Drug War

Reason Morning Links: Who's Tortured, Lobbyists Rub Their Hands, Feds Spook States Over Pot

|

The latest from Reason.tv: "Reason-Rupe Poll: 96% Worry About Federal Debt, 74% Want Spending Cap…"

NEXT: No Surrender

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. http://online.wsj.com/article/…..59524.html

    Why the left needs racism.

    1. Interesting read. I can’t wait to see Tony or Minge’s take on it.

      1. Taranto takes a parting sideswipe at Balko, I see. . .yeah, let’s all hold our breaths for “libertarians to tell us what to do”. . .

        1. That post was not one of Balko’s better moments. And Toranto is right, Balko was being a scold, which is not particularly libertarian of him.

          1. Libertarians are always claiming the lefties “stole” the word “liberal” from them. I disagree. Modern leftists are the legitimate inheritors of classical liberalism. Given time, the one always seems to end up morphing into the other.

            When was the last time you saw a Reason contributor quit to go work at “Chronicles”?

            1. True. When the masks slips they do seem to always turn out to be Dave Weigel.

          2. There’s nothing nonlibertarian about disapproving of someone’s behavior. Voltaire didn’t say “I must always find your speech acceptable, and thus defend it.”

            But the other criticisms (namely, that most of that shit would have happened with or without Osama) are plausible to me.

            However, I’m skeptical that the article is what pissed people off — if he used the headline “We got the bastard — but the world still bears the scars of his evil” or something, no one would care. It was a pure negative emotional response to “Osama won”, and the followup was a rationalization for it.

        2. Don’t be so sensitive. The bottom post of Best of the Web is always tongue-in-cheek.

      2. We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic.

        1. They can still be racist, though, right?

          1. Yes. “Stupid” is also an acceptable response.

    2. What’s the point of having libertarians if they’re going to boss us around and tell us how we’re supposed to feel? Liberals do a more than adequate job of that.

      Balko was telling me how to feel? Well, break out the beach ball, I’ve got to tow the lion all the way to the tractor pull.

      1. “Solemn and somber appreciation that an evil man is gone seemed like the more appropriate reaction.”

        How is that not telling others how they should feel?

        1. It’s one man’s opinion, not a mandate or condemnation. Amid the other noises coming from the press it was a welcome one.

          1. but it does go to show, I probably mind being told how to feel a lot less when I already am behaving in the prescribed manner.

      2. Im guessing someone doesnt know the difference between libertarians and libertines.

        It is perfectly within libertarianism to boss someone around and tell them how to feel. Passing a law to do it, on the other hand….

        Is it that hard a fucking concept to understand?

        1. I guessing one, you don’t get the tongue and cheek nature of the Best of the Web post. And two, just because you don’t want to pass a law, doesn’t mean you are not a moral scold and a pain in the ass.

          Is it that fucking hard to understand?

          1. 1. I didnt read it, I was commenting on the quote.

            2. Never disagreed. Moral scolds and pains in the ass arent anti-libertarian. The world needs more moral scolds. Hell, I do it here every day to Utilitarians like you.

            Kant may have been a real pissant (since the thread has risen to Monty Python level) but he was also mostly right.

  2. Brazilian anti-corruption blogger survives assassination attempt

    On a related note, Brazilian action movie Elite Squad 2 is worth a look. This time it’s about corruption within the militias.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1555149/

    1. The first one was fantastic. But I’m naturally skeptical about any movie with a “2” after the name, unless Brazil has some sort of exemption to the usual rule about sequels.

  3. http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=174&load=5359

    Entertaining interview with Ted Nugent. And I wonder at what point the rightwing blogsphere’s tremendous advantage in attractive women (compare the PJTV crew to say XXX or worse jezebel) will start to bear fruit.

  4. Book of Mormon leads list of Tony nominations.

    When they make The Book of Muhammad, I will be impressed.

    1. When they make The Book of Muhammad, I will be impressed.

      They could just adapt The Satanic Verses to the stage.

      1. True, although I hear that book is God awfully boring.

        1. What the hell, make it into a musical! Kind of in the vein of Springtime for Hitler.

          1. Sort of a Three Penny Opera with Muhammad in the role of MacHeath.

    2. Because they really haven’t pulled their weight in mocking Muhammad….

      1. I am not sure they have Matt. Didn’t they let Comedy Central pull their depiction of Muhammad? Sorry, but I don’t consider making fun of Mormons to be particularly clever or brave.

        1. I don’t know how much choice they had in the matter, but let’s face it, for practical purposes it would not be a good idea to do the same to Islam.

          1. Only because we let them intimidate us. It is a terrible precedent. How long before other religions and groups just say fuck it and start burning shit down whenever they don’t like something?

            It also takes away from artists ability to criticize or lampoon any religion. When someone like Stone and Parker make fun or Mormons or Scientologists in ways you know they wouldn’t make fun of Muslims, they just look like bullies and cowards.

