Reason Morning Links: Harry Reid Embraces the Internet, Daniel Ellsberg Thinks He's Spartacus, Gang of Six Implodes


The latest from "The Meaning of Socialism: Q&A with National Review's Kevin Williamson"

NEXT: The Police's War on Citizen Cameras Boldly Slogs On...

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Reason Morning Links: Harry Reid Embraces the Internet, Denial Ellsberg Thinks He’s Spartacus, Gang of Six Implodes

    “Denial Ellsberg”?

    1. We are not living well enough for her to have given him HIV. Justice isn’t ever served that well is it?

    2. That would explain the suicide watch

      1. I wrote it before I read the article. Can you imagine the satisfaction in the cop telling him “I hope she bit you hard honey”

    3. forced oral (alledgedly)

      1. Why would anyone ever force oral? Talk about putting yourself in the jaws of the beast!

      2. He’s also accused of forced anal intercourse and attempted forced vaginal intercourse, according to CNN.

        1. At least he didn’t do anything with her nostrils.

          1. At least he didn’t do aural sex. It’s hard on the hearing.

            1. What?

    4. Funny how this sexually innocent woman whose honor was taken by an awful horny Frenchman has HIV. I suppose she got that from being raped too, right?

      1. Because only virgins can be raped, dimwit?

        1. Anyone standing in the way of socialist glory deserves what they get. Give all to the collective that the collectice can take.

      2. So, you’re saying she deserved it?

        1. I’m just asking questions.

          1. No, you’re being a prick.

            1. This.

      3. She’s an african refugee. Sadly, this may have been her least worst near-rape experience.

        1. True Abdul, unfortunately AIDS is rampant in married, faithful African women. She was a widow, and he likely infected her.

      4. You’re an awful human being.

      5. WOW Hobie. I don’t give a shit how people are infected; it’s fucking tragic

        1. C’mon he was just asking questions. Racebaiting Inquiring minds thirst for all the juicy details.

        2. I don’t give a shit how people are infected

          I do. AIDS was a creation of God, to rid society of all the junkies and fags.

          I read that somewhere.

      6. I’m speechless.

        Actually, I’m not. GO DIE IN A FIRE, HOBIE.

        1. GDIAF does not tell us why he would ever think that way. I want to understand his thought process
          -then I’ll give you back the can of gas.

      7. Let me be perfectly clear: Hobie Hanson, you’re a fucking imbecile. FOAD, DIAF, and drown in a river of dicks. Asshole.

      8. You’re only bitching about her because he’s a socialist, Hobie.

      9. She’s a widow. Perhaps she contracted it from her husband when he was still alive.

        1. rather|5.18.11 @ 9:50AM|#
          True Abdul, unfortunately AIDS is rampant in married, faithful African women. She was a widow, and he likely infected her.

    5. Her attorney was on the teevee this morning categorically denying this.

      1. He can protect her, and evidence of her medical/sexual life would be not admissible.

        The residence she lives in is for adult Aids patients ,and not minor children. The child’s diagnoses would not qualify her for reduced rent

      2. I heard him on NPR this morning claiming that the encounter was consensual.

        Right, she’s HIV positive and she really wanted him to throw her to the ground and force his withered old 64 year-old French fatman member into her butt.

        1. I should clarify that by “him,” I meant the alleged attempted rapist’s defense attorney.

  2. “Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood, because I have said publicly those words were inaccurate and unfortunate.”

    How about the ads just paraphrase Newt on Meet the Press with, “I’m an idiot and I can prove it.”

    1. “Any ad quoting my words on Sunday will inevitably be simple ad hominem attacks, thereby conceding my points.”

  3. DSK’s accuser is a 32 year old widow mother from Mali. I guess he likes a little brown sugar. It does not appear, however that this old slaver knows he is doin all right at least not currently in his cell at Rikers.…..d=13621783

    1. All that suicide watch coverage. Feh. Suck it up, dude. If you’re innocent, you’ve got a big payday coming. If not, get used to your new home.

      1. If you’re innocent, you’ve got a big payday coming.


        What “big payday”?

        I predict this is the dumbest comment I’ll read all day, and I plan to read Youtube comments.

        1. Being that powerful, this would be pretty easy to setup as harrassment and defamation of character, if he’s innocent. Much easier for the system to pay for it to go away.

          1. I actually agree with Brett on this one. If he’s innocent and can prove anything malicious, the hotel, the lady and whoever set it up are gonna be fucked financially.

            Having said that, there appears to be a pattern of behavior to this guy, and it ain’t a good one. I guess it was a bit of an open secret in the French media that no woman would ever interview him alone.

            1. Fucking spoof names. How do they work?

    2. From the article:

      “This is one of the most important persons in the world. How can he do this?” the friend asked of Strauss-Kahn, an influential international power broker.

      It’s what they do – fuck strangers in the ass.

      1. I hope someone is smashing DSK’s windshield right now.

        1. So do we!

        2. Or a neighbor’s windshield…

        3. Is “smashing windshield” some kind of prison slang?

          1. Seriously, you people have never seen The Big Lebowski?

            1. Yes, which is why I corrected you about it being the neighbor’s windshield.

              The TBL scene in question.

  4. “How Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid created an Internet campaign to rival Barack Obama’s.”

    Without such campaigns, would I think less of those two? Is that possible?

    1. im sure both are holding their breath waiting

  5. “I want the biggest, best online campaign in the history of Nevada,” Reid told JD in that first meeting.

    You know, just in case the Nevada voter fraud machine ain’t what it used to be.

  6. I never stacked my workers like kindling

    1. Although my workers are stacked.

      Sorry, couldn’t resist!

  7. NPR’s Scott Simon writes sappy farewell to America’s shuttle program

    Indeed. Not enough snark, cynicism and defeatism for my palate.

  8. Watching Endeavour’s last launch with my two daughters, I realized that when it comes to exploring space I want America to be in the driver’s seat.

    The last thing we need is the Chinese there. Asians can’t drive for shit. Am I right, fellow stereotypists?

    1. We have a problem with escape velocity.

      Get off my launch pad!

    2. They took our jobs!

    3. Yeah and they’re slow golfers too.

    4. Yeah! Well isn’t the stereotype asian women? ‘Round Carnegie Mellon way they are the most oblivious drivers I have ever seen.

    5. LACIST!

      1. :clapping: Well done.

