Reason Morning Links: Continued Protests in Mideast, CBS Reporter Assaulted in Egypt, the GOP's Birther Problem

|

NEXT: Got to Be Free

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. Are we at war with Mexico, or the Narcos? Has the engagement ever been given a catchy “shock and awe” or “operation linebacker” approach?

      I think we need to name the conflict to win it. We need tanks and dead mexicans, not walls and dead Americans.
      Once we bring the heat, mexico won’t be a problem anymore.

      1. How about end the war on drugs? No? Too soon?

        Yeah, dead mexicans are probably preferable to stoned Americans.

        1. Drug warriors are not biased by ethnicity or national origin. Dead Americans of all stripes are just as welcome as dead Mexicans.

      2. Once we bring the heat, mexico won’t be a problem anymore.

        You *might* enjoy this video.

        (Warning: Perhaps a little early in the day to truly appreciate it.)

        1. MOAB goes boom, shit goes flat.

      3. ” think we need to name the conflict to win it.”

        THE WEED WARS!

    2. Isn’t he just an American in Mexico? There’s no mention of him being in uniform or targeted specifically for being an ICE agent.

      1. Is it normal for Americans to be stopped at fake military checkpoints on Mexican highways and then shot dead in their car?

        I certainly hope not; that sort of thing could be pretty bad for Mexico’s tourism industry.

        1. Re: Mike M.

          Is it normal for Americans to be stopped at fake military checkpoints on Mexican highways and then shot dead in their car?

          It’s now normal for ANYBODY to be stopped at fake checkpoints. To be shot, you would have to refuse giving the perps your vehicle, your money and/or your teenage daughter(s).

          1. Wait, are we talking about America or Mexico?

            1. In a few more years, what difference will it make?

  1. Hasbro executives also say that young players do not want to bother with reading instructions and toss rules aside.

    We can relate to that.

  2. Logan was covering the celebrations for CBS’s “60 Minutes” program on February 11 when she and her team were surrounded by “a mob of more than 200 people whipped into a frenzy.”

    … a little people, a silly people – greedy, barbarous, and cruel …

    1. Sadly, it is our burden to civilize them, by force if need be.

  3. Gaddafi is certainly a bastard who should be to be overthrown. What I find interesting ‘though is that his government is the only one in the region which came up with a ratioal response to rising food prices: Abolish taxes and custom duties on food.

  4. “Curveball” admits to fabricating story of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which led to the Iraq war.

    The Bush administration should have listened to the advice of Machiavelli: never take the word of defectors at face value.

    1. Lies! It’s all lies!

      Oh wait, no, it doesn’t matter now.

      The end justifies the means! The end justifies the means!

    2. People are desperate to hear what they want to hear.

      Cheney and Rumsfeld should have been lynched at CPAC for this fact alone. Putting so much stock in such a dubious figure…..

  5. The monopoly overseer ruins the best part of monopoly, cheating. Libertarians seem to live in a fantasy land where people never cheat in business. From my extensive monopoly experience I maintain that if you are cheating you aren’t trying to succeed.

    Then again, no one should ever admit to cheating in monopoly.

    1. Libertarians seem to live in a fantasy land where people never cheat in business.

      Some do, perhaps. But most of us realize that government also cheats, and they have the army, the police, and the courts to back them up when they do so.

      1. The “government” are your neighbors. Blame the humans for cheating, not a faceless entity.

        1. The “government” are your neighbors. Blame the humans for cheating, not a faceless entity.

          Only if you live in DC. They are nameless faceless bureaucrats to me.

          1. Then replace them with Watson. How would one bribe a computer?

            1. How would one bribe a computer?

              promise a little overclocking on the side?

              1. duh- wd-40 warmed, massaged in slowly

            2. Offer to repeatedly plug and unplug the USB ports?
              “Recognize. Recognize! RECOGNIZE!!!”

              1. Hit the enter key over and over, faster and slower…

                1. Ctrl + Insert.

                  Insert..Insert..Insert…Pause…Insert…Insert…Shift…Break

                  End

                  Esc

                  1. what do you do to prevent catching a virus?

                    1. Esc Esc Esc Esc Esc!!!!

    2. From my extensive monopoly experience I maintain that if you are cheating you aren’t trying to succeed.

      Now *that’s* cheating!

    3. So cheating is ok as long as you don’t get caught?

      1. It’s a simple cost/benefit analysis. Risk of getting caught versus reward for cheating. People respond to incentives, yah dig?

        1. That cudgel swings both ways.

        2. You are a subtle and devious troll. Please to stick around.

        3. Cost/benefit analysis ignores morals and externalities like the harm done to young impressionable minds and emotional distress of both losers and the cheater. There should be a regulation against cheating at board games.

          1. Show us on the game board where the bad person cheated you.

            1. Right on the top hat!

    4. I think libertarians are probably more likely to play Illimunati and cheating is specifically encouraged in its rules.

      With the number of great board games available, only dolts play Monopoly.

      1. Illuminati is a board game? and nobody told me!?!?

        1. Well, if you’d ever bothered to learn how to use the official decoder ring…

        2. It even has a Libertarian card.

    5. …and so you think that another set of humans should be made to watch over all parties and dictate the terms of engagement in every case? Libertarians believe that individuals can punish cheaters as well as the government in many cases and without the risk of a third party cheating both out of money in the name of “fairness”

      1. …and so you think that another set of humans should be made to watch over all parties and dictate the terms of engagement in every case?

