Reason Morning Links: Senate Dems Preserve Canadian Prescription Drug Ban, Obama Hagiographers Celebrate Murder of Old Man Muammar, FBI Caught Profiling Everybody

Mike Riggs | 10.21.2011 8:59 AM

Senate Democrats vote down an amendment "that would have made it easier for individuals to get prescription drugs from Canada for personal use."
After a U.S. predator drone disabled his convoy yesterday, Gaddafi was beaten and executed by a mob. Let the Obama-Libya cheerleading commence!
"Hundreds of defense contractors that defrauded the U.S. military received more than $1.1 trillion in Pentagon contracts during the past decade, according to a Department of Defense report."
If you are Chinese, Russian, Muslim, hispanic, or black, the FBI may be spying on you because of the color of your skin or your nation of origin.
Mining leads part of the Great Wall of China to collapse.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Bill Kristol's dream VP, has come under fire from birthers.

New at Reason.tv: "Occupy Wall Street Protester: 'I got some money and I should be taxed more.'"

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

NEXT: Friday Funnies

Hide Comments (534)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago

Glorious.
1. Bee Tagger 13 years ago
  
  Estefan?
Lord Humungus 13 years ago

Drivers face drug checkpoints on highways near Flint
http://www.freep.com/article/2.....dyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Motorists driving on expressways around Flint are getting surprised by a stunning tactic that the Genesee County sheriff has been using to fight the flow of illegal drugs -- one that legal experts said will not withstand a court challenge.

At least seven times this month, including Tuesday, motorists have said they have seen a pickup towing a large sign on I-69 or U.S.-23 that depicts the sheriff's badge and warns: "Sheriff narcotics check point, 1 mile ahead -- drug dog in use."
1. Zeb 13 years ago
  
  Let me guess. Then they pull over everyone who gets off at the next exit.
2. Quetzalcoatl 13 years ago
  
  Too bad the sheriff's dept doesn't have legal experts at its disposal. They could have nipped this idea in the bud.
3. WTF 13 years ago
  
  one that legal experts said will not withstand a court challenge.
  
  And this is different from DUI checkpoints how?
  1. Xenocles 13 years ago
    
    IANAL but I would guess it has something to do with the implied consent doctrine for breathalyzer checks.
  2. Lord Humungus 13 years ago
    
    at least in Michigan:
    
    And Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton, who said he was not consulted by Pickell about the checkpoints, said that after a court challenge, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that so-called "sobriety check lanes," put in place to nab drunken drivers, were illegal.
    
    The new practice of narcotics checkpoints "certainly brings up probable-cause issues," Leyton said Thursday.
  3. gaijin97 13 years ago
    
    Exactly, cause driving is a privilege...granted by the state.
  4. wylie 13 years ago
    
    And this is different from DUI checkpoints how?
    
    Drunk drivers are in direct violation of transportation law: No Drinking And Driving.
    
    Smuggling, illegal drugs or anything else, doesn't necessarily violate any transportation laws. Maybe if you skip a weigh station or something, I dunno, I'm not a trucker.
    
    The former example conflicts with the privilege to use the public roads. The latter example does not.
4. James Ard 13 years ago
  
  I rolled up to a North Georgia drug check point with a Busch tallboy in my lap and a bag in my pocket. They waved me through, too white.
  1. Clich? Bandit 13 years ago
    
    "Busch tallboy" - all your comments henceforth will be considered poo and tainted by this.
Lord Humungus 13 years ago

OWS: Angry Manhattan residents lambast Zuccotti Park protesters
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/l.....rgf5o4bRcO

Infuriated lower Manhattan residents went ballistic on Zuccotti Park protesters at a chaotic Community Board 1 meeting tonight while blasting politicians for allowing the siege to continue without any end in sight.