    6. Barry would use “driving the space program into the ditch”, or some other shit.

      1. Into a ditch, sipping their Slurpees watching c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannh?user Gate

  9.…/timothy-p-carney-how-ges-green-lobbying-killing-us-factory-jobs – United States

    GE was behind the new light bulb ban and the $50 replacements. I don’t think your typical green who supported the ban is a shill for GE. They are just too stupid to understand that corporations play them and the government like fiddles for their benefit and at our expense.

    1. GE is different, they aren’t Big Oil. And they support Obama. And its for the environment (and probably the chirrens.)

    2. $50 replacement? What are you replacing, a floodlamp?

      Consumers were moving to CFLs already due to longer life and lower energy costs. I disagree with the ban on incandescents but for most purposes CFLs are better even from a purely cost-benefit standpoint.

      1. Except the actual light sucks.

        1. This to infinity. That light is terrible and the flickering makes my head hurt.

        2. No shit. I wonder if the penalty for buying illegal bulbs will worse that pot

          1. no need to buy illegal. stockpile now.

          2. Inciting people to buy illegal bulbs is a major felony…

          3. You have to factor in the cost of a new door (which will be busted in when the cops outside hear you flipping the light switch to get rid of the evidence of your incandescent light).

            “You Honor, we knew the accused was up to no good because we saw bright steady light coming out from the crack of their door. No way that was a cfl”

        3. I’ve never understood how “the light sucks”. It’s light, albeit from several discrete frequencies rather than the full spectrum. Once it’s scattered by the thing you’re looking at, I don’t see how it makes a difference.

          1. Tulpa, go buy a few and put them in an overhead fixture or two in your house and see which one you prefer.

            Fluorescent lights aren’t horrible in many settings, but in your house it makes it feel kind of sterile. (It’s hard to explain except to say that the harsh white light just doesn’t feel quite right in a home… at least to me)

            1. Agreed, and I don’t find it even illuminates fully. I can’t paint, or read with that light source.

              I wonder if they will hand out health care light bulb wavers?

              1. Start donating if you want one.



          2. There IS a difference between how the light is produced via incandescent vs fluorescent bulbs. CFLs have a flicker that incandescents do not have. I don’t notice it since the flicker rate is like 120 cycles per second, but Mrs. Platypus does.

            1. Yes, I’m aware that the light generation method is different. I’ve never noticed the flicker but maybe I’m a slow seer like you…

          3. As I understand it (from the electricians & lighting designers on film shoots) the spectrum is very much the issue as that variable influences the color response of everything your eye takes in. To say “this light sucks” is inaccurate but all lights are more suitable for some applications than they are for others.

          4. We put CFLs in the recessed cans in our kitchen ceiling, and it’s like trying see in a fucking cave.

            They take several minutes to warm up to full brightness.

            We’ve found a wide variation, depending on brand, in not only how bright they are, but also the color of the light. Most of them are either kind of yellowish or slightly bluish. We have found some that are actually pretty nice and bright white light, but they’re about $8 per bulb. And we’ve had several of them burn out within a couple weeks. They claim to last 5 years or some such bullshit, but that has not proved to be true yet.

            Fucking Congress.

            1. those marked ‘daylight’ are almost always too blue and do not represent as well as something like GE Reveal incandescent bulbs. CFL’s IMHO are only useful in those places you rarely go… basement, laundry room (ha!), garage…

              1. I’m a Warhammer 40k player and paint the figures in my basement (sometimes in my PJs just to complete the stereotype), and recently replaced the incandescents with CFLs. I’ve noticed that the figures don’t look the same as the ones I’d done under incandescents.

                At the store I play at there are some guys who enter their models into tournaments and competitions. They go so far as to determine the lighting where the judging will take place and paint accordingly.

                The light from CFLs is different from incandescents, more noticably to some than others.

                I have nothing against CFLs because they are CFLs. I am against them because they do not provide the same lighting that I spent 33+ years using, and do not come close to matching the “savings” I’m told they should be providing.

          5. I’ve never understood how “the light sucks”. It’s light, albeit from several discrete frequencies rather than the full spectrum.

            So, if someone replaced all your lightbulbs with ones that only let the red spectrum through, you’d be OK with that because light is light?

            Florescent light just looks icky.

      2. Have you seen the failure rates for CFLs? I’ve essentially given up on the whole “longer life” bit. Yes, some have extremely long life, but they fail early and often. They still put out ugly light. And I’m unconvinced that TCO is significantly different.

        1. I’ve had the same batch of CFLs for about 8 years. They’ve moved with me from apartment to apartment.

          You just have to buy the right brand(s), just like any other significant electrical purchase. A hassle, perhaps, but you only have to do it once a decade.

          1. What? You take the lights with you when you move from place to place? Weren’t there any there when you moved in?

            1. Most of them are in lamps, and yes, some of the places I’ve moved to had fixtures with no bulbs in them. When there are incandescent bulbs in fixtures when I move in, I always remove the incandescents and put in my CFLs.

              1. The problem is that the CFLs are LARGER than incandescents, and don’t FIT all of my fixtures.

                So the fucking hack bureaucrats expect me to INSTALL NEW FIXTURES in order to use the VASTLY MORE EXPENSIVE bulbs they want to force me to use…as a conservation measure.

                This is why whenever I have a chance to waste energy that I am not personally paying for…I take it. Want to force me to “conserve”? I can fucking piss in that punchbowl no problem.

                1. And when you replace those fixtures think how much money you put into the economy fluffy? This thing is not just energy saving it is an economic stimulus package to.

                  1. Wouldn’t breaking windows be more fun though?

                2. This is why whenever I have a chance to waste energy that I am not personally paying for…I take it.

                  Ah, just as we planned ….

          2. I have not had a CFL last longer than six months in any installed fixture.

            They do a little better in free standing lamps.

            1. You need to buy a better brand then. Or you need to stop turning them on and off every time you enter and leave the room, which a lot of creatures of habit do.

              1. How about “no”?

                So you want to force me to leave lights running…as a conservation measure?


                1. Exactly. They don’t save any money because for them to work properly and last as long as they should you have to never turn them off which defeats the purpose of replacing incandescent bulbs.

                  This is flat out corporate theft. GE makes more money off of the more expensive bulbs. So they got he green cultists to pass an idiotic rule forcing us to buy their more expensive bulbs. It was pure evil genius on GE’s part.

                2. I don’t support forcing you to do anything.

                  And yes, a 16W blub running for twice as long as a 60W bulb uses less energy.

                  1. It runs a lot more than twice as long if you never turn it off. My lights aren’t one 12 hours a day.

                    1. Turning it on and off once or twice a day isn’t going to hurt the lifetime that much.

                    2. CFLs are also superior on hot summer nights, when having a bunch of miniature space heaters pumping out heat all over your house is a tad undesirable.