            1. It is a terrible precedent.

              Business decision, not censorship.

              1. So what? It is still a terrible precedent. Just because the government isn’t doing it doesn’t mean that it is good.

                1. I hate it that McDonald’s puts ketchup and mustard on their burgers. Terrible precedent. Stifles free expression of grilled meat products.

                  1. Are you retarded? People cowardly walking away from extremist itimidation is a bad thing. Let me put it in terms you understand. Supposed the KKK exploded again and started burning down the houses of anyone who criticized them. And as a result people stopped doing so in art and in newspapers. That would be a terrible development for the country. This is no different. And only a disingeniousness twat would not understand that.

                    1. When it’s your property you can make highfalutin pronouncements.

              2. Business decision, not censorship

                I heard somewhere that the purpose of business was to make money, and not morality. Are you saying it wouldn’t be profitable to lampoon Mohamed?

                1. It’s not your decision to make. And nobody is stopping you from risking millions of dollars (or employees’ lives) on such a decision. That would involve actually creating something of worth, of course.

                  1. “And nobody is stopping you from risking millions of dollars (or employees’ lives)”

                    The fact that there is a risk of death tells us all we need to know about Muhammad and his barbaric minions.

            2. John is merely pointing out that the Iron Law applies:

              You get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish.

              Reward those who issue threats and commit violence by acceding to their demands, and guess what you’ll get?

              1. Freedom of speech does not force one to speak. It’s a right, not a duty. And nobody is stopping you from speaking. If 999 people speak and one keeps silent, is his silence a “reward”? If I choose not to shop at Target, is Walmart “rewarded”? If I don’t complain about the mustard and ketchup on McDonald’s burgers, does Checkers win?

                1. I would add that no amount of public ridicule or sober commentary will turn the Islamist terrorists away from their task. They’re immune to logic and satire. And again, no one is stopping you from speaking out, publicly and without the shield of anonymity, against the Islamic terrorists.

                2. …does Checkers win?

                  Always. Next question.

                  1. …does Checkers win?

                    Always. Next question.

                    Well, it was a great speech. But in fairness, Nixon stole the idea from Roosevelt. Seems there was some issue of impropriety in the wife (and dog) flying about on military craft. So FDR did a fireside chat and said in effect: ‘you can say what you want about me, but don’t you dare attack my poor little dog’. Worked like a champ…

                    Wait, what were we talking about again?…

                3. Could you possibly miss the point by a wider margin.

            3. “Only because we let them intimidate us. It is a terrible precedent.”

              You should probably get on that, then. No one’s stopping you from burning a Koran on YouTube.

              1. except maybe youtube?

        2. I guess John has never heard of the Mormon practice of Blood Atonement.

          http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/p…..ement.html

        3. Only pulled their second depiction. You can still find the first one online of a fire breathing Muhammad as part of the Super Best Friends.

          1. As well as Muhammad being in the opening credits for several seasons.

        4. Then you don’t know shit about it. Matt and Trey wanted the Muhammad with a salmon on his head to be aired but Comedy Central censored it. Matt and Trey tried but ultimately had no say in the matter because they don’t own the network that had their property on the line.

          1. And the result was some of the best commentary on censorship in all its forms you’ll ever see. As usual, they were able to make their point while making sure that all sides of the arguments were considered – and making sure that you found something to look in the mirror about. All while making you laugh and ripping their pop culture rivals a new one.

            Parker and Stone are easily the greatest social commentators of our time. Nobody else even comes close. The fact that they will be sure to point out the idiocy and hypocrisy on all sides of an issue is what makes them unique. Guys like John Steward can’t bring themselves to seriously lampoon their own team, so they’ll never be as good, no matter how talented.

            Penn Jillette sums it up pretty well in his review of “Book of Mormon” Their dissection of the issues around Mormons is perfect because they are able to see beyond the superficial and turn the microscope back on the audience. They do this in their takes on Mohammed as well – not only spearing jihadists, but more pointedly going after western apologists, their bosses, and even people who would offend for no purpose (while offending for no purpose.. brilliant!). They go to great lengths to lampoon the “no image of Mohammad” edict (drawing a stick figure and labeling it Mohammad), but they also lampoon their own audience for sticking their heads in the sand. Just brilliant stuff.

            Claiming that Parker and Stone are afraid to offend anyone is just silly. They’ve gone out of their way to offend even the un-offendable. Which is awesome! Everyone should be offended from time to time.

    1. I just knew the robotic tongue had to be Japanese without even clicking on the link.

    2. Next week: robotic tentacles let you rape fishermen’s wives over the internet.

      1. We’ll know when they’ve perfected that robotic tentacle when it’s used to rape barely legal Japanese schoolgirls in those little Sailor Moon overall things.

  5. I love it. The media had no problem publishing the Abu Gahrib photos over and over again for months. But they are squeamish about publishing photos of Bin Ladin’s body.