"They are defecating on our doorsteps," fumed Catherine Hughes, a member of Community Board 1 and a stay at home mom who has the misfortune of living one block from the chaos. "A lot of people are very frustrated. A lot of people are concerned about the safety of our kids."
1. Occupier 13 years ago
  
  "They are defecating on our doorsteps," fumed Catherine Hughes
  
  Just like capitalism, ma'am. Now, do you think you could stop stealing money from me with your kleptocrat friends for a few seconds and give me some toilet paper.
  1. Occupier II: The Occupyening 13 years ago
    
    TOILET PAPER JUSTICE NOW!
  2. Juice 13 years ago
    
    She was fuming about defecation, eh?
2. John 13 years ago
  
  "They are defecating on our doorsteps,"
  
  That pretty much sums up the OWS movement doesn't it?
  1. Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago
    
    Just like Citizens United allows corporations to defecate on the doorstep of democracy!
    1. John 13 years ago
      
      Or something like that.
3. o3 13 years ago
  
  moar wingnut liez!
  1. John 13 years ago
    
    Manhattan is such a bastion of conservatives. I am sure those people are radical evangelicals or something.
    1. o3 13 years ago
      
      bastion huh? typical libtoidz using ad hominom attacks
      1. o3 13 years ago
        
        Shuper-derpity-DOO!
4. Elder Scroll Enthusiat Au H20 13 years ago
  
  Seriously, why don't we just let cholera take its toll on Zucotti?
Lord Humungus 13 years ago

Parents Find Nothing Stylish About New Tattooed 'Barbie' Doll
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/20.....rbie-doll/

She's edgy ? with pink hair, sky-high stilettos and a cactus-covered pet named "Bastardino."

But it's her body art that has some parents on edge.

"I don't think it's appropriate for little girls to be having Barbies with tattoos all over," parent Reye Griffith said Thursday.
1. Abdul 13 years ago
  
  I thought pearl necklace Barbie was pretty tasteless too.
  1. Joe M 13 years ago
    
    The parents are the ones clutching their pearl necklaces.
  2. Barely Suppressed Rage 13 years ago
    
    I actually kinda liked Pole Dancer Barbie. But Crack Whore Barbie, not so much.
    1. Restoras 13 years ago
      
      I kinda like Vegas Cocktail Waitress Barbie, but am angry that I am forced to have my daughter play with it.
    2. Almanian 13 years ago
      
      It was the Klaus Barbie that really became too much for me
2. Joe M 13 years ago
  
  I agree with these parents. We should create a law saying Mattel is prohibited from kidnapping girls and forcing them to play with tattooed Barbie dolls.
3. robc 13 years ago
  
  Does this Barbie have a tramp stamp?
4. Cunctator 13 years ago
  
  ---"I don't think it's appropriate for little girls to be having Barbies with tattoos all over,"---
  
  Ummm, then don't buy them one?
  1. rac3rx 13 years ago
    
    Who the hell buys a $235 Barbie anyway?
    http://www.amazon.com/Barbie-C.....476&sr=8-1
5. T 13 years ago
  
  Manufactured outrage. Mattel does this every few years. They release a tattooed Barbie, parents go apeshit, they pull it. Wait a few years, rinse, repeat.
  
  Google "Butterfly Art Barbie" for the last go round.
6. squishua 13 years ago
  
  They never had a problem with Barbie going Brazilian all these years.
Tim 13 years ago

We can't cut the Pentagon budget, we would bankrupt all those fraudelent contractors.
1. Scruffy Nerfherder 13 years ago
  
  Would someone tell me exactly when the Pentagon went from a waste-riddled, corrupt, and inept institution to the absolute model of patriotism, honor, and effectiveness in the minds of Americans?
  1. Rev. Blue Moon 13 years ago
    
    Boomer guilt leftover from the Nam.
Bee Tagger 13 years ago

Senate Democrats vote down an amendment "that would have made it easier for individuals to get prescription drugs from Canada for personal use."

If we keep making people pay more for everything, maybe companies will start hiring and after that maybe salaries will start going up.
1. wylie, US Congressperson 13 years ago
  
  This is fucking brilliant. I hereby propose a bill, nay, a Constitutional Amendment, that would mandate that no good or service may sell for less than elventy gazillion dollars.
  