                    3. And in the winter you lose that benefit.

                    4. In the winter you presumably have actual heaters running.

                    5. In the summer, at least in the south, we have “air conditioners”. They find 100 to 200 extra watts per room to have little effect on their efficiency. I personally turn my lights off at night, but I’m an incandescent user.

                    6. Winter is when you route the heat produced by your high pressure sodium lamps from your pot grow to another part of the house.

              2. Oh so they work ok as long as you don’t go abusing them by turning them on and off. Good to know.

              3. Or you need to stop turning them on and off every time you enter and leave the room, which a lot of creatures of habit do.

                My monthly electric bill is around $400, so turning off unused lights is worth it in lower bills, despite having to replace bulbs more often.

                1. Dude, are you paying attention? CFL running 12 hours a day uses less energy than an incandescent running 4 hours a day for the same amount of light. You’re better off switching to CFLs and leaving them on most of the day compared to having an incandescent you turn on and off.

          3. You just have to buy the right brand(s),

            Lemme guess…..GE?

            1. GE is one of the better brands (I think mine are GE — but it’s been a long time since I’ve looked). But there are other choices that are good.

        2. Well, the key is to never turn them off. Funny though 16w @ 24 hours is more than 60w @ 4 hours. I do notice that people will just leave em on.

          1. Turning them on and off once a day is not going to shorten the life of the bulb that much. The problems arise when people habituated to incandescents turn lights off whenever they leave a room.

            1. Another problem with CFLs is that they make an audible sound.

              Like florescent bulbs.

              As the bulb ages, the sound gets more noticeable.

              So if you are sitting anywhere near your light source (the way you might if you are, say, using lower wattage bulbs to only cast light where you need it instead of spewing light pollution out over your whole neighborhood) you get to hear an infuriating little hum whenever the light is on.

              1. How would you know this when you’ve never had a CFL make it past 6 months?

                1. Isn’t it enough to say I just don’t like being forced to choose CFL? If they’re better, fine. If I prefer incandescent, fine too. But why mandate me?

                  I bet you wouldn’t let me use leaded gasoline in my dune buggy either!

                  1. As a MM fan, I support requiring dune buggies to run only on pigshit.

            2. So not only is the light cold and clinical but you’re supposed to leave the fucking things on all the time too?

        3. I replaced every bulb in my home 3.5 years ago. Only 2 have burned out prematurely.

          I’m not bothered by the light produced.

          I am bothered, however, with greens seeing this stupid ass law as a green law rather than corporate welfare for preferred industries.

          1. I’m not convinced they make more money from CFLs than they made on incandescents.

            Usually it’s the things that have to be replaced at short intervals that make a company big profits — hence it was always more profitable to make videotapes rather than VCRs, razor blades rather than razors, etc.

      3. Yeah you can go to CFL if you want to risk mercury dumped all over your house if you break the damn thing. You can go to an LED if you want to live in the dark. A 100 watt LED runs $50. If you want to live in the dark or pay 50 for the same light as a fifty cent bulb to show your dedication to the global warming cult, have fun. But leave me the fuck out of it and give me my 100 watt bulb.

        1. Then don’t break it. I understand that people with kids probably don’t want to put CFLs in lamps that can be knocked over for this reason, which is a good reason to allow incandescents to stay on the market, but most fixtures shouldn’t be susceptible to breakage.

          There are far more dangerous things in your house than CFLs if they’re handled improperly.

          1. We all know the hate against CFLs is just a rightwing meme. There are far more dangerous things in your house, like shotguns.

          2. The very first CFL I purchased broke in my kitchen.

            Because the damn things contain mercury, they are packaged like they are organs for transplant or something.

            Attempting to pry the damn thing out of its plastic fortress of solititude, I applied too much pressure and the thing POPPED out and flew through the air.

            Crash. Boom. Mercury.

          3. “”Then don’t break it. I understand that people with kids probably don’t want to put CFLs in lamps that can be knocked over for this reason, which is a good reason to allow incandescents to stay on the market,””

            Then don’t have kids.

            1. That’s not a viable option..

        2. People like you John are why we need police.


    3. Another optimistic fusion story to add to the confusion.…

    4. We just moved into a home and I replaced all the CFLs with 100W bulbs after getting tired of not being able to see anything. I fucking hate CFLs.

  10. Gingrich told Van Susteren, “Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood, because I have said publicly those words were inaccurate and unfortunate.”

    Wow. This is even worse than the famous “I’ve already taken responsibility for Fiasco X, so stop blaming me for it.”

    1. He is SO going to get those words thrown at him over and over again.

      I mean, WTF? “I didn’t like what I said on camera, and have tried to walk it back, so pretty please don’t replay that clip in hit pieces.”

      It’s like he’s new to politics or something.

  11. While this was not his finest hour, Scott Simon is the one NPR commentator capable of writing non-kneejerk, actually insightful, essays about news and culture.

  12. San Francisco police to carry video cameras during arrests

    I wonder how often the videos will get accidentally deleted, or not get turned on in the first place.

    1. Six times?

    2. Open scene:

      “Turn that thing off, asshole!”

      “Ahh, but I’m your patrol partner. . . ”

      Camera shakes, falls, sound of nightstick whomping/taser crackling.


    1. If you have a bladder problem, then I believe the ADA would require your employer to allow you to piss in the truck. A “reasonable accomodation”, doncha know.

      1. He’s an independant contractor, so it’s really his call.

    2. He should have thrown them out the window, like normal people.

  13. A Conflict Without End

    Osama bin Laden had been dead only a few days when House Republicans began their efforts to expand, rather than contract, the war on terror. Not content with the president’s wide-ranging powers to pursue the archcriminals of Sept. 11, 2001, Republicans want to authorize the military to pursue virtually anyone suspected of terrorism, anywhere on earth, from now to the end of time.

    A new bill, approved last week by the House Armed Services Committee and heading for the floor this month, would go much further. It would allow military attacks against not just Al Qaeda and the Taliban but also any “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States.” That deliberately vague phrase could include anyone who doesn’t like America, even if they are not connected in any way with the 2001 attacks. It could even apply to domestic threats.

    It allows the president to detain “belligerents” until the “termination of hostilities,” presumably at a camp like the one in Guant?namo Bay, Cuba. Since it does not give a plausible scenario of how those hostilities could be considered over, it raises the possibility of endless detention for anyone who gets on the wrong side of a future administration.…..Republican authorization military force&st=Search

    1. Such a splendid war, why should it ever end?

    2. I told you fuckers this would happen.

      1. We have always been at war with terror.

    3. I am sure that the democrats will rise up and stand in unity to defeat this bill. And, if by some miracle it makes it to the president’s desk, he will veto it without hesitation.