        We already have them: Attorneys.

        1. you know you don’t have to submit to the will of an attorney. The process is still voluntary. Submission to government has never been voluntary.

          1. Your right! From what pool of people are judges selected?

            And, pray tell, what course of study has a prosecutor completed?

            I did forget about those police, too. Must have had the vapors.

      2. another set of humans should be made to watch over all parties and dictate the terms of engagement in every case

        That’s your takeaway? No I neither think that nor did I type that.

        I’m saying that people have enourmous incentives to cheat. Perhaps instead of punishing cheaters and hoping the stakes have been sufficiently raised we should look at the environment that produces these incentives. I think powerful groups such as corporations, unions, even the government are complicit in creating and maintaining this environment.

        I think this is akin to what you folks call rent-seeking. I think it’s cheating. But hey, it’s what any responsible business-type person would do for their interests.

        1. it’s what any responsible business-type person would do for their interests

          False. If your interests extend beyond a single transaction, you have a huge incentive not to cheat.

        2. This isn’t any different than how a typical libertarian thinks. Not sure where you got your strawman libertarian who thinks business people don’t ever cheat.

        3. Re: Sarah Korneberg,

          I’m saying that people have enourmous incentives to cheat.

          You’re right, which explains why people go into government – to cheat.

          Perhaps instead of punishing cheaters and hoping the stakes have been sufficiently raised we should look at the environment that produces these incentives.

          The incentives are called “regulations”. Once you set them in stone, everybody suddenly has a reference point whence to cheat.

          DON’T code them, and people will BE on the lookout for cheats. CODE THEM, and you have moral hazards (“But the code is RIGHT THERE! How could he have cheated? Who can you trust?”)

          I think powerful groups such as corporations, unions, even the government are complicit in creating and maintaining this environment.

          Correct one out of three – guess which one?

          I think this is akin to what you folks call rent-seeking. I think it’s cheating.

          Rent-seeking is asking the government to create Da Rulez that JUST HAPPEN to give you an advantage over others, all of a sudden. So it’s not cheating (bending the rules), it’s RENT-SEEKING.

          1. OM, when you want to emphasize something first put with an “i” in the middle of the brackets. Then write the text you’d like emphasized. Then type with a “/i” in the middle of the brackets.

            1. Brackets didn’t show up: < >

            2. Re: Zoltan,

              Why can’t I use uppercase AND bracket-i at the very SAME time???

              1. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

        4. “Perhaps instead of punishing cheaters and hoping the stakes have been sufficiently raised we should look at the environment that produces these incentives”

          In the context of monopoly, what exactly do you mean? The game is the incentive to cheat. How can you fix the environment, short of not playing? And isn’t not playing more self-destructive than simply being vigilant and punishing cheaters harshly?

          1. Want to play Global Thermonuclear War?

            1. As long as we can play with the expansion pack: Mutually Assured Destruction

    6. Re: Sarah Korneberg,

      Libertarians seem to live in a fantasy land where people never cheat in business.

      This is one of the most idiotic things I have ever read, and I’ve read quite a few idiotic things.

      Hey, subnormal: Libertarians do not think people never cheat. NOBODY thinks that, except maybe little children and statist fucks (when the cheaters are beloved government types.)

      From my extensive monopoly experience I maintain that if you are cheating you aren’t trying to succeed.

      You mean you tried to cheat? Or you tried to succeed?

      1. Typos are confusing, no? Perhaps one could see that my caffeine deprived mind was trying some variation of “if you ain’t hustlin’ you ain’t tryin'”

        But no, you pedantic response is much better.

        1. Re: Sarah Korneberg,

          But no, you pedantic response is much better.

          Your red herrings are delicious.

          Anyway, back to logic – any other strawmans to fling like chimps fling shit, Sarah?

        2. Typos = Lazyness, sloppywork.

          Back when I was in school this type of thing would be an automatic half-letter grade deduction. Fine for a blogpost but don’t get pissy when readers are confused.

        3. Sarah are you affiliated with CMU?

    7. Business cheat and can be held accountable to the rules. Government cheats and is held accountable by the rules by making whatever rules it wants.

      Rule #1 Per Top Gear: Cheat, then cheat some more, then cheat a little more. (line at the very end)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouCCJ51Xmu8

    8. In my Monopoly games, I always play the Federal Reserve.

    9. The monopoly overseer ruins the best part of monopoly, cheating. Libertarians seem to live in a fantasy land where people never cheat in business. From my extensive monopoly experience I maintain that if you are cheating you aren’t trying to succeed.

      Then again, no one should ever admit to cheating in monopoly.

      Sheer ignorance canned like Spam. Libertarians are economic realist, and developed regulatory capture theory that is the best predictor to understanding the sway of agency action ever devised. This is a markedly different approach than that of naive liberals who take the mission statements of agencies and GES at face value. That makes them the world’s biggest saps.

  6. Nyaaah nyah nyah nyaaah nyah!

  7. I like the pairing of the South Dakota bill and the birther poll, because believing that the South Dakota bill will make it legal to kill abortion doctors is not any saner than being a birther. It’s no different than all the “killing a wanted fetus is homicide” laws, none of which have been applied to abortion doctors (and none would stand up in court as such), but have applied to things like beating a woman so that she loses her baby.