  Unemployment will be in the negatives soon, wooo!!!
Lord Humungus 13 years ago

Austan Goolsbee flunks 'cash for clunkers'
http://www.politico.com/news/s.....z1bKTWPwrZ

"If you look at Cash for Clunkers or the first home buyer tax credit, they were geared to trying to shift [recovery] from 2010 into 2009. Given it's taken this long [to recover], I don't think you would do that short-run stuff," Goolsbee added.

Goolsbee, the former chairman of President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, said the administration misjudged how quickly the country could recover from the economic damage of the 2008 economic collapse.

well duh.
1. Bee Tagger 13 years ago
  
  The only thing they're guilty of is thinking too highly of America. They're too patriotic.
2. John 13 years ago
  
  It really is a case of real life killing the goose that laid the golden egg. I think the Obama people figured the economy would recover no matter what they did. So they used the recession as an excuse to steal as much as possible figured they could then credit their stealing for the recovery.
  1. John Thacker 13 years ago
    
    Certainly a plausible explanation if you recall the dispute between Greg Mankiw and Paul Krugman (and Administration guys) on unit roots vs. trend stationary hypotheses.
    
    Basically, economists agree that the economy tends to expand X% per year on average in the long term. The disagreement is about whether, after a sharp fall, one should expect the economy to still grow at X% in subsequent years ("unit root"-- you're treating the economy as basically Markovian) or whether one should expect "catch up" to the previous trend ("trend stationary.) The argument for temporary stimulus is based on the trend stationary idea that a sudden fall means that we're below potential aggregate demand.
    1. robc 13 years ago
      
      Where does Mankiw stand on my argument that attempting to "stabilize" growth lowers X.
      
      If you attempt to stabilize growth, you get X% per year. If you embrace chaos, you get Y% per year.
      
      Y > x.
      
      Possibly Y >> X.
      1. Almanian Barbie 13 years ago
        
        Math is HARD! LOL!
      2. John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        Where does Mankiw stand on my argument that attempting to "stabilize" growth lowers X.
        
        Oh, Mankiw, as is typical for a conservative economist, argues that most interventions reduce X. He also argues that taxes on capital are particularly bad for X, and recently had something against the minimum wage.
        
        However, he does advocate some amount of stimulus during bad times, purely as a redistributive measure towards those worse off.
    2. The Implacable Mr. Dean 13 years ago
      
      Is this really controversial? Haven't past recoveries featured higher than average growth rates ("trend stationery")?
      
      But the Obama "recovery" manages to flunk even the "unit root" test, with growth rates, I beleive, below the long-term average.
      1. Almanian 13 years ago
        
        "UnitRoot" (spelled like that) would be an EXCELLENT name for a rock band
        
        Restoras 13 years ago
        
        If I ever form a band the name will be Cheesey Mustache.
        
        Elspeth Flashman 13 years ago
        
        If I ever form a band I will name it "Cosmo DNA." Or perhaps, I will name it "Gamelon Planet Bombs."
        
        ob 13 years ago
        
        UnitRot would most likely be a highly undesirable condition.
        
        Bob Mckenzie 13 years ago
        
        Gambol
        
        Best. Band. Name. Evah!
      2. John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        Is this really controversial? Haven't past recoveries featured higher than average growth rates ("trend stationery")?
        
        Actually, it is controversial. Follow the link. There are a number of a academic papers cited in that post and in some of the posts linked by that post.
        
        The correlation between current unemployment and future GDP growth is very poor, and almost entirely due to a cluster of outlier points where high unemployment was associated with fast growth-- a quick recovery.
        
        That cluster of points, of course, is the Reagan recovery, and consists of the 8 quarters in 1981-1982.
    3. Rev. Blue Moon 13 years ago
      
      That's Nigel to you, Thacker!
  2. John Thacker 13 years ago
    
    However, it's not quite fair to assume that they thought it would recover "no matter what." One more charitable interpretation is that they thought that a rapid recovery was possible if stimulus was applied.
    
    If rapid recovery does not happen through stimulus, there are two natural conclusions:
    
    1) We didn't do enough, or
    2) Our assumption was wrong, temporary stimulus wouldn't have worked.
    