    4. “It would allow military attacks against not just Al Qaeda and the Taliban but also any “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States.” That deliberately vague phrase could include anyone who doesn’t like America, even if they are not connected in any way with the 2001 attacks. It could even apply to domestic threats.”

      Only if you have a strange view of the meaning of “hostilities”. Any country is allowed to kill those engaged in hostilities against it. It is called self defense.

      And besides, if this is so bad Obama will veto it right? I mean it is not like he hasn’t closed GUITMO or gotten us into anymore wars much less not ended the ones we were in. Right?

      1. Are John and capitol l so partisan that their only response to this is in effect “well I bet the Democrats won’t stop it, huh, huh?”

        It’s a bad bill aggrandizing an already aggrandized executive, much like Obama’s rape of the War Powers act I posted below.

        1. Yeah, I was taking a cheap shot about Obama. But seriously, we already have a right to engage those who are engaged in hostilities against us. We always have. I am not following why it is so bad. It doesn’t seem to say “those who might engage in” or “those who support those who do”. It says “those engaging in hostilities”.

          1. @John

            I understand what you’re saying here, but after the last few decades I am against anything that gives a whiff of increasing executive power and purview.


            Hell yes I am partisan. I will be the first to sign up for the rah-rah squad of the party that puts an end to this stupid power grabbing shit.

            1. Cap you damned fool! You’re talking to the same person. John is just MNG’s rightwing sockpuppet, no wonder noone reads their schizo backandforth

              1. And you’re MY sockpuppet, shrike. Don’t ever forget.

          2. “”But seriously, we already have a right to engage those who are engaged in hostilities against us. “”

            Engaging in hostilities can also mean providing support. Exactly what hostilites did the American cleric in Yemen engage that made POTUS want to execute him with a missile?

      2. The problem is that the prez gets to determine what constitutes “hostilities” without going to Congress for an AUMF.

        The word “associated” would seem to require that the prez show that the targets are linked to aQ somehow, but I’m sure that will be ignored in practice.

        1. “”The problem is that the prez gets to determine what constitutes “hostilities” without going to Congress for an AUMF.””


          It sounds like a pre-approved AUMF for any future mission under the name of terrorism. That would included future missions similar to Afghanistan, Iraq.

          1. That would included future missions similar to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Jordan, Israel, the UAE, Mexico, etc, etc, etc…

            FIFY, because your statement was incomplete.

      3. “”Only if you have a strange view of the meaning of “hostilities”.””

        You mean if the President has a strange view of the meaning of “hostilities”. None of our view about that meaning will send troops into action.

    5. How is your buddy’s war in Libya going by the way?

    6. Of course, Obama has to sign the bill for it to become law. And when he does, the law will be the Republicans fault, right?

    7. If it gets to my desk, I’ll sign it.

  14. Death of the War Powers Act?

    This week, the War Powers Act confronts its moment of truth. Friday will mark the 60th day since President Obama told Congress of his Libyan campaign. According to the act, that declaration started a 60-day clock: If Obama fails to obtain congressional support for his decision within this time limit, he has only one option ? end American involvement within the following 30 days.

    Obama has not only failed but he hasn’t even tried ? leaving it to Sen. Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, to call for a “specific resolution that would give [the president] authority.” Neither the president nor the Democratic congressional leadership has shown any interest. They have been sleep-walking their way to Day 60.

    By Friday, the administration’s legal team is likely to announce that the clock stopped ticking on April 1 ? the date when NATO “took the lead” in the bombing campaign. Since NATO is running the show, the argument will go, the War Powers Act no longer applies, and the president doesn’t have to go back to Congress after all.

    But American planes and drones continued their bombing long after the April turnover ? and the drones are still flying over Libya. Since the cost of the mission is at three-quarters of a billion dollars and climbing, it is sheer fiction to suggest that we are no longer a vital player in NATO’s “Operation Unified Protector.”

    Make no mistake: Obama is breaking new ground, moving decisively beyond his predecessors…If nothing happens, history will say that the War Powers Act was condemned to a quiet death by a president who had solemnly pledged, on the campaign trail, to put an end to indiscriminate warmaking.…..story.html

    1. So does this make him officially worse than Bush?

      1. FLASHTRAFFIC – let PL know!

      2. I think what it means is that the Founders were right in a perverse way, the Executive branch jealously guards and promotes its own power regardless of who inhabits the office.

        Of course they seem to have been wrong that the other branches would stand up to the Executive to protect their own power.

        I’m looking at you legislature.

        1. I completely agree. One of the big failures inherent in the Constitution–at least over the last hundred years–is the belief that the branches would aggressively defend their prerogatives. That is not the case, and it is a major problem in trying to preserve limited government.

          Aside from national security issues, another area where this Congressional pussification has been demonstrated over and over again is in the passing of legislative power to the executive agencies.

        2. The notion that the different branches of the same government would fight each other, while a nice idea, doesn’t happen nearly as robustly as hoped for.

          Sometimes the branches do that to each other, but not nearly enough.

    2. Barack Obama in: War Powers: International Mandate of Mystery.

    3. Sen Lugar should be calling for impeachment if Obama doesn’t follow the law. But it’s not about lying and blowjobs in the Oval office so it’s different.


    1. Good thing I went out and RTFA’d. For a second I thought this was prescriptive of his actions should he become president, rather than descriptive of what he believes inevitable if he does not get elected.

      1. Now that would be news!

  15. CIA flew stealth drones into Pakistan to monitor bin Laden house
    Published: May 18, 2011
    >The CIA used sophisticated new stealth drone aircraft to fly dozens in secret missions deep into Pakistani airspace and monitor the compound where Osama bin Laden was killed earlier this month, The Washington Post writes, citing current and former U.S. officials.
    >The new drones represent a major advance in the capabilities of remotely piloted planes, which have been the signature American weapon against terrorist groups since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.…..e-1.143830

  16. Herb Kohl is a jackass…whose money is in your 401K?


    1. Something I don’t understand about 401k loans, who is getting the interest? It seems somewhat absurd that I cannot take a zero-interest loan from myself. I’m sure someone can educate me on why you have to pay prime rate +1 to loan yourself money you earned.

      1. You are paying yourself the interest; it’s one of the good aspects of taking a loan from yourself.

        Of course you would probably make more money if you just invested in SPYdrs or something, but you’re borrowing the money because you need the money, not because you think it’s the optimal investment strategy.