    1. It’s all about the narrative.

      1. Anyone whose sensibilities are inflamed by the release of OBL’s dead carcass is someone whose sensibilities we shouldn’t care much about inflaming.

        1. The faux angst over releasing the materials is little more than dramatic theater. This is immediately one of the world events that will be dissected ad nauseum, to the point of the opinion of the backup helicopter drivers to the various fruit desert options for MRE’s that oddly came from a leftover pallet from Gulf War I while various ‘new’ and ‘revealing’ docudramas are played in heavy rotation on weekends and wee hours on the History Channel for most of the re-runs summer of 2014.

          1. History and the Military Channel are going to ride this like a horse. They do know a meal ticket when they see one.

        2. “I know they’d never match
          My sweet imagination”

      2. Jeebus on a pogo stick. Is this the most dithering, indecisive “leader” you have ever seen? Make a fucking decision, already. Hell, you should have made it before the raid, you limp-wristed lefty twat.

        I don’t even care what he decides. The whole agonized non-deciding is doing more harm than either releasing/no releasing the photos could possibly do.

        1. I didn’t think it was possible to seriously screw-up the political repercussion of killing Osama bin Laden.

          Turns out I was wrong.

    2. The media had no problem publishing the Abu Gahrib photos

      The State Department is not “the media.” It’s their call, isn’t it?

      1. The government leaked the Abu Garhib photos to the media. So the government didn’t have a problem with them being published.

        1. So what’s your point? The Administration has already decided to release at least one photo. Do you really think nobody in “the media” will run the photo(s)? It’s a Bush vs. Obama thing, right?

          1. Bush v. Obama has nothing to do with it. The media will hem and haw and thumb suck about the damage done to America by the image. Yet, they never cared one iota about such concerns when it came to publishing the Abu Gahrib photos. I think both should be published for the record.

            1. The fact remains that “the media” will fall over themselves in a rush to publish the photo(s). There will be little ethical handwringing. Few will decline to exploit the images.

            2. I disagree – plenty of media outlets will trip over themselves to be the first to publish the photos of dead Osama.

              It’s not the media hemming and hawing over whether to publish photos right now; it’s the fed gov.

        2. If the government released the photos to the media, the media would publish them. It’s a question more of the media not calling for their release.

          Although yes, it’s amazing to see the roles reversed. There’s probably a clear, negative correlation between supporting the release of Abu Ghraib photos and OBL’s photo.

    1. It’s actually pretty easy to move to Denmark, if you have a job offer …

      I didn’t even need an EU passport and just arrived at the immigration office with a copy of my contract and that was it. NZ passport is handy in that situation though.

      1. Compare to the shitfest/expense of (legally) getting a work/study visa for the US …

      2. Switzerland was similar…well, not quite. Working in Switzerland is easy (note, all comments were accurate in early 90s), no visa, green card, etc required. LIVING in Switzerland, on the other hand, requires a visa.

        My job was within commuting range of the German border, I didnt have to live in Switzerland. If I had been German I could have commuted and the paperwork would have been a lot easier.

    2. Even if true, which I’m doubting, sacrificing freedom is not worth saving billions.

  6. http://www.theatlantic.com/tec…..ulz/238251

    Good photoshops of the situation room photo. I like the one that is the Sgt Pepper Cover like photo.

    1. Some of those are freakin’ hilarious.

      1. Shocked Cat was my favorite.

  7. Top Green Admits: “We Are Lost!”
    …Greens like to have it both ways. They warn darkly about “peak oil” and global resource shortages that will destroy our industrial economy in its tracks ? but also warn that runaway economic growth will destroy the planet through the uncontrolled effects of mass industrial productions. Both doomsday scenarios cannot be true; one cannot simultaneously die of both starvation and gluttony….

    1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm…..reens-lost

      Here is the actual article. The comments are downright chilling. The universal response among the Greens in the comments is that forced population control is the only answer to our problems. How long before these people start putting undesirables in ovens?

      1. How long before these people start putting undesirables in ovens?

        Yeah, you know, eggs, omelettes, etc.

      2. And if you’re putting people in ovens, of course you’ll start w/ your political opponents. They’re just destroying the Earth.

        1. Well, they need to get rid of the bad people, not the good people. Duh!

          Whenever I hear a green say the population should be reduced, I always tell then to start with themselves.

        2. Ovens aren’t very environmentally friendly.

          1. Just think biomass pyrolysis. It’s renewable!

  8. Seriously, a Reason.TV poll?
    Let me guess: the diverse opinions of H&R posters was somewhat represented. Ya.

    1. 30% are for it. 30% are against it. 40% made obscure comparisons of it to porno and 1960’s TV shows.

  9. Inquest rules that newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed by a policeman at G20 protests.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13268633

    1. There’s a picture of him being shoved to the ground here:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13271549

  10. Who’da Thunk It? Early NeoCon Narrative Doesn’t Survive Harsh Interrogation

    As intelligence officials disclosed the trail of evidence that led to the compound in Pakistan where Bin Laden was hiding, a chorus of Bush administration officials claimed vindication for their policy of “enhanced interrogation techniques” like waterboarding.