    Most Obama Administration guys are going with 1), Goolsbee is going with 2) (showing his more "moderate" side.)
    
    There are other more complicated arguments, such as the argument that "the monetary authority moves last" that monetary policy can cancel out fiscal policy (just see what's happening in the UK, where the BoE is doing more QE to counteract "austerity" in fiscal spending.)
    
    To believe the latter hypothesis, you have to follow Scott Sumner or others in saying that money has actually been tight.
    1. John 13 years ago
      
      The problem with that theory is that they didn't pass a true Keynesian stimulus. None of those programs were immediately ready or put anyone to work. All they did was pass out money to the states to keep SEIU members employed.
      
      Are they really that ignorant of their own ideology? Do they think Keynesian economics means dropping money out of helicopters?
      1. John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        None of those programs were immediately ready or put anyone to work.
        
        Some of the programs were better than others, but, yeah, a lot of them were stupid. But that's partially because President Obama didn't (and probably still doesn't) understand how the government actually works.
      2. The Implacable Mr. Dean 13 years ago
        
        Let's not overlook the fact that quite a bit of the stimulus actually went overseas. The headline today is a half-billion dollar loan to build cars in Finland, after all.
      3. wylie 13 years ago
        
        dropping money out of helicopters
        
        "Excuse me, about how much does it take to Make It Rain."
        
        "Just here in the strip club, or across the entire United States?"
      4. Mike Laursen 13 years ago
        
        Nobody in D.C. cares what Keynes actually wrote or said.
      5. Red Rocks Rockin 13 years ago
        
        None of those programs were immediately ready or put anyone to work. All they did was pass out money to the states to keep SEIU members employed.
        
        Even the "shovel-ready" construction money was largely sent to projects that were already in progress--for instance, one of those stupid ARRA signs popped up at site of the overpass reconstruction in Trinidad, Colorado, which had been going on for several years already. The states essentially just used those funds instead of trying to raise the revenues themselves, and now they're dealing with the consequences of that money running out, since it was based on them keeping their state spending at housing-bubble levels.
    2. Lord Humungus 13 years ago
      
      quote from the article:
      
      Still, Goolsbee said that he supports the overall stimulus program, which he claims warded off a depression.
      
      "It's the worst six months that we have data on in the 64 years we've been keeping data. At a moment like that, the private sector is in free-fall. I don't think there was any alternative but government-directed [measures] trying to avoid the depression," he said.
      
      Further, the former chairman said that he thinks those stimulus measures will be vindicated in the long term, even if they are not politically popular in the short term.
      
      "The moment has shifted. Three years ago, we were in free-fall, and the government was all there was left to prevent a depression. And I think, even though it's hard to explain in an election, I do think historians will look back and say that's an achievement," said Goolsbee.
      1. John 13 years ago
        
        He assumes that the danger of a depression has passed.
        
        robc 13 years ago
        
        He assumes that a depression is a danger.
        
        0x90 13 years ago
        
        Exactly. Political economics in a nutshell: the economy should be performing at such and such a level... because.
      2. Red Rocks Rockin 13 years ago
        
        And I think, even though it's hard to explain in an election, I do think historians will look back and say that's an achievement," said Goolsbee.
        
        No, historians are going to look back and realize that you kicked the can down the road and made the next collapse even worse.
  3. Red Rocks Rockin 13 years ago
    
    I think the Obama people figured the economy would recover no matter what they did. So they used the recession as an excuse to steal as much as possible figured they could then credit their stealing for the recovery.
    
    It's pretty obvious by now that this was their line of thinking--they made a hedge bet that the downturn resembled the early 90s recession rather than the late-70s-early 80s one, and that recovery would be fairly quick. So spend a bunch of money (that we didn't have), watch the economy recover, and take credit.
    
    What bit them in the ass is that this is a debt-driven recession, not a liquidity-driven one, and that people are pretty much tapped out between student loan debt, mortgages, car loans, credit cards, and taxes at all levels.
3. robc 13 years ago
  
  But joe said we shouldnt look at long term effects of stimulus, the purpose was the short term!
  1. joe also said 13 years ago
    
    Give it time to work!
    