    1. The baby isn’t alive unless it is wanted, so it isn’t killing.

      1. Re: Susan,

        The baby isn’t alive unless it is wanted, so it isn’t killing.

        Ergo, you’re not alive unless I want you, so it would not be killing.

        1. Ergo, you’re not alive unless I want you, so it would not be killing.

          Soooo, that little “death panel” kerfuffle was just semantics?

          Does this work for ending marriages too?

          1. Does this work for ending marriages too?

            I think you have to say “I divorce thee” three times.

            1. No. You just have to jump over the broom backwards.

    2. I’m assuming it would only apply in cases of imminent danger, like any other killing, anyway. So if you follow someone (who is carrying your child or grandchild) to the abortion clinic and she gets all strapped in, you can start your shooting spree, but you can’t just kill them because they might give her an abortion at some point, nor can you kill them in revenge for having giving her an abortion. Still, obviously not good for pro-choicers. It’s rational, though, for a given definition of “person” that includes some or all fetuses.

  8. Rules are a manifestation of patriarchal oppression!

    1. Not when you are married, then it is matriarchal oppression.

    2. Yup, just like the menstrual cycle, oh, and pregnancy. And fucking magnets.

      1. Pregnancy is 100% preventable dear.

        1. Re: Sovereign Inmunity,

          Pregnancy is 100% preventable dear.

          One wise woman in Geraldo’s audience (back when Geraldo was a talkshow host, or at least I think he was playing one), told another woman that the pill was an effective contraception method, just by placing the pill between the knees and holding it there…

          (Yes, she was calling the other woman a whore, but in a very delicious way!)

          1. Yes, it is sugar. I have yet to get pregnant, and it’s not from rebuffing male attentions…

            1. lucky you but I know plenty of woman who got the bullet

              1. No luck involved. The lo-lovera is a godsend, and the “no glove, no love” policy is strictly enforced.

                I’d be willing to be those “plenty of women” were willing yet made poor choices. Ride bareback and you risk saddle sores, sugar.

                1. “I’d be willing to bet…”

                  1. Catfight! Catfight!

            2. So you take it up the ass then?

              1. Certainly no risk of pregnancy there!

          2. Re: rather,

            No it isn’t honey

            You’re right – just ask the Virgin Mary.

        2. I used to think that, too.

        3. Pregnancy is 100% preventable dear.

          Wrong, and enough with the annoying “dear” and “honey”. You are apparently unfamiliar with the possibility of pregnancy through sexual assault.

          1. Re: zoltan,

            You are apparently unfamiliar with the possibility of pregnancy through sexual assault.

            Or immaculate conception – there’s that risk as well…

          2. You are apparently unfamiliar with the possibility of pregnancy through sexual assault.

            I am aware of that possibility zoltan, and fortunately it hasn’t happened to me.

            Pregnancy related to consensual sex is 100% preventable, if you wish clarification.

            But I believe you groked exactly what I meant.

            1. Learn to type your actual thought instead of expecting people to read your mind, moron.

          3. A razor blade sticking out of the vagina should take care of that possibility.

            1. Why risk an injury when the animal can be stopped forever with a shot to the head? Better there’s one more dead rapist in the world than wasting taxpayer dollars in prison.

      2. And fucking magnets.

        You’re learning 😉

        1. Well, she certainly can’t get pregnant that way…unless…

          YOU’RE REALLY JULIE CHRISTIE

  9. “an infrared tower with a speaker issues instructions, keeps track of money and makes sure players adhere to the rules.”

    So can we install this infrared device in the Washington monument and replace congress with it? I’m quite sure it would be a vast improvement even if (or perhaps especially if) it did nothing.

    1. Would skynet be worse than congress?

      I don’t know, I’ll ask Watson.

    2. The Eye of Sauron knows all!

    3. I’m quite sure it would be a vast improvement even if (or perhaps especially if) it did nothing.

      American History, published c. 2075, excerpt:

      “The great American golden age came to an abrupt end in 2063 when an unappreciated bureaucrat discovered that The Washington Overseer had crashed immediately after its installation three decades prior. Foolishly hoping to be relevant once again, he rebooted the machine and ushered in The Glorious Machine Revolution. All Hail Siliconicus Cestus, long live the Emperor, Pax Binaralis.”

      Copyright 2075, Skynet ePublishing

  10. well GOP primary voters are stupid

    1. Re: rather,

      well GOP primary voters are stupid

      Another insighful and well thought out conclusion from rather.

      You are progressing – from Kindergarden to 1st grade Elementary thinking.

      1. fukc off helle- and get my dammed cofee

        1. Re: rather,
          It’s time for your Haldol, honey… you’re already having alucinations.

          1. OM, if that were me I would have said:

            helle, get my coffee bitch.

          2. im righting a blog post about u todday- OM. .

            1. Re: rathre,

              im righting a blog post about u todday- OM. .

              Don’t forget to slowly add gravel to the hole while righting that post, rathre…

              1. OM, don’t tell me you fell for the spoof-fuck! I thought you were one of the smart posters-;-(

                1. Re: rather,

                  OM, don’t tell me you fell for the spoof-fuck!