    But a closer look at prisoner interrogations suggests that the harsh techniques played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden’s trusted courier and exposing his hide-out.

    Closer look? Brietbartians don’t need no steenking closer look!

    1. CIA Director Leon Panetta stomped on the White House’s political script when he told Tuesday night’s broadcast of NBC Nightly News that the waterboarding of jihadi detainees contributed information that led to the location and killing of Osama bin Laden.

      “We had multiple series of sources that provided information with regards to this situation? clearly some of it came from detainees [and] they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of those detainees,” he told NBC anchor Brian Williams.

      When asked by Williams if water-boarding was part of the “enhanced interrogation techniques,” Panetta simply said “that’s correct.”…

    2. Since you don’t have any citations. Let me give you a few to help you out. Lets start with that famed Neocon publication the New York Times

      The raid was the culmination of years of painstaking intelligence work, including the interrogation of C.I.A. detainees in secret prisons in Eastern Europe, where sometimes what was not said was as useful as what was. Intelligence agencies eavesdropped on telephone calls and e-mails of the courier’s Arab family in a Persian Gulf state and pored over satellite images of the compound in Abbottabad to determine a “pattern of life” that might decide whether the operation would be worth the risk.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05…..el.html?hp

      Then there is that other known neocon Michael Isikof yesterday

      The trail that led to the doorstep of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan began years earlier with aggressive interrogations of al-Qaida detainees at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and CIA ‘black site’ prisons overseas, according to U.S. officials.

      It was those sometimes controversial interrogations that first produced descriptions of members of bin Laden’s courier network, including one critical Middle Eastern courier who along with his brother was protecting bin Laden at his heavily fortified compound in Abbottabad on Sunday.

      [A] senior U.S. intelligence official told NBC News investigative producer Robert Windrem that both Mohammed, who was repeatedly waterboarded by the CIA, and al Libi, who was aggressively interrogated but not waterboarded, provided the nom de guerre of the courier. Mohammed was among the “high-value detainees” subjected to specially approved “enhanced” interrogations at secret sites overseas, including CIA-run prisons in Poland, Romania, Thailand and elsewhere, according to U.S. officials.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42…..bin_laden/

      1. My quote was from the NY Times, the article linked to in the Morning Links.

        But a closer look at prisoner interrogations suggests that the harsh techniques played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden’s trusted courier and exposing his hide-out.

        1. The Isikof reporting speaks for itself and says otherwise.

          1. two prisoners who underwent some of the harshest treatment ? including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times ? repeatedly misled their interrogators about the courier’s identity.

            From the NYT article.

            1. “[A] senior U.S. intelligence official told NBC News investigative producer Robert Windrem that both Mohammed, who was repeatedly waterboarded by the CIA, and al Libi, who was aggressively interrogated but not waterboarded, provided the nom de guerre of the courier. Mohammed was among the “high-value detainees” subjected to specially approved “enhanced” interrogations at secret sites overseas, including CIA-run prisons in Poland, Romania, Thailand and elsewhere, according to U.S. officials.”

              I don’t know what else to say MNG. Either call Isikof out as a liar or shut the fuck up. The reporting speaks for itself.

              1. As I said below I would believe the NYT over a MNBC reporter.

                1. Isikof is one of the most respected national security reporters there is. And it is not like he has a reason to lie or is known to run false stuff. If you are reduced to calling Micheal Isikof some kind of shill for George Bush, you have lost the argument.

                  1. People can be wrong and not be shills John. Not everyone is shilling.

                    1. And you have provided no reason to believe that Isikof is wrong other than he doesn’t confirm your fantasies.

        2. Do you ever tire of masturbating your little stub of a cock? I wis I could block your comments, but my work PC does’t have that feature.

          You really are tiresome.

    3. MNG, if waterboarding had led us to capturing OBL 90 days after 9/11, would you support waterboarding?

      No?

      Then who cares whether it led, or didn’t lead, to capturing OBL 9 years later. That’s not the issue.

      1. What matters is that the Bush supporters are incredibly trying to take credit for Obama getting the man their guy did not by saying it was Bush’s policies that led to it. They are lucky the left doesn’t play by their rules or the meme I put forward would be all over the place.

        1. Yeah, the Left always plays by Marquis de Queensbury rules, never appeals to emotion, and only loses elections because the Right is able to bamboozle the NASCAR class with fear and promises of abstinence education. Also, we haven’t ruled out strategic soul-bargains with Satan.

          You’re too smart for this–politics ain’t beanbag and the Left pulls as many dirty tricks as the Right.

          1. Don’t you know your own Right wing memes? The Left never wins elections, it’s candidates are not even natural born US citizens!