    Political economics = taking wealth creation for granted.
DJF 13 years ago

""""If you are Chinese, Russian, Muslim, hispanic, or black, the FBI may be spying on you because of the color of your skin or your nation of origin.""'

And if you are a white American they will spy on you because they can.
1. Abdul 13 years ago
  
  Chinese, Russian, Muslim, hispanic, or black, covers every single race.
  
  Ethnic profiling--you're doing it wrong.
  1. Zeb 13 years ago
    
    They're missing American Indians, Eskimos, Australian Aboriginals (unless they count as black) and probably a few others.
    1. Live Free or Diet 13 years ago
      
      Eskimo aren't Amerinds? OK, new to me.
      1. Zeb 13 years ago
        
        I think that they are usually considered a distinct population group/race.
        
        Clich? Bandit 13 years ago
        
        There used to be 5:
        1.Euraision (white folks which includes Arabs and Persians)
        2.African (which includes african Americans)
        3.Eastern (Basically anyone with an ipcanthic fold)
        4.Aboriginal (only for austraila, they were isoltated for long enough i guess)5.Polyneisian (all those islanders)
        
        I think Native Americans fall into an Asian catagory. But this is like 30 year old taxonomy and I am almost certain that it has changed.
        
        sloopyinca 13 years ago
        
        Zeb is right...at least where job preferences, college tuition breaks, set asides for government contracts and identity politics are concerned.
2. Abdul 13 years ago
  
  Okay, from the article, here's what the FBI did: "The documents show that in recent years, agents identified Arab-American and Muslim communities in Michigan as a potential terrorist recruitment ground; noted an increase in the African-American population of Georgia when analyzing "Black Separatist" groups; identified Chinese and Russian communities in San Francisco as a place to look for organized crime syndicates; and highlighted Latino communities as potentially harboring the Central American gang MS-13."
  
  In the spirit of diversity and to start a corageous national conversation on race, henceforth the FBI will search for MS-13 members in chinese communities in san francisco, russian mafiosos in hispanic communities, Arab terrorists in black communties in georgia, and black separatists at girl scout meetings in Peroria.
  1. Ice Nine 13 years ago
    
    Only if the troop is all blonde.
  2. AlmightyJB 13 years ago
    
    What about the Italians? Has the FBI not seen Jersey Shore? Clearly subversive. I demand Italians be added to the list unless they make really good pizza.
    1. sloopyinca 13 years ago
      
      I demand Italians be added to the list unless they make really good pizza.
      
      So, no need to look in Chicago then?
3. T 13 years ago
  
  So when they shut down COINTELPRO after the Church Committee, what that really meant was they changed the name and covered their tracks better?
  
  Which surprises me not at all, frankly.
4. Almanian 13 years ago
  
  If you are Chinese, Russian, Muslim, hispanic, or black, the FBI may be spying on you because of the color of your skin or your nation of origin.
  
  Well, DUH!
5. Live Free or Diet 13 years ago
  
  Oh good because I was feeling left out!
  While that irony sinks in, enjoy Sir Elton John singing about the girl who got away:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
  1. BakedPenguin 13 years ago
    
    I thought that would be "Island Girl" since Polynesians haven't been accounted for... yet.
6. wylie 13 years ago
  
  And if you are a white American they will spy on you because it's just easier.
Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago

"You don't know that what you are taking has been made in Canada or approved from Canada or that that it comes from a real website or from a legitimate pharmacy," she argued Thursday. "We could be importing death. I am not trying to being dramatic."

Death from above, the Canadian motto.
1. Sparky 13 years ago
  
  "We could be importing death. I am not trying to being dramatic."
  