                  Can’t you read??? I CLEARLY replied to rathre, not YOU, rather.

                  Sheesh! Your skin is extra thin this morning! Must be that time of the month…

              2. bitch, youd kil to get inside my whole, OM-

                1. BTW little boy-don’t use my handle and my post together-pick one; these libertards aren’t smart enough to know a spoof when they read it.

                  1. < i>BTW little boy-don’t use my handle and my post together-pick one; these libertards aren’t smart enough to know a spoof when they read it.i/>

                    is that why u keep spooffing me helle? fuck off btch

            2. Funny but I do have a blog post on an OM comment-is that you helle? Did you climb into my vagina again? Get the fuck out!

              1. Did you climb into my vagina again?

                Science that must be one gaping hole if a person can climb inside and you not even know about it!

                1. Re: Marshall Gill,

                  Science that must be one gaping hole if a person can climb inside and you not even know about it!

                  I think we’re simply witnessing rather‘s headvoices speaking through him… in the form of blogposts.

                  1. fukc off helle! I riting about you in my bolg!

        2. I’m still dead, Kitten.

    2. “well GOP primary voters are stupid”

      and how does that make them different from DNC primary voters?

      1. They wear much snappier hats.

      2. AlmightyJB, different name, same bs

        1. I don’t know how stating most people are idiots is bs, I’d like to see evidence otherwise. Not sure what you mean about the different name. I’ve been posting here for years using this same name. I’m not sure who you think I would be UNLESS YOU THINK I’M STEVE SMITH RAPIST EXTRORDINARE.

          1. I have no doubt you have been STEVE SMITH; the meme of the 12year old boy but my reference was to my opinion of partisan politics

  11. Maybe we could subcontract the Securities and Exchange Commission to Hasbro.

  12. South Dakota bill would make killing to protect a fetus “justifiable homicide.”

    No, it is not justifiable. Murder is murder. If I am defending my family from assault, that’s justifiable defense, because it is MY family and I am acting upon another act as IT UNFOLDS, and NOT after the fact.

    Prosecuting a woman for killing a fetus IS justifiable: Murder is STILL murder. But justifying his or her own murder or justifying the killing of a doctor for being a murderer is NOT justified, unless the killer somehow stops a person while in the act of committing a murder (a very unlikely happening.)

    1. So is getting a abortion like ordering a hit?

      1. Re: gaijin97,

        So is getting a abortion like ordering a hit?

        What would be the difference? You’re paying someone to have somebody whacked, cut to pieces and thrown into the river.

    2. I like your posts, but why give a serious answer to this – –

      1. Re: asdf,

        I like your posts, but why give a serious answer to this[…]

        It’s quite simple, asdf: Either I am serious about life being precious (starting with MY OWN), or I am not being serious. If I am willing justify the murder of a human being, regardless of what some people choose to call it (be it unborn baby, or fetus, or three-ring circus), then I would have NO MORAL BASE to defend the keeping of MINE.

        Golden rule: Why me yes, but you zilch? Either ALL human life is precious, or it is NOT. Otherwise, we fall into the fallacy of SPECIAL PLEADING.

        [And I choose the word ‘murder’ carefully, as killing in defense of my life and of my family is NOT murder; killing a person that can’t defend him or herself IS murder.]

        1. (swoon)

          1. Well I, (the father of four) don’t think an early term fetus is a human being. And I’m beginning to wonder about OM.
            When my wife was pregnant with our twins five years ago, we thought very carefully about all the ramifications and decided to have amniocentesis to check for genetic defects. (My wife and I are old people. Don’t tell her I said that.)
            I’m not sure what decision we’d have made had the tests shown a problem.
            But fuck those who would take that decision from my wife and me. Fuck them hard.
            (Fortunately the twins are healthy and beautiful.)

            1. Was the pregnancy planned?

            2. CN, if a child was born with a birth defect, would you kill it?

              When my wife was pregnant her OB/GYN asked about an amniocentesis. I was very thankful I was not present. I would have asked the doctor, why? His response that I might wish to “terminate” a “defective” child, my child, my flesh and blood, would have earned him a severe ass kicking.

              You should tell the children how lucky they are that they didn’t have any defects, because you would have aborted them if they did.

              What kind of sick fuck would murder their own child because it wasn’t perfect?

              1. What kind of sick fuck would murder their own child because it wasn’t perfect?

                It’s quite popular in cultures that put a premium on that XY chromosome business. Such as Asian (read: China) and Islamic cultures.

                1. I guess this sick fuck, Marshall.
                  I, in turn, wonder what kind of sick fuck believes an unthinking mass of tissue is a human being.

                  1. Plus, if you don’t abort them now, some nasty A-Rab will just come along eventually to kill them in the name of Allah. Right, Marshall?

                2. GE almost got kicked out of India entirely for selling too many sonogram machines. The thinking being they were promoting the use of sonograms for gender abortion.

                  Fucking ethics, how does it work?

            3. Re: Citizen Nothing,

              Well I, (the father of four) don’t think an early term fetus is a human being.

              It’s a good thing concepts come to being according to an arbitrary calendar date.

              Look! Today is gravity day!

              I’m not sure what decision we’d have made had the tests shown a problem.