            1. Don’t you know your Right wing memes? Hillary Clinton started that birther nonsense.

            2. I thought “Selected, not Elected” was a Lefty meme.

    4. How can you complain about waterboarding now that your boy is taking the summary execution tactic with unarmed suspects? your words are empty

  11. Yesterday I had some great fun with the Obama got him that Bush could not meme. Can anyone imagine that if 9/11 had happened on a Democrats watch we would ever hear the end of it from the Brietbartians? Or if a GOPer had captured OBL?

    It still doesn’t stop them. Yesterday on my way to work I listened to Laura Ingraham and Limbaugh, both attacked Obama for not giving Bush enough credit for taking down OBL. Incredible! They are lucky he didn’t point out that it was his administration which accomplished the feat while Bush did not. That’s what Cheney would likely have done. Incredible.

    1. Will someone please ask MNG to let me out of his mouth already?

      1. Hurts, don’t it?

        1. It does hurt; you’re not supposed to use your teeth!

          1. Facts are stubborn things.

            The leader of Al Qaeda brought down under a Democratic administration after years of trying and failing by a Republican one.

            1. Osama was smart not choose that New Orleans safe house.

            2. The leader of Al Qaeda brought down under a Democratic administration after years of trying and failing interrogation and intelligence work by a Republican one.
              Try a little intellectual honesty for a change. UBL was nailed based on interrogation methods you and your guy Obama opposed, and intelligence gathering that started years ago under the Bush administration. I give credit to Obama for giving the order to go in after the work paid off, but why pretend it was all Obama’s doing unless you really are a partisan hack?

              1. Yeah, yeah, Bush was theees close!

                Just like finding the WMD. Maybe Obama will do that next?

                1. Holy shit you’re an idiot. This has got to be some new spoof MNG, because the old MNG actually made some half-way intelligent arguments. This moron isn’t even trying.

              2. if torture works why didnt bush kill bin laden?

            3. This is a consistent path for a leftist. They fully believe that Clinton’s 8 years had no effect on what Osama was able to accomplish 9 months after W took office. So why should it be surprising that W’s 8 years went up in smoke just as quickly?

              Funny though, when it comes to economics, the situation seems to work in the other direction for leftists–an 8 year tenure in the White House can overshadow Democrat administrations decades after it’s happened.

          2. you’re not supposed to use your teeth!

            There’s a cure for that.

            1. Meth?

              1. Move to Britain.

        2. “MNG|5.4.11 @ 8:26AM|#
          Hurts, don’t it?”

          I meran this little faggot doesn’t even try to hide the fact that his goal is to “hurt” people. What a god damned little asshole.

    2. Brietbartians? Congrats, you’ve become the left wing Lonewhacko.

      1. MNG, finding and killing OBL was the end result of years of work by lower level people who would have done so regardless of who was Prez. You think Barry Soetoro was pouring over the daily intel trying to find clues the less intelligent would have missed?

        1. Nobody was looking for OBL until Obama ordered them to.

      2. A Brietbartian is someone who is silly enough to get their news from right-wing media sources.

        Fire Shirley Sherrod and the Snowplow Five!

        1. So I guess a Minge is someone who is silly enough to get their news from left-wing media sources.

          1. Actually I’m not, which is why I think where the MSNBC article John cites above is probably less reliable than the NYT one that contradicts it.

            Not everyone is a partisan dupe like you dude.

            1. Not everyone is a partisan dupe like you dude.

              I’m not sure how you think I’m a partisan, since I support neither Team Red nor Team Blue, but your own lack of self-awareness is breath-taking.

              1. Dude, you have your head so far up Team Red’s ass that you have magenta shit on your head.

                1. Try taking Obama’s dick out of your mouth long enough to make some sense, asshole.

                  1. We play you like violins.

              2. I support neither Team Red nor Team Blue, but your own lack of self-awareness is breath-taking

                Episiarch Lite?. Poor taste, less abusive.

            2. I think where the MSNBC article John cites above is probably less reliable than the NYT one that contradicts it.

              Not everyone is a partisan dupe like you dude.

              Yeah, because the NYT is such an objective purveyor of purely-reported news, with no preference towards either side.

            3. Ah, so you don’t get your news from MSNBC–you get your news from the place where MSNBC gets their news. The leftist fever swamp that is the New York Times.

              And you’re not a partisan dupe……..?

              1. This is hilariously un-selfaware. “I’m not a partisan dupe — in addition to listening to NPR and MSNBC, I take a break out of my busy schedule as a tenured PoliSci professor to read the more centrist NYT. See, that proves I’m not a partisan!”

        2. Having to defend Barry Soetoro has finally made MNG totally snap. Your guy screwed up MNG. Too soon before the election to help.

        3. Oh, so the Secretary of Agriculture is a Breibartian–because he did actually fire Sherrod.

          1. Fire the Snowplow Five! Babykillers!

          2. This is one my fav defenses of Brietbartian dupes. Hey, we were’nt the only ones who were so easily fooled, so was Tom Vilisack!