  One wonders what she would call it then. Sounds like she just opened her mouth and let words fall out.
2. wylie 13 years ago
  
  that it comes from a real website
  
  I'm not sure what the concern is there. I mean, if they ship you some meds in exchange for your money, I'd say they're a Real Website.
SugarFree 13 years ago

MONKEY HERPES!
1. Abdul 13 years ago
  
  From the article: "Chlamydia is widespread among koalas"
  
  Now that's going to be even harder to explain to my wife.
  1. $6M RoboTorso 13 years ago
    
    "Chlamydia is widespread among koalas" will be the 4th album title of our progrock band.
    1. T 13 years ago
      
      Shorten it up for more zing: "Widespread Koala Chlamydia".
      1. BakedPenguin 13 years ago
        
        "Massive Koala Clap Trap"
        
        wylie 13 years ago
        
        no no, BP. that's the name of the 1st single off the album.
        
        wylie 13 years ago
        
        (it's an anthem)
    2. Almanian 13 years ago
      
      My rock band "UnitRoot" already has an album by that title - move along and find another
      1. Proprietist 13 years ago
        
        I dunno. UnitRoot sounds kind of like a bad bar band - the no space thing looks tacky. Eunuch Root might work better.
        
        robc 13 years ago
        
        Go with Enoch Root for the literary reference.
2. Ice Nine 13 years ago
  
  If that monkey has any decency at all he will inform you first.
  1. Abdul 13 years ago
    
    I already knew that monkesy were the sluts of the animal world, but koalas? It's like the spent their childhood playing with lumbar tattoo barbie.
$6M RoboTorso 13 years ago

Aren't these the same people who justify taxes because w/o them, we'd have no police protecting our wealth? Yet they seem to think they can get along just fine w/o the cops.

Oakland Occupy residents struggle with internal security issues
...Many camp residents, however, have celebrated their growing ability to deal with serious conflict on their own terms, and without the help of police or county medical staff members. ...

Occupy Baltimore to sex assault victims: We support you in reporting the abuse, but we don't encourage the involvement of police in our community
...Efforts by the Occupy Baltimore protest group to evolve into a self-contained, self-governing community have erupted into controversy with the distribution of a pamphlet that victim advocates and health workers fear discourages victims of sexual assaults from contacting police.

The pamphlet says that members of the protest group who believe they are victims or who suspect sexual abuse "are encouraged to immediately report the incident to the Security Committee," which will investigate and "supply the abuser with counseling resources."

The directive also says, in part, "Though we do not encourage the involvement of the police in our community, the survivor has every right, and the support of Occupy Baltimore, to report the abuse to the appropriate authorities."?
1. Quetzalcoatl 13 years ago
  
  Hahahahaha
  Counseling resources? Seriously?
  1. T 13 years ago
    
    The appropriate counseling for sexual assault is a 2x4 to the head. I doubt they're going to be supplying that.
2. John 13 years ago
  
  The pamphlet says that members of the protest group who believe they are victims or who suspect sexual abuse "are encouraged to immediately report the incident to the Security Committee," which will investigate and "supply the abuser with counseling resources."
  
  Words fail.
  1. French Revolution 13 years ago
    
    "are encouraged to immediately report the incident to the Security Committee,"
    
    Hey, that's our idea!
  2. Ice Nine 13 years ago
    
    The pamphlet says that members of the protest group who believe they are victims or who suspect sexual abuse
    
    I think it is pretty safe to say that if you happen to suspect sexual abuse, your suspicion is probably unfounded.
    1. wylie 13 years ago
      
      I think it is pretty safe to say that if you happen to suspect sexual abuse, your suspicion is probably unfounded.
      
      +1 Suspected Groping
  3. Elder Scroll Enthusiat Au H20 13 years ago
    
    Well, John, at least the members of the Security Committee aren't secret. Yet.
3. Sparky 13 years ago
  
  "supply the abuser with counseling resources."
  
  I love it. Because all the abuser needs is a good talking to about their feelings.
  1. Barely Suppressed Rage 13 years ago
    
    I'd give the abuser a talking-to, just like Little Bill gave English Bob a talking to in Unforgiven.
    1. Almanian 13 years ago
      
      "'Deserve's' got nothin' to do with it..."
  2. Brett L 13 years ago
    
    I would finally get the chance to try out my long held theory that behavioral counselling with a pipe wrench is more effective than without.
  3. Abdul 13 years ago
    
    OWS security committee: "A rape? How horrible! We must immediately find the rapist. . . and help him!"
    1. WTF 13 years ago
      
      It's society's fault, after all.
      1. wylie 13 years ago
        
        It's the One Percenter's fault, man.
        