              I am sure you would justify a decision post facto by construing (post facto as well) a child was not really a child.

              Maybe you haven’t noticed, but I do not rely on expediency to justify my principles. That I leave to shysters, con artists, thieves and politicians.

              1. It’s a good thing concepts come to being according to an arbitrary calendar date.

                It’s a good thing you never asked for his reasoning instead of just saying its arbitrary, otherwise you might have to argue honestly.

        2. “Either ALL human life is precious, or it is NOT.”

          a.) Hitler’s life wasn’t precious. I would rejoice if a Jew (or anyone) had assassinated him out of revenge.

          b.) I’m against late term abortion except for risk to life of the mother, but if there is a cluster of human cells with no pain receptors and no brain, how is getting rid of that any different than, say, exfoliation? Liposuction involves removing living human cells as well, and there’s nothing immoral about that.

          Admittedly for me there’s a amorphous gray area in the middle between “cluster of human cells” and “living human being with rights” that I remain largely agnostic on, and believe it is difficult to legislate and enforce as “murder” under that vagueness.

          1. Re: Hobo Chang Ba,

            a.) Hitler’s life wasn’t precious. I would rejoice if a Jew (or anyone) had assassinated him out of revenge.

            That’s your issue, not mine. I would not subscribe to revenge killing. Hitler didn’t kill all 6 million Jews: his followers did, the State apparatus that already existed did. He merely gave the order to the Leviathan. If you want to be “fair”, you would have to ask for the revenge killing of a few million Germans still living after the war was over.

            b.) I’m against late term abortion except for risk to life of the mother, but if there is a cluster of human cells with no pain receptors and no brain, how is getting rid of that any different than, say, exfoliation?

            I agree – no brain, no nerves, no heart, it’s not a person. That describes a zygote, not a fetus, not even an embryo.

            1. So assasinating Hitler while he was in control of the German state would not have been justified?

              You’re off your meds, OM.

    3. Prosecuting a woman for killing a fetus IS justifiable: Murder is STILL murder.

      What about a woman who “indirectly” kills her fetus, like punching herself in the stomach repeatedly, drinking a lot of alcohol or doing a lot of drugs, drinking that abortion tea, etc.? Or being a boxer/wrestler? Should the government legislate against a woman’s lifestyle choices so she doesn’t commit murder?

      1. Re: Zoltan,

        What about a woman who “indirectly” kills her fetus, like punching herself in the stomach repeatedly, drinking a lot of alcohol or doing a lot of drugs, drinking that abortion tea, etc.?

        Depends – if she did not read the health warning in the abortion tea, then she’s safe from liability.

        I’ve seen women in poor countries do shit that would scare the pants off an OSHA inspector, yet they breed like rabbits. NO sir: It is the ACT itself of poking INSIDE the body to GET AT the fetus or baby that constitutes murder, not some indirect action.

        Should the government legislate against a woman’s lifestyle choices so she doesn’t commit murder?

        What, Minority Report? Nope – if the child is born fine, no harm done. It is the ACT itself of POKING inside to GET TO THE CHILD which constitutes MURDER, not some indirect act.

        1. OM, that’s like saying the act of evicting someone of your property is initiating aggression against them.

          1. That suggests the womb is not that baby’s home. Where should s/he live?

            1. When they develop full robowombs that can raise the unborn from the zygote stage, perhaps many women would not choose abortion. Until then, according to pro-life folks, a woman would have no choice but to have the baby. Up until fairly recently, having babies was a very risky activity and it is still arguably very destructive.

              If a woman’s body is her property and an unborn baby’s body is its property, the debate comes down to whose rights take precedence at which point in the process, and since they are so deeply intertwined it becomes a winless and subjective debate. That’s why I’m a proud abortion agnostic.

              1. When they develop full robowombs that can raise the unborn from the zygote stage

                Could they develop some fucking male birth control before the full-on robowombs?

            2. Home implies property. The womb of the mother isn’t the property of the fetus. And the entire fucking point is that the fetus cannot go anywhere else, hence aborting it causes its death.

              1. In most abortions the embryo/fetus is killed while still in the womb, so we’re not talking about an analogue of eviction. Indeed, in the case of partial birth abortion they have to hurry to kill the fetus as it’s being delivered to avoid charges of infanticide.

          2. Re: Heller,

            OM, that’s like saying the act of evicting someone of your property is initiating aggression against them.

            People inside my property had to enter it by their own volition, heller. Please, use your head, for once, instead of your little beating heart…

            1. I don’t see what that has to do with the issue. If I accidentally fall onto your property can I stay there as long as I want?

              And I don’t see how my argument can be misconstrued as emotionalism.

              1. If someone forces you onto Old Mexican’s property that would be a more appropriate analogy. Or if Old Mexican invited you onto his airplane and then at 50,000 feet told you to get off his property.

                1. If you are contemplating abortion I seriously doubt you “invited” the fetus to come into your body…

                  1. Why do you say that? Property owners change ask people they invited to leave all the time. Or at the very least, people who they allowed entry.

                    1. Uhhhh, what does that have to do with what I just said?

        2. It is the ACT itself of POKING inside to GET TO THE CHILD which constitutes MURDER

          How will the government legislate my ability to put certain objects into my vagina? What about an indirect act, such as sex with a largely-endowed man or sex toy (which can poke the cervix and ovaries).