            1. Who’s dumber, someone who believes something when it has absolutely no impact on their lives, and requires no risk or a guy like Vilsack who fires off heedless of the consequences?

              1. Although in fairness I think her subsequent actions have somewhat blunted those arguments…

    3. Look MNG. Good for Obama for getting Bin Ladin. He is the one who ordered it. And if it had gone south he would have been held responsible. No one on the right is denying that or saying that this isn’t a good thing.

      People are just calling out his supporters for being hypocrites. It is funny, Glen Greenwald spent 8 years under Bush pontificating about international law (a subject about which he daily showed he didn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground). Yet, has from what I can find nothing to say about the legality of the biggest political assassination since I don’t know when. Same goes for Andrew Sullivan.

      1. Not so fast John. The Brietbartian Brigades are actually attacking Obama, attacking him for not giving Bush enough credit! Credit where it is due you’ve reacted to this news in an admirably largely unpartisan. Can you admit that it is incredible to charge Obama with not giving Bush enough credit?

        1. Obama continued all of Bush’s anti terror policies. He played people like Greenwald for suckers and did the right thing. It is not like Obama did something different and that is what allowed us to get Bin Ladin. This was the result of years of work that Obama just allowed to continue. So yeah, the Bush administration as a whole does deserve some credit. And more importantly, you can’t celebrate this happening without admitting that gee maybe Bush’s approach to terrorism wasn’t so bad after all.

          1. “Obama continued all of Bush’s anti terror policies.”

            Funny since Ingraham and Limbaugh attacked Obama all day yesterday with the Cheneyesque “he has made us much less safer with all of his changes in Bush policies” while in the same breath saying we have to give credit to Bush and his policies!

            When Brietbartian narratives cross the effect is more dangerous than when they crossed the streams on Ghostbusters.

            1. And Democrats attacked George Bush as some kind of small government radical. So what? People in politics attack each other and those attacks are not always fair. What is your point? For the record I have always said Obama didn’t change shit about counter terror policy because I knew for a fact that to be the case.

          2. Uh, Greenwald was skeptical of Obama at least since his vote for the FISA reauthorization. Note the date: June 2008, several months before the elections.

            The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.

            Seriously, how do you have him pegged as a pro-Obama sycophant, or someone who na?vely supported him?

            I’m pulling up these counterarguments by just looking at his main page on Salon or Googling “greenwald obama fisa.” This isn’t even obscure stuff.

            1. Who did Greenwald vote for? It is not like he won’t be endorsing and campaigning for Obama when it counts. So he either doesn’t consider FISA to be that important or he is just a hack who will vote for a Democrat no matter how much he gets slapped around.

      2. Do you ever actually read Greenwald, or is he just some straw man you figure says all these nasty Team Blue things? You’re 100% wrong here, judging from his his two most recent posts. If GG is blindly ideological, it’s in being anti-war, and he’s repeatedly criticized Obama’s handling of it.

        In bin Laden killing, media — as usual — regurgitates false Government claims:

        Yesterday, it was widely reported that bin Laden “resisted” his capture and “engaged in a firefight” with U.S. forces (leaving most people, including me, to say that his killing was legally justified because he was using force). It was also repeatedly claimed that bin Laden used a women — his wife — has a human shield to protect himself, and that she was killed as a result. That image — of a cowardly through violent-to-the-end bin Laden — framed virtually every media narrative of the event all over the globe. And it came from many government officials, principally Obama’s top counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan.

        Those claims have turned out to be utterly false.

        Killing of bin Laden: What are the consequences? (before the official story changed):

        If he in fact used force to resist capture, then the U.S. military was entitled to use force against him, the way American police routinely do against suspects who use violence to resist capture.

        What, if anything, is going to change as a result of the two bullets in Osama bin Laden’s head? Are we going to fight fewer wars or end the ones we’ve started? Are we going to see a restoration of some of the civil liberties which have been eroded at the altar of this scary Villain Mastermind? Is the War on Terror over? Are we Safer now?

        Those are rhetorical questions. None of those things will happen. If anything, I can much more easily envision the reverse. Whenever America uses violence in a way that makes its citizens cheer, beam with nationalistic pride, and rally around their leader, more violence is typically guaranteed.

        1. Those are all new this morning. The top one is from yesterday and what I was talking about. He doesn’t talk at all about the legality of it only whines that Americans are glad to see a mass murderer dead. Jesse tells me he is tweeting links that say this was illegal.

          Good for him. Of course he still will vote for Obama. And he gladly lives under the protection of the people he decries as war criminals. I doubt an openly gay Jew would live very long if were up to the people Greenwald is so concerned about the US killing.

          If his position is that it is illegal for the US to hunt down and kill a guy who plotted the murder of 3000 Americans and headed an international terror organization committed to do more, I wish him luck with that.

          1. The first is from yesterday morning and the second is from two days ago.

            Also, I’m pretty sure an openly gay Jew would live just fine in the US with our national defense focused purely on national defense. Er, of course, he actually lives in Brazil because his partner can’t legally stay in the US, but same thing.