    2. Wow, that’s really irritating. Taking a loan from your own 401 (k) makes sense when you need the money, as you are paying yourself back the interest.

      So he’d rather people jump through all the hoops and pay all the associated fees, as well as higher interest to another party, instead of using their own funds? Because people sometimes default and the loan becomes a distribution??

      I’m glad the senator is in such a unique position to know the fiscal needs of every 401(k) account holder in the country.

  17. Not enough snark, cynicism and defeatism for my palate.

    We must waste trillions of dollars on a pointless and ultimately useless space program, because our national honor demands it!

  18. Some fans may feel that to support the players is anti-capitalist, a little too May Day. But there is the spirit of free enterprise, and then there is the spirit with which NFL owners tend to do business.

    There is a pattern forming. In the past week ? before Monday’s appeals court ruling extending the lockout ? we’ve seen a new stadium proposal for the Minnesota Vikings that amounts to a bilking of taxpayers. A judge is preparing to punish owners for cheating the players in negotiated TV deals. And waiters are suing a company co-founded by Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones for withholding tips from $35-a-day concession workers.…..story.html

    1. Eh. I’m no union lover, but I think the NFL is one of those places where the work is specialized enough that the players have leverage. If the owners cant get them to play for what they’re paying them, then they should pay more. Or not. My life will go on if there’s no season next year. I’m damn sure not tying myself in any knots to defend NFL owners.

      1. I would think an owner could still wait out most players, but I really feel for the other NFL employers like the guys who work concessions and such.

        And the cheerleaders. I feel for them, I’d even be willing to put up a few in my place to show my solidarity with those workers.

        1. MNG, as much as we may disagree about things, I stand in full solidarity with your pro-cheerleader stance.

          1. Thanks Brett. I stand firmly behind the cheerleaders.

            1. I stand behind firm cheerleaders.

            2. I stand firmly inside the cheerleaders.

    2. Why do we have to take a side in the NFL labor dispute? Can’t we all agree both sides are douches?

      1. Good thing that I f5’d this bitch because I was about to say the same thing.

        If the players feel they are being cheated then they can quit and use their marketable skills to find other work. Like flipping burgers or being a bouncer.

        The fact that I am paying a higher sales tax for stadiums built over a decade ago allows me no sympathy for parasitic sports team owners.

        1. Don’t forget that the players can sign with a UFL or Arena2000 team.

          1. hahaha, that was joking, yeah?

          2. Don’t forget the CFL.

        2. my vote goes on the “fuck these douchenozzles” side. professional sports is entertainment I enjoy but will gladly do without. I typically go to an nfl game once a year, but since the advent of hdtv I feel like more and more of a sucker for doing so.

          1. The NFL is definitely a TV sport.

            Baseball’s for radio.

            Hockey for the arena experience.

            1. I disagree. There are vast swaths of every single play in football that one can’t see on the TV. The camera focuses on the ball. Oftentimes, it’s what’s happening away from the backfield that determines a play’s success or failure.

              WR routes that don’t happen over the short/intermediate middle section of the field. Anything in the defensive backfield (I.e., what the safeties and deep CBs are doing) is completely ignored in football until the ball goes that way.

              Football is anything but a TV sport. You need to be at the game in order to take in the entirety of any given play.

    3. Personally, I’d love to see 12th-string scabs on the field on national teevee. And in the Pooperbowl.

  19. Edward Hardwicke died. I love old school actors.…..48&bih=555

  20. Notorious Auschwitz sign repaired after 2009 theft
    WARSAW, Poland (AP) — The notorious sign spanning Auschwitz’s main gate, which was stolen and cut into pieces in a 2009 heist, has been welded back together and otherwise restored almost to its previous condition, officials said Wednesday.
    >Conservation workers at the site of the former Nazi death camp said they have worked for nearly a year and a half photographing, analyzing and finally welding back together the pieces of the badly damaged sign bearing the cynical Nazi slogan “Arbeit Macht Frei” (Work Sets You Free).…..8-08-07-44

    1. Who steals that sign? Why? Holocaust deniers?

      1. Metal scrappers.

        1. Stay away from the Nazi memorabilia. It’s America’s sweetheart repellant

    2. The biggest irony is that after all the work painstakingly rebuilding a replica of the sign, none of the workers were set free.

    1. I want to apologize for taking your name in vain on the next thread.

      1. John/Suki’s behavior shows up in the Cracked article.

        1. I read that on Cracked yesterday and immediately thought of Suki-man.

          1. I resemble that!

            1. You sure do.

          2. Goddamn all of you breakfast related handles.

            capitol l is a hero among men!

        2. What behavior?

          1. Not you. The John (Taglioferro sp?) that created and posts with suki.

          2. John you are the most annoying sock puppet ever. do you ever get tired of being so rahrah team Red and WARS! fuck yeah!?

            I’m calling you out. You are the sockpuppet and MNG is the mains persona.

            1. Is that a shrike parody? I can’t tell anymore!

              1. It didn’t include bushpig or christfag so I am thinking it was a parody.

                1. MNG/John, its always about bushitler christfags with sockpuppets like you.

                  Sometimes adults like to have a real discussion which you ruin with your adolescent “look at me” act. Get fucked you libral douche

                  1. GOTTA be a shrike-spoof. The real shrike IS a “libral douche”.

    2. “The Cheater’s Guide to Winning Online Arguments”

      This is great! Am reading it on the toilet. Thanks!

    3. This made me LOL — funniest thing on Teh Intartubes I’ve read this am:

      “There’s a small problem lurking in the background of all this advice, and I’ve been struggling to come up with a delicate way of broaching it. Basically, if you’re seriously going to spend time holding up two ends of a conversation, if you have night-terrors at the thought that people might speak about you when you’re not present, there’s a small chance you’re completely insane. Here’s a little psychological experiment I want you to try. It should illuminate how you’ll be able to handle multiple personalities.

      Put on a blindfold. Take a deep breath, then slowly reach down your pants and play with yourself a bit. Really get in there. After a minute or so, take off the blindfold and answer the following multiple choice question. This experience felt:

      A) OK

      B) Uncomfortable

      If you answered A or B you are insane. Come on man, it’s like 10 in the morning. You’re probably at work. You just diddled yourself because the Internet told you to.

      Read more: The Cheater’s Guide to Winning Online Arguments |…..z1MjhXfaCj“

  21. NFL owners are a bunch of rent-seeking welfare queens?

    Shocked, I am.

    1. If you want to be a World Class City, you have have sports teams with taxpayer-provided stadiums. It’s just that simple.

