t experts or anything.

    2. His comments about pills at the end were great. Apparently it’s a bad thing that people get professional, legal drugs where they can be assured of purity and dosage and so on? Like, it’s good that illegal drugs kill their users? Unless I misunderstood.

      Also, I learned that minorities feel oppressed because drug warriors call their policy a “War on Drugs”. If they called it a “Nation-building Police Action on Drugs”, presumably they would ignore all the shit that the cops are giving them.

      1. “”Nation-building Police Action on Drugs”, “”

        That’s funny. Perhaps we should give them blue helmets to wear.

  27. Nice.

    KERLIKOWSKE: One thing that’s helpful to understand is that the Institute of Medicine has said that smoked marijuana ? inhaling smoke ? is not something that we would use in medicine.

    TheDC: Because of carcinogens?

    Because a patient who ALREADY HAS CANCER should first and foremost be concerned about the risk of getting cancer.

    Fuck, these guys are morons.

  28. Looks like Hoser Mubarak is gone.

  29. Mubarak’s gone. Left the country just now. http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/…..1&iref=BN1

  30. Fuck CPAC for throwing this man off stage:

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo…..-stage.php

    1. His 15 minutes were up. He got applause.

  31. Mubarak left the country? Just yesterday, I saw him say he would NEVEEEEEERRRRRRR leave Egypt.

    Is he moving into Bernie Madoff’s old place?

    1. Re: P Brooks,

      Mubarak left the country? Just yesterday, I saw him say he would NEVEEEEEERRRRRRR leave Egypt.

      Most likely a distraction, by saying “I won’t leave! What are you gonna do about it, huh?” while he was packing his things and leaving through the back door, leaving the protestors wondering what to do next…

    2. He left, and the military is in power. How does that usually workout?

      Whether or not it’s a good thing has yet to be determined.

  32. Remeber how excited the Bush admin was about the Gaza going to the polls?

    And how did that turn out?

    http://www.jewishaz.com/jewish…..amas.shtml

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.