            And he may vote for Obama with some bullshit lesser-of-two-evils reasoning, but I don’t see Greenwald campaigning for him.

          2. And he gladly lives under the protection of the people he decries as war criminals

            Take off your team red glasses and read what he actually writes. I’m pretty sure Greenwald would sooner would for Ron Paul than Obama in the next election.

            1. I wanted to quote:

              Of course he still will vote for Obama.

              not And he gladly lives under the protection of the people he decries as war criminals

    4. On second thought, maybe I could at least try to block this shit. Question for anyone, what is incf (sp?) and how / where do I get it?

      1. This is reasonable. If my memory serves, Amakudari developed it and it’s the tits.

        1. I just installed Chrome and the troll filter. No more MNG!!! Fan-fucking-tastic!!!!!

    5. I can imagine it, yes.

      The GOPers would sound exactly like you. A gloating asswipe.

  12. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05…..l.html?hpw

    Portugal agreed on Tuesday to accept an international aid plan of 78 billion euros ($116 billion) that the country’s caretaker prime minister, Jos? S?crates, suggested would involve more lenient conditions than those imposed on Greece and Ireland in return for similar bailouts.

    1. And its not just the Europeans paying for this bailout, the IMF is involved as well so probably everyone reading this is paying as well.

      Hopefully the new Finish government will be in place and block it, but even if they do, I am betting that the EU will come up with some way to go around their own laws, they are experienced at that.

    2. It’s incredible to think of an entire nation being bailed out. How could a government be so irresponsible as to bankrupt the entire nation?

      1. How could a government be so irresponsible as to bankrupt the entire nation?

        Inconceivable!

        1. Tony tells me we have plenty of money.

          1. That’s a mighty nice lookin’ 401(k) you got there……

    3. Just some classic watching for those who want to see someone talk down a Nobel laureate economist and a Euro bureaucrat regarding the prospects of more bailouts in the Eurozone:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4MAifsp-8E

      I’d remembered the Euro guy as Portuguese (he’s Spanish), but in any case, Spain is next.

    4. So Portugal has to pay back $116 billion in 3 years? and cut current year deficit to 5.9%, 4.6% next year, and then to 3% in 2013?

      No fucking chance.

      So what banks are bailed out by this loan? Obviously Germany’s, but what other creditors are being made whole?

  13. The Department of Justice said two years ago that it would be an inefficient use of funds to target people who are in clear compliance with state law.

    And it still is! But, what the hell! Haw! Haw!

  14. MNG: Where’d you get the coconuts?
    JOHN: We found them.
    MNG: Found them? In Mercia?! The coconut’s tropical!
    JOHN: What do you mean?
    MNG: Well, Mercia’s a temperate zone!
    JOHN: The swallow may fly south with the sun, and the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land.
    MNG: … Are you suggesting that coconuts migrate?

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/M…..Holy_Grail

  15. [backs away slowly from thread gone full retard]

    1. I reject your self-negating chiasmus.

      1. I believe you meant “miasma”.

        1. Naw it was a Tim Cavanaugh line from yesterday.

          (UK) IPA: /k???azm?/
          [edit] Nounchiasma (plural chiasmas or chiasmata)

          (anatomy) A crossing of two nerves, ligaments etc.
          (genetics, cytology) The contact point between the two chromatids of a chromosome during meiosis.
          [edit] Derived terms

          1. Such a wonderfully baroque piece of Bucklean word porn that I have to keep vomiting it back up. It won’t stay down.

    2. Thanks for the use of the square brackets. Speaking of full metal retard, and square brackets, I miss Herc.

      1. Full metal retard, where two brothers search for the Imbecile’s Stone?

    3. Good thing I was out late having a joyous sing-along to Odin last night, or else I might not have slept in and I might have participated in this clusterfuck.

      1. A little late for Walpurgis. You sure you didn’t sleep out rather than in?

  16. Aides say Geithner will personally dive into the negotiations.

    Eat your heart out, Timmah!

    1. Orgies are never complete without that guy.

  17. I heard that they actually brought bin Laden back alive and he’s now a deacon in Reverend Jeremaih Wright’s church.

    1. God Damn America!!!

      1. I guess the chickens have come home to roost!

    1. They should have used “porky pig”.

      1. I resent that name!

    2. Some Native Americans

      I believe they prefer to be called Redskins.

    3. A White House spokesman referred questions about the code name to the Pentagon. A Defense Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

      While you’re here, would you mind signing this?

    4. My name translated means “look out below” so it was used appropriately.

  18. Well, yeah, an African swallow maybe but not a European. That’s my point.

    1. I suppose you want to see his birth certificate?

  19. Nice. There was just a guy on Bloomberg saying Apple really needs to beef up their lobbying operations in Washington.