      1. Look what it has done for Detroit. I mean Detroit is a paradise thanks to Ford Field.

    1. This just in, poor people cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

  22. Newt Gingrich, meet Barbara Streisand.

  23. Ugh. In 4 hours, I have to turn in a take home test, and then I am motherfucking done with motherfucking, shit eating, ass raping, DSK Finals.

    Until I go to law school that is. Nonetheless Reason, if later today my grammar,spelling, and punctuation take a nose dive in quality, I am either:

    a) drunk
    b) sleep deprived from an all nighter tonite plus three hours for the last 2.
    c)all of the above.

    1. I have to turn in a take home test

      Just ask a friend to pee in a cup, and you’ll pass

    2. Until I go to law school that is.

      Don’t do it. Unless you enjoy paying off student loans for the rest of your life that is.

      1. Not if you happen to be, you know, a succesful lawyer.

        1. Define “successful lawyer.”

          I know a lot of lawyers who make six figures and who despise their daily existence.

          The plain fact is that the majority of people who graduate from law school today stand very little chance at all of making six figures. Most are lucky if they can get a good job paying them $50,000.

          And a lot of them will have $120,000 or more in student debt.

        2. I think you should look into what the job market is like these days for newly minted JDs. Even grads from the top schools are struggling to find decent employment.

          1. I think he (or she) needs to look at whether they actually like legal work. Even a six-figure salary can’t compensate for hating yourself and your job every morning at work.

            That being said, as someone who didn’t go to law school, my last couple of jobs wound up with me doing a lot of legal work — reading and analysis of legislation — once they found out I was good at it, because that was the most valuable use of my time at work.

            It was the most interesting part of my job, though that spoke quite a lot about how much the rest of my job sucked.

      2. Another vote for don’t do it. Unless you have an acceptance to HYS or another Top-15 school or another way to guarantee yourself a great job after graduation.

        BSR states the economics pretty well. Many new lawyers are doing document review, and improvements in offshoring and AI heuristics are threatening to make that line of work a thing of the past.

        Seriously, reconsider going to law school.

    3. As a lawyer in a biglaw firm, I very strongly urge you to NOT go to law school.

      The job market for recent law school grads is total SHIT and has been for a couple years now. In the past two years, law firms have laid off literally tens of thousands of lawyers nationwide. And many, many young lawyers practicing law today HAAAAATE it.

      I would be willing to bet quite a lot that you don’t fully and truly know what the “practice of law” actually is like. Unless you have a very specific type of law you really have a passion for, if you’re going to law school because you think it would be neato or interesting to be a lawyer, and potentially a passport to good money, run like the wind away from law school.

      I’m not joking.

      A very dear friend of mine took her own life in 2009 after being laid off from my firm. I know several very smart, very capable, hard-working lawyers who were laid off and have been casting about for the past year and half or two trying to figure out what they’re going to do.

      Two very good friends of mine just quit the firm about a month ago. No prospects; nothing new lined up – they just fucking had it. Couldn’t stand it anymore. The prospect of being unemployed with no income and no job prospects was better than spending another day doing the shit they had been doing here.

      As it is, I’ve got one leg out the door myself, but I’m hanging in here until I can figure out a better exit strategy than simply quitting. Although that’s looking better day by day.

      1. The law boom has been an incredible waste of human capital. The whole big firm model of law was inefficient and based on stealing from their clients by charging $400 or more an hour for work that could be done for a tenth of that. The people in those firms produced nothing of value for the economy. But because the pay was so high and the market was so distorted we took some of our best and brightest and locked them into law offices reviewing documents. Think of all the lost productivity. All of the things people like your friend could have done if we hadn’t sucked them into law.

        1. Although, serious question: Would I have any chance going for litigation? Because I think any other form of law would drive me up a wall.

          1. The only ways you will end up doing litigation early in your career is as a) a PD or Prosecutor, or b) solo practitioner (risky/expensive)

            To expect on anything else would be to rely on either luck or knowing someone

            1. Actually, I’m pretty sure public defenders wind up getting thrown into the shark pool early in their career too, before they have time to burn out.

            2. A good friend switched into being a public defender after years of laboring at large firms with no advancement, and he loves the hell out it now.

          2. What kind of litigation? There’s low-level, county court litigation, and then there’s massive, corporate, interstate or international complex litigation.

            You could hang out your own shingle and litigate traffic and small contract cases on your own, right out of law school.

            If you want to get into big-time litigation, you pretty much, for the most part, have to get into a biglaw firm and slave your ass away for years as an associate doing shit work and carrying the partner’s briefs before you ever get near standing up in a court room.

          3. I hope you like to write. Most complex litigation that I am familiar with is much more concerned with motion practice, than it is with making arguments to a jury. I do have friends who are attorneys, and they do like what they do—sort of—but it has been a gigantic economic struggle for them.

        2. The people in those firms produced nothing of value for the economy.

          I think someone awaiting trial for shooting cops illegally entering their house, or something like that, would dispute that notion that all legal work is valueless.

          There are some useful lawyers out there, as my wife found out when defending against a baseless malpractice suit. Needless to say, the attorney filing the malpractice claim was vile scum actively destroying value — way into six figures defending a case that got tossed by the jury when it finally got to trial.

      2. BSR–as a lawyer I would agree completely with your post. My conclusion is that (while exceptions always exist) a lawyer can either make a lot of money, or have a fun job (which allows time away from work so you can have a life) but not both. I went to a state law school and worked full time during that period, so only had maybe 20K in student loans when I graduated. Not having to pay 1200-1500 bucks a month on student loans gives you more flexibility in what jobs you can take.

        Au H20–most lawyers I know who make a lot of money are miserable, or lead lives which I would consider miserable. Everyone in a big firm seems to get to work early, work til dinner time, then work after dinner until they go to bed. With a schedule like that you really can’t have a hobby, spend much time with your spouse/kids, or just relax from time to time. Most of them put in at least some weekend hours too. They can’t draw a boundary between their work and personal lives. And it’s not like the work is particularly interesting, or has a visible positive impact in someone’s life. Think research on fine points of contacts, reviewing truckloads of discovery documents, etc. A buddy of mine from law school was once sent to Lousiana for 2 weeks, doing nothing but looking through thousands of documents in a warehouse.

        The other choice is to get a job you actually enjoy, one that allows you to have a life. E.g. public defender, or working for a small firm that fits your goals and personality. The tradeoff of course is that such jobs might start at 40-50K and don’t expect regular or substantial raises.