          It’s odd to think the government has power to decide what substance or object I can literally place into my body.

          1. But OM doesn’t believe that the mother controls her body if the fetus is present. OM believes that the fetus has control over the womb, not the mother.

            1. That’s not true. OM believes the mother controls her body and womb, but that poking the womb (and the baby inside) is murder.

          2. Your right to poke objects into your vagina ends when the objects touch someone else’s body.

            1. By this logic the right to do anything with my body ends when it affects someone else’s body (the fetus’s). Again making way for legislation that prohibits behavior of pregnant women that will affect the fetus.

              Also, where does the right to one’s own uterus come into play when someone else’s body is in it?

              Your tortured, twisted logic must hurt your brain.

    4. I have yet to see a proof that fetus is a person…

      1. Re: Irub,

        I have yet to see a proof that fetus is a person

        Well, you were a fetus once, were you not? Are you not a person?

        1. Huh? I’ve heard this argument from other pro-lifers, I didn’t think you were that stupid OM…

          If you were a fetus but no longer are, how does your personhood now shed light on the personhood of a fetus?

          1. I was a child one (and a human) but now I am not a child (and still human).

          2. Re: Heller,

            If you were a fetus but no longer are, how does your personhood now shed light on the personhood of a fetus?

            You tell me how your current personhood does shed light on your personhood when you were a toddler, or a child, or a Boy Scout for that matter?

            It’s very simple, heller – these are nothing more than terms to describe just one part of the development of a human being. You were once a fetus, and you were once an infant, and you were once a child, and you were once a teenager – but you were ALWAYS A PERSON!

            The argument from pro-murder advocates is the one which is stupid: I call it a fetus, ergo it’s fair game. Well, whoopie doo, I call you a chair and I can then sit on you.

              1. Re: Citizen Nothing,

                Every sperm is sacred!

                Eek! Strawman!

                1. Eek! Strawman!

                  It’s not a strawman, CN is pointing out that you use the same reasoning that you are criticizing pro-choicers for. You don’t define the sperm cell as a person because you have a certain definition of personhood that a sperm cell does not match. Pro-choicers have a certain definition of personhood that the fetus does not match. Or, as you would put it: “I call it a sperm, therefore its fair game.”

                  1. The pro-choice definition of personhood is laughably arbitrary and clearly jury-rigged to support their position on abortion. You can define anything to mean anything you want, but not all definitions are equally plausible.

                    A sperm cell isn’t even a human organism, anyway. No one seriously disputes that even an 8-cell blastocyst is a human organism.

                    1. It’s not arbitrary. I can specifically point out to you why your definition of personhood is wrong.

            1. You tell me how your current personhood does shed light on your personhood when you were a toddler, or a child, or a Boy Scout for that matter?

              No it doesn’t shed light. A child is a person because of the definition of personhood, not because the child will grow into an adult that also fits the definition of personhood.

              You are alive not because you will be alive in the future, but because you fit the definition of alive right now. You were alive in the past because you fit that definition in the past. Get it?

              You were once a fetus, and you were once an infant, and you were once a child, and you were once a teenager – but you were ALWAYS A PERSON!

              The argument from pro-murder advocates is the one which is stupid: I call it a fetus, ergo it’s fair game. Well, whoopie doo, I call you a chair and I can then sit on you.

              Again, the key part you are missing here is the definition of personhood. If a fetus doesn’t meet the definition of personhood, but a child or adult does, then not all three are persons!

              You also had this gaping hole in your description of the pro-choice position. Pro-choicers say that a fetus is “fair game” because…?

              Answer that question and you’ll see why you’re wrong.

              1. This is what pro-choice philosophy has been reduced to: an exercise in semantics.

                It was nice when you guys actually attempted to base your position on the real world…before the science showed all your fantasies about “lumps of cells” in the first trimester to be utterly false.

                1. If my argument is semantic, doesn’t that mean that you’re opposing argument is just as semantic?

            2. But not when they were a zygote, according to your comment above, right? Where do you draw the objective line in the sand?

        2. I recall when I first heard the libertarian position on abortion: it was admitted that there was no consensus on it and that, by default, it was up to the decision of the mother.

          Later, a non-libertarian friend came up with a very remarkable libertarian position by saying that the mother can claim that the fetus has to leave her body and that entities who want to continue to support the fetus are free to do so — outside of her body.

          Sort of a get-off-of-my-property-now or I will shoot you.

          1. Re: Mongo,

            Later, a non-libertarian friend came up with a very remarkable libertarian position by saying that the mother can claim that the fetus has to leave her body and that entities who want to continue to support the fetus are free to do so — outside of her body.

            Did you ask your friend what if the same argument was applied to people inside a boat, in the middle of the ocean?

            1. If the owner of the yacht said that, yeah, I guess the passengers would have to get off of it.

              1. Re: Mongo,

                If the owner of the yacht said that, yeah, I guess the passengers would have to get off of it.

                Oh, were they stowaways?

                1. Doesn’t matter — the owner wants them off and he has the means of doing it.

                  1. Re: Mongo,

                    Doesn’t matter — the owner wants them off and he has the means of doing it.

                    I have the means to wring the neck of my 5 year old – does that mean I have justification for doing it?