    I really like it when people explicitly say, “If you want to do business in America, you have to bow and scrape before your overlords and bribe them to carve out special treatment for your products in their heavily regulated marketplace.”

  20. [backs away slowly from thread gone full retard]

    Thanks for the heads-up.

    1. Did you ever have curry goat? That shit is amazing!!

      Doesn’t explain the crossdressing thing, but I can understand the desire for goat meat.

    2. What else is there to do? After you’ve visited everything Robert Byrd named for himself, I mean.

  21. Wow, no way man, thats like the craziest thignI Ever seen dude.

    http://www.real-privacy.es.tc

  22. All this, and not one comment on the fact that the Obama administration has gone further than any previous administration in trying to shut down med pot laws. Now they are even threatening state regulators.

    That mush-mouthed “not a priority” line from early in the administration is straight down the rabbit hole, no?

    1. If Obama corners pot, he will give it two in the hat as well.

    2. Hey, look ever there!

    3. I’d like to know the legal theory by which they could go after regulators. Reads as sheer bluff to me.

      Meanwhile I’m repeatedly frustrated that no med mj statute or ordinance has taken advantage of the one good loophole in the federal law. This one was referenced in the med mj laws of 30+ yrs. ago, and was being considered seriously by reformers even a little over 20 years ago. The US Controlled Substances Act exempts state and local enforcement agents from registration requirements for manufacture and distribution of controlled substances pursuant to their enforcing a state or local law on the controlled substance in question. Usually that loophole is used by police engaging in such actions as sell-and-bust operations — but the “bust” is not mandated by law.

      The old state med mj laws (at least some of which are still on the books) authorized at least the exploration of distribution of stocks of marijuana in police custody for medical use if no other legal supply was forthcoming.

      Over a decade ago one municipally-authorized med mj mfr. & distributor in Calif. tried to use this theory after the fact as a defense vs. federal prosecution, but even that never got past the district level and would’ve been unlikely to succeed given that it seemed their designation of enforcement officers was after the fact and didn’t look serious. If actual police agencies were used for med mj prod’n & distrib’n, there is no reason to believe this would be a difficulty, because otherwise state & local enforcement of drug laws would be severely hampered.

  23. I haven’t heard much about the final version of the bill, but one news report I saw about the big medical marijuana reform in Montana referred to a letter from the feds to Washington (state) about a coming crackdown on wayward state governments by the Ministry of Love.

  24. The original plan put forth by law-n-order Republitards and concerned soccermoms was to just vote in the legislature to repeal the citizen initiative which let the medical marijuana genie out of the bottle.

    Fuck you, peasants!

  25. Oh how I yearn for the simpler times when threads were all about Mosquerbation, Four Loko, Oromneycare and corruption in LA cities.

  26. The federal comments have angered supporters of medical marijuana, who had believed that the Obama administration was honoring state laws. Ezra Eickmeyer, political director for the Washington Cannabis Association, said it appears prosecutors are operating under a more aggressive policy.

    “Coming in and trying to strong-arm legislatures is way over the top,” Eickmeyer said. “We would have expected this sort of thing form the Bush administration, but not Obama.”

    Precious.

    HAH HAH, sucker!!!!

    1. Was just going to post the same thing. Get out of that dream, Ezra!

    2. States seriously need to push back. The feds aren’t just encroaching on their police power, they’re threatening to punish state officials for executing it in a way that doesn’t meet Washington’s preferences. It’s an obvious attempt to transform the semi-sovereign states into vassals. This is the kind of shit that will make the next Declaration of Independence.

    3. There’s one way other than the enforcement officer loophole I laid out above by which the states could push back, but it would require holding innocent people hostage: A state could require pharmacies, as a condition of their license, to stock & dispense marijuana. Then we’d see who’d blink first:

      1. The US DEA could license the pharmacies to stock & dispense med mj.

      2. US DEA would shut down all pharmacies in the state.

      3. The state would shut down all pharmacies in the state.

      4. The state law would be repealed at the last minute.

      1. Gregoire said she is interested in working with other governors to push for a change in federal law to reclassify medical marijuana as a Schedule 2 substance, putting it on par with addictive but accepted drugs such as morphine or oxycodone.

        Schedule 2?! While I don’t beleive it should should be prescription period, at worst it should be Schedule 4. Of course you can say the same about several other drugs as well. GHB is schedule 1 if you buy it off the sreet, but it’s schedule 3 if you pay the DEA for it (Xyrem). In the case of GHB you have a chemical that used to be sold in large quantities in the health food stores, but now will get you sent to prison unless you pay exorbitant cost (I’m sure that was part of the plan).

    1. It is a composite audio/video of song whereby additional tracks were laid in by different singers
      and musicians from different places around the world. The finished product is tremendous!

    1. MLG = SF?

      1. It has so little bearing that the link is superfluous.

  27. if your really fearing debt then why not legalze? this is such a hoax im am so glad that I can be apart of the MMj community and continue to spread the good word!

    Jake

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.