      3. Ok, then – where does that leave bright young people in terms of economically rewarding career prospects? High-tech has been off-shored, law is over-crowded, finance is in disgrace and medicine is about to be socialized.

        Not a whole lot of opportunities in the land of opportunity these days, is there?

        1. Politics?

        2. I hear the tractor-pulling circuit is hiring.

        3. You’ve pretty much summed it up.

        4. That’s not really true. A lot of high-tech manufacturing has gone overseas, but development and more specialized manufacturing is doing quite well, from what I can see working in a tech field.

        5. Librarian / Archivist?

    4. Thanks for the law school advice, guys.

      On the other hand- I’m almost fucking done with college. C’mon, would a “Congratulations” knock the monocles off your faces?

      1. No, you go to college for yourself. Don’t need my congratulations, just need to go make something of yourself, something you want to do, want to be. That reward is better than anonymous “omg you graduated? hoorays!”.

        That said, uh, congrats?

        1. Hey man, I worked hard to contribute to the higher education bubble. Also, I am sleep deprived, and while I shouldn’t need to tell strangers, I am in the, “shout it from rooftops” stage sadly. Tomorrow, I should be more, “Eh” about it, but today, I want to run up and tell everyone.

          It’s kinda like when you lose your virginity.

          1. Yeah, close to my graduation I got wasted and literally shouted from rooftops. Gawrsh, that was fun.

            Fun fact: leaving a sign that says “Please do not lock” on the roof access doors will result in them being open the following week. Hooray!

          2. I wouldn’t know.

      2. Congrats.

        My advice (as a practicing lawyer): don’t go to law school unless you really would enjoy the day-to-day of practicing law. Not many lawyers do (although I count myself as one of them, in part because I’ve figured out my niche in the legal ecosystem).

        If you’re thinking the training or the credential is a good economic/career move, I’d strongly urge you to think again.

        1. I hate to see my son go to law school, but he got a full-tuition ride. As he said to me “All I’ve got to lose is three years of my life, Dad.”
          And congrats, AuH2.

      3. Sure. But if you break my monocle, you can find the right sized poor child bones to replace the frame.

        1. Orphan bones are so last season. Every true libertarian has upgraded to whale bone imported from Japan.

          1. Get off my lawn, punk.

      4. As someone with 2 college degrees, i can honestly say congratulatons. Go get drunk and enjoy yourself.

        Then wake up with a hangover and figure out wtf you do next. I strongly suggest finding a job.

        1. I suggest an advanced degree in Math. it will land you most any job you want in a wide array of fields. Advanced math degrees seem to be the opposite of sociology degrees. Me, I never gadiated. And I am ok with that. I find that most of the graduates I know got stupid degrees (I was on that path when I dropped out, however I loved my major it would result it McDonals second Fry Cook’s apprentice). Barring a math degree I would suggest a hard science if you are interested. Physics, Biology, Chemistry (that is lucrative), Geology…and if you must EE.

          1. My philosophy degree has done me pretty well (OK, I doubled in math, so that helps too). Actually knowing how to do stuff before getting the degree was probably more important in my career, though.

            1. Since I didnt get a degree the most important thing in my carreer has been, well, my carreer. I can’t stress enough the value of “work experience” when applying for a job.

              1. Yeah. Actually being able to do things is much better than having any degree in most jobs I would want to do.

          2. It better be applied math (analysis or combinatorics/optimization) or math finance. Professorships in pure math and logic are extremely hard to come by these days, and jobs outside of academia for those fields are nearly nonexistent. (Number theorists can get jobs at NSA but there’s seriously stiff competition)

      5. OK, I’m going to be completely serious here. Because I’ve been doing a shit load of soul-searching and reading on this question myself for a long time now. In my case, I’m questioning whether I’ve waited too long and gotten myself too committed with a wife, kids, mortage, lifestyle, etc., to tolerate the upheaval it would take to seriously change my situation into one I enjoyed more.

        But in your case, the world literally is your oyster.

        Here is what I can sum up from everything I’ve been reading for probably 10 years – and I mean this – I literally have read and listened to (previously on cassette tapes, and then on CD) Zig Ziglar, Steven Covey, Jim Rohn, Anthony Robbins, and many, many others. Lots of books and websites etc. They boil down to this:

        Do what you love. The money will follow.

        That’s it. Seek your passion. There’s an old saying that the man who loves what he does will never work a day in his life. If you’re truly motivated by and passionate about what you do, then the amount it pays you becomes less relevant. Because a job that you can just barely tolerate becomes only very slightly, marginally more tolerable just because they pay you to show up and do it. It’s still a shit job that you hate. That nice, fat paycheck serves as only so much of a motivator and only for so long. Eventually, you feel your soul getting sucked out of your body every day and you have to finally admit that even with the six-figure salary, you fucking hate everything you’re doing on a daily basis and it’s just. not. worth it.

        So. Find what it is you really enjoy and are good at. Pursue it. Become the world’s leading expert and best practitioner of it. Create value in it. It will become its own reward and you ultimately will find a way to make an income at it.

        Shit, there are guys who make millions of dollars skateboarding. There are people who make hundreds of thousands of dollars making designer cupcakes. Or t-shirts. And there are people who aren’t fabulously rich, but who are earning a decent, honest living designing, building and installing custom closet organizers.

        Don’t buy into the bullshit that you have to “tune up your resume” and put on a single-breasted suit and tie and go seek a paycheck.

        Start your own business. Provide a service better than anyone else. Create something new.

        Do what you enjoy doing. I read an article a while back written by a former biglaw attorney who left biglaw to start a sailboat chartering business (sounds pretty fucking good to me). One thing he wrote stuck with me. He made himself a promise that “the next thing I did would be so interesting to me that I would be willing to stay up all night learning about it.”

        I can tell you right now that absolutely nothing I do in my law job is interesting enough to make me want to read it at all, anytime during the day, let alone stay up late at night reading it.

        1. Goldwater, ten years of contemplation and inaction is why BSR is unhappy. His moral code prevents him from what he really wants, and that is fine but you are at the start, and not perpetually stuck in the Hotel Royale .

          First, I know a ton of graduates who are doing a Master’s Degree or law because the job market sucks. The economy is not welcoming and the common interview results in you are overqualified for the job or we can pay someone with a doctorate what we were paying an undergrad ten years ago.

          Do what you love. The money will follow. That may work out for few but not the most. Yes, you will have satisfaction, and peace but DB Cooper will not drop cash from the sky because he can see your smiling face. If you love school, and your parents are happy to keep you there, do it.

          I’d take a gap year, and travel.