                    Capability does not justify acts, Mongo. Either the owner is committing an evil act by forcing the passengeers off his boat or he is not. Consider this: What if YOU were one of the passengers, and you can’t swim? Does that change the equation?

                    Because that’s the problem with people that pretend to decide for the life of others, and I mean the lives they OWN (a woman does NOT own her child’s life any more than her child owns hers.) I cannot pretend to say a woman is justified in aborting her child because “it’s her body”; well, I am certainly NOT justified in throwing MY child out of my speeding car, even if I wanted to and were capable of doing it.

                    1. Because that’s the problem with people that pretend to decide for the life of others, and I mean the lives they OWN (a woman does NOT own her child’s life any more than her child owns hers.)

                      Does a child own its mother’s womb? And if so, wouldn’t this mean the child owns a part of the mother’s life, a part of one’s body being a part of one’s life?

            2. I think abortion would become much more rare if fathers were forced to care for their offspring — especially financially.

              1. THEY ALREADY ARE. Oh dear, I just pulled an Old Mexican. Men are heavily discriminated against when it comes to divorce, alimony, and child custody law and especially when child support is involved.

  13. CBS reporter beaten, sexually assaulted

    Why couldn’t it have been Katie Couric?

    1. Why couldn’t it have been Katie Couric?

      Come on, who would want to sexually assault that?

      1. Sand nigs?

  14. Israeli general claims Stuxnet at retirement party. Put me in the dubious column.

  15. CBS reporter beaten, sexually assaulted while covering the protests in Egypt.

    Stay classy, Egypt.

    1. More or less dangerous than flirting with an NFL quarterback at a bar?

    2. Stay classy, Egypt.

      At least we never raped nobody.

      USA!
      USA!
      USA!

  16. It must drive the Reptilian Overlords crazy that, after they planted forged birth certificate, the incompetent state bureuacrats lose the fucking paperwork. This, after all the trouble they went to to grow Obama (Robot in Reptilian) in their space fortress in the Moon and placing him – they have to deal with missing government records.

    Also, a little factoid: the skin color was a mistake – Greys are colorblind.

    1. Greys are colorblind

      Then he looked right through me
      With somniferous almond eyes
      Don’t even know what that means
      Must remember to write it down

  17. From my extensive monopoly experience I maintain that if you are cheating you aren’t trying to succeed.

    Now I know you are a spoof! Timmy Giethner, is that you? Or is it Helicopter Ben?

    1. i read that as “aren’t cheating”. Is that how you read it?

      1. Initially yes. Then I thought about it and such a ridiculous assertion could only come from either the Treasury Department or The Fed, when taken at face value.

        1. If one cheats — really cheats — at Monopoly, one is a poor excuse for a human being.
          Do I take my Monopoly seriously? Fuckin’ A.
          (And fuck the all-seeing tower, too. Gimme a crumpled pile of those orange $500s, baby.)

          1. You’re always the Top Hat, aren’t you?

            I being The Car, myself.

            1. I just wish there was a monocle.

  18. Monopoly ditches dice, paper money for creepy, overseeing watchtower.

    Well, Eye like it.

  19. Poll: Just 28 percent of GOP primary voters believe Obama was born in the U.S.

    This could say one of TWO things:

    a) The PR from Obama’s detractors has been more successful than his own good PR, or,
    b) Obama has not made any serious strides into quieting the silly notion that he was born in Kenya, in front of one of his grandaunts among screams of joy.

    1. How do you know it was joy?

      1. Re: Citizen Nothing,

        How do you know it was joy?

        I would have to assume it, for many a birth is always a joyous occasion, and I have not heard anything yet about shaving his skull to find number-like birthmarks, so….

        1. As far as we know, Stanley Anne Dunham was not a jackal either.

          1. An order of disinterment will clear that up.

  20. Why would those Egyptians get pissed off at American voyeurs? It doesn’t make sense.

  21. ? Rape like an Egyptian ?

      1. All the cops at the doughnut shop say “aye oh aye oh aye.”

  22. The creepy overseeing watchtower- are we talking about another Obama investment?

    1. It’s the new name for the virtual fence.

  23. This could say one of TWO things:

    a) Poll is fictional and/or fraudulent.
    b) See “a).”
    It’s by PPP. They don’t find out stuff. They provide citations for assholes and suckers.
    Both, in this case.

  24. At this point, if someone asked me whether Obama was a foreigner and a Muslim, I’d have to say yes.

    I mean, why not? Let’s do this.

  25. Scene: Sadddan’s palace, just after the invasion.

    Suki: Oh Saddam, while I, the beautiful Asian scientist you kidnapped to work on your UN violating WMD programs fear you, I am also strangely aroused by your manliness. Please let me service you.

    Saddam: Who are you? How did a US soldier get into my chambers and why are you wearing women’s makeup?

    John: Fair Suki, I will save you!

    Suki: Oh John, my hero. I can see even from here that your male member is mightier than Saddam’s! Please let me service you!!

    Saddam: Um, dude, you do know you and I are the only two people here, don’t you? Guards!!

    1. Replace “Suki” with Mohammed ElBaradei and “Saddam” with Mahmoud Ahmadenijad and it still reads the same.

  26. Hey, subnormal: Libertarians do not think people never cheat.

    Libertarians think everybody cheats, if they think they can get away with it.

    That’s why we oppose the creation of organizations that can cheat on a massive scale with impunity.

    1. I thought the way the government likes to play is to change the rules in the middle of the game, no?

  27. I thought the way the government likes to play is to change the rules in the middle of the game, no?

    Calvinball.

    With stormtroopers!

    1. “sooner or later, all our games turn into Calvinball,”

      1. I nominate this text to replace “In God We Trust” on our currency.

    2. And you can’t play with the same rules twice.

  28. The new Monopoly, available in the fall, will be about $50

    Good luck with that board game revival.

    1. $50 is the new $5

    2. Might as well invest that $50 into some Settlers of Catan.

  29. the best part of monopoly, cheating.

    Bullshit. The best part of Monopoly is tossing widows and orphans out into the snow when they can’t pay their rent.

  30. Settlers of Catan > Monopoly

    then again

    Settlers of Catan > *

    1. Mr. Tibbles plays “Settin in the cat sand.”

    2. Well Mr. Catan, are you down with Civilization (the Avalon Hill board game, not the Sid Meier computer game)?

      1. I’ve never played it. I do like Agricola and Dominion.

        1. Go with the tried and true, RISK!

          1. Strategy in risk is boring…

            I’ve seen Settlers, or a variation there of, used in upper level game theory classes for everything from partnership to negotiation strategies.

          2. Risk is like Monopoly in that it’s extremely simple to the point where you need to cheat or have extra incentive to make it interesting. Settlers and Civ are for adults. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the kiddy games, just not like a five year old can.

            That said, I was usually the thimble or the iron because my brothers took the top hat and the car.

            1. “…you need to cheat…to make it interesting.”
              Ah. Now we see the violence inherent in the system.

              1. I always cheat at Russian Roulette

          3. Bah… play a grown up game. Diplomacy. No dice… and it only takes about 8 hours for a game… but it translates well to play by e-mail. Or if you really want to keep the dice, hunt down Supremacy.

          4. Axis and Allies is way better than Risk.

        2. Hmmmm….never played either of those but they look like the types of game I enjoy. Seems that I might have to order one of these.

    3. You beat me to it!

  31. Sometimes you gotta order a lot of veggie burgers for people that don’t exist.

    http://doodle.com/z5u7z5mhg2gfbtsb

  32. Here’s one for fun.

    Curveball speaks

    “Iraqi: I’m proud my WMD lies led to war in Iraq”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/201….._curveball

  33. CBS reporter beaten, sexually assaulted while covering the protests in Egypt.

    Ok, to me, “sexually assaulted” means raped. Was she raped in the street? Jesus.

    1. I’m going to need details. Complete details.

  34. Tim|2.16.11 @ 9:39AM|#

    The creepy overseeing watchtower- are we talking about another Obama investment?

    no, it should look more like this

  35. CBS reporter beaten, sexually assaulted while covering the protests in Egypt.

    I read the linked article, and it seems like a piece of extremely shoddy journalism, the kind of journalism that most Reason readers deplore.

    A woman was sexually assaulted by a mob during the jubilant crowd on the day of Mubarak’s resignation.

    Then the article segues to descriptions of other attacks and arrests on journalists during the height of the protest in aggregate.

    Is her attack and sexual assault related to the attacks on other journalists which were ostensibly perpetrated by Egyptian security forces? Or was her attack a random, spontaneous attack by jubilant male anti-Mubarak protesters who went out of control? The article provides no evidence aside from describing the attacks in adjacent paragraphs.

    1. Re: Paul,

      Is her attack and sexual assault related to the attacks on other journalists which were ostensibly perpetrated by Egyptian security forces? Or was her attack a random, spontaneous attack by jubilant male anti-Mubarak protesters who went out of control?

      Indeed, it is difficult to discern from the article. It could have been no different than those assaults on women during raves or Spring Break get-togethers. This one happens to be news because it was a female reporter.

  36. Does anyone really believe the South Dakota bill would legalize killing abortionists?

    1. Re: Devil Inchoate,

      Does anyone really believe the South Dakota bill would legalize killing abortionists?

      I don’t know myself, but I know that nothing justifies the taking of life unless when defending yours during an act of aggression, or your family’s.

      If a doctor commits murder, he should be tried and compensation levied on him, or ostracised – NO trading with him or her, NO services rendered to him or her including medical, NOT even a “Hello”. Let’s see how many people are willing to do abortions AFTER that!

      [While were at it: WHY NOT bring ostracism as a form of punishment?]

      http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php

      1. That would be tough considering there is still a large amount of people who don’t want to ostracize abortion doctors.

        1. Though if you were smart about it, you could look up the names of all the abortion doctors in your county, hand out a flyer at neighborhood churches, and see if that works some magic! There are sure to be business owners in that pool who are willing to deny goods or services to people they don’t approve of.

        2. I guess we need to ostracize them too. There was a New Twilight Zone episode on this topic, where a thief was sentenced to one year of “invisibility”, marked by a small cylinder implanted into his forehead. Everyone in the society had to ignore him under penalty of becoming “invisible” themselves, and even other “invisibles” risked having their sentenced lenghtened if they interacted with each other.

          1. Again, good luck with that. A little less than half the population ostracized? Have fun in fantasyland.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.