          BSR, write down exactly what you want to do, or had done. The rule is your thoughts would make it happen with no consequences. Leave your wife? Use a condom? Never signed the paperwork for that mortgage? Go into work and tell the motherfuckers you think they are jackasses? Live in a log cabin? (wait that’s mine :-)).

          No, you can’t make some of those changes but saying them will let you breathe. Eventually, you will share your list, and with your partner if you are lucky. You may be astonished that both of you share some of your fantasies, and even if you cannot do it, the honesty will make your lack of choice tolerable

  24. I’m sure someone can educate me on why you have to pay prime rate +1 to loan yourself money you earned.

    You stole that money from society, you MOOCHER!

  25. So does this make him officially worse than Bush?

  26. Never really thought about it like that before.

  27. A Virginia case of almost, but not quite, jury nullification involving a tiny amount of marijuana.

    The article requires a paid subscription to read it on-line, unfortunately, but Virginia Lawyer’s Weekly reports that a jury in a case on Albermarle County recently recommended only a $200 fine for a guy who the police caught with a tiny amount of pot in his car. And that was after a lot of potential jurors expressed animosity towards the entire prosecution in the first place. Several apparently said words to the effect of “the government has more important things to do” than prosecute this guy.

    The story is the guy has a commercial driver’s license (CDL) and hauls heavy machinery for a living. He supports three kids and could not do his job without his CDL.

    He was off the job, driving his personal car, and the cops pulled him over because his license plate light was out. For whatever reason, they ended up bringing in drug-sniffing dogs, and found “a small bag of pot inside a cigarette pack. A few flakes of marijuana were loose at the bottom of the pack. All told, the marijuana weighed 3.8 grams, just over an eighth of an ounce ? less than the weight of a nickel coin.”

    In other words, maybe not even enough to make a single joint? I dunno, since I don’t do the stuff.

    The problem is, if he got a drug conviction, he would lose his CDL, and therefore lose his livelihood.

    The court had summoned 19 potential jurors. Trial procedure for a misdemeanor called for a panel of 13 so a jury of seven would be left after the lawyers had made their strikes.

    Eight of the 19 jurors told the judge they thought it was “ridiculous” for the case to even be brought to court, Hingeley said. “The government has better things to do,” seemed to the general sentiment among the eight, he said.

    A lot of the jurors apparently were pissed that the prosecution couldn’t agree to find some way to punish the guy without making him lose his means of earning a living.

    the prosecutor refused to consider a deal where the punishment would allow Washington to stay on the highway.

    “We prosecute all cases equally,” countered Albemarle County Commonwealth’s Attorney Denise Y. Lunsford. She was not directly involved in the case, but she explained her office’s policy is not to accommodate any special hardships caused by a conviction.

    The guy offered to serve a short jail term if he could plead guilty to an offense such as disorderly conduct or possession of drug paraphernalia and keep his CDL. No dice, said the prosecutor.

    “I have to look at the law that is in effect as the General Assembly has decided it and apply it to the facts of the case,” Lunsford said. “The law is what it is. The repercussions might be different for different defendants.”

    The trial took 10 hours. Most of the time evidently was spent trying to seat potential jurors.

    [The prosecutor] Lunsford said she strives to charge people uniformly and prosecute uniformly. “We prosecuted the case the same way we prosecute every other marijuana case,” she said.

    As for the use of government resources ? the court personnel, the police witnesses, the jury ? all for a $200 fine, Lunsford points out it was the defendant who requested the jury trial.

    Lunsford rejects the notion that there is a class of crimes that should not be prosecuted. “I am not a delegate or a senator. I do not feel I can change what the law is,” she said.

    But at least the jurors were pissed enough at the asinine prosecution that they recommended essentially a slap on the wrist that would let the guy keep his CDL.

    1. Is the prosecutor elected in Virginia? Because, personally, if I pulled a random sample of potential voters and 8:19 were overtly hostile to my actions, I might rethink my stance.

      1. The Commonwealth’s Attorney is elected, but the assistant/deputy CAs, who actually do all the mundane, day-to-day prosecutions like these, are hired as employees. I know several of them. And several of them are way overly gung-ho about WINNING against the evil law-breakers. One is constantly bragging on her FB page about putting scumbags away for long prison sentences. Of course, a lot of the people she is talking about actually are scumbags who have committed violent crimes, so I don’t get too offended by her fist-pumping. But she does seem to be a little too inordinately focused on “YEAH! Put that scumbag away for 20 years! So there criminal!”

    2. So I’m reading this correctly that he DID get to keep his CDL?

    3. “”For whatever reason, they ended up bringing in drug-sniffing dogs, and found “a small bag of pot inside a cigarette pack””

      What’s the odds that the “reason” was not giving consent to search.

  28. Harry Reid Embraces the Internet

    Internet maces him, runs to police.

    1. “Schwarzeneggar embraces, impregnates Internet”

      1. We should play golf when I get out of jail.

  29. Fucking rats-with-fuzzy-tails.

    So does this make him officially worse than Bush?

    What do you think?

  30. By Friday, the administration’s legal team is likely to announce that the clock stopped ticking on April 1 ? the date when NATO “took the lead” in the bombing campaign.

    The tranzi project continues. The point of the Libyan adventure was not to protect civilians (if it was, we would be bombing Syria by now).

    The point was to shift control of US armed forces to international bodies. Thus, if US armed forces are under the “command” of “NATO” or some other international body, they are no longer US armed forces, and Congress has no authority to either commit them to or withdraw them from a conflict.

    Fucking tranzis. I hate those guys.

    1. The rumor around conservative pundit and journalist circles has always been that Stein is a first class ass grabbing pig around women. I have heard that from several people. It is very sad because his father, the late Herb Stein, was a prince of a man.

  31. Warrants Let Agents Enter Homes Without Owner Knowing

    Read more:…..z1MfMeZ319

    1. Really? No takers.

      1. Your link is 404’d, FWIW.

  32. A lot of the jurors apparently were pissed that the prosecution couldn’t agree to find some way to punish the guy without making him lose his means of earning a living.

    Anything over and above making him fix the fucking license plate light is bullshit.

    Fuck those pigs.

  33. Er…kindling isn’t stacked that way. When you say something’s “stacked like kindling,” you’re implying laying horizontally, stacked on top of one another. These people most definitely weren’t. I’ve ridden in such tight conditions–sometimes for several hours–in Army trucks. This really isn’t even worth mentioning.

    1. Assholes to elbows.

      1. Make your boddy smile.

  34. very interesting and useful blog … i got some ideas … thanks for the blog …

    Security Guard , Toronto Security Guard

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.