        They rape the 99% of their wealth, which teaches the 99% that rape is good and proper. So, any woman who has ever been raped should find solidarity with the OWS protests and add their voices to the aggrieved cries of their downtrodden brethren!
4. JMW 13 years ago
  
  "supply the abuser with counseling resources."
  
  That'll teach the little bastards not to defile the wymyns again!
5. Red Rocks Rockin 13 years ago
  
  Occupy Baltimore sez "Stop Snitching"
$6M RoboTorso 13 years ago

The 1 percent: D.C. metro area the wealthiest in the nation
...Federal employees whose compensation averages more than $126,000 and the nation's greatest concentration of lawyers helped Washington edge out San Jose as the wealthiest U.S. metropolitan area, government data show.

The U.S. capital has swapped top spots with Silicon Valley, according to recent Census Bureau figures, with the typical household in the Washington metro area earning $84,523 last year. The national median income for 2010 was $50,046.

Total compensation for federal workers, including health care and other benefits, last year averaged $126,369, compared with $122,697 in 2009, according to Bloomberg News calculations of Commerce Department data. There were 170,467 federal employees in the District of Columbia as of June. The Washington area includes the District of Columbia, parts of Northern Virginia, eastern Maryland and eastern West Virginia....

BBC: Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?
...The Declaration of Independence was not only illegal, but actually treasonable. There is no legal principle then or now to allow a group of citizens to establish their own laws because they want to. What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union?

Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right. The Declaration of Independence itself, in the absence of any recognised legal basis, had to appeal to "natural law", an undefined concept, and to "self-evident truths", that is to say truths for which no evidence could be provided.

The grievances listed in the Declaration were too trivial to justify secession. The main one - no taxation without representation - was no more than a wish on the part of the colonists, to avoid paying for the expense of protecting them against the French during seven years of arduous war and conflict....
1. Joe M 13 years ago
  
  The Declaration of Independence was not only illegal, but actually treasonable.
  
  That is the stupidest thing I've ever read on the subject. The BBC is trolling.
  1. BakedPenguin 13 years ago
    
    They're just laying the foundation for a claim on 236 years of back taxes when the UK goes tits up.
    1. Joe M 13 years ago
      
      Hmmm, actually, since we're $15 trillion in the hole, doesn't that mean they owe us?
      1. wylie 13 years ago
        
        Newsflash: United States of America applies for UK's Dole.
  2. Eduard van Haalen 13 years ago
    
    They were reporting on a debate between UK and US lawyers on the legality of the Declaration of Independence. The (American) audience called it legal.
    
    The quoted remarks are a paraphrase of the British lawyers.
    
    I noticed, however, that the BBC gave more space to summarizing the anti-Declaration case than the pro-Declaration case. So maybe they're biased, or exhibiting their near-proverbial anti-Americanism.
    1. Chris 13 years ago
      
      Let me get this straight, Declaration of Independence is illegal, but being ruled by a group of inbred Germans who can barely walk or speak, and certainly can't withstand exposure to sunlight due to their genetic defects is legal?
      1. MJ 13 years ago
        
        If the German's can claim descent from a certain Norman bastard while not being Catholic, then the Brits say yes.
  3. Lord Humungus 13 years ago
    
    I would gladly join the UK fold, provided we all get Brit-accents and the newspapers have Page 3 girls.
    1. T 13 years ago
      
      Fuck that. I'm keeping my guns. I can get tits on the internet.
      1. Barely Suppressed Rage 13 years ago
        
        But... but ... national health!!
  4. John Thacker 13 years ago
    
    That is the stupidest thing I've ever read on the subject.
    
    It is a logical consequence of some of the arguments made by Union folks during the Civil War, though.
    
    Me, I don't have a theoretical problem with secession per se. I do have a problem with slavery.
    1. Joe M 13 years ago
      
      My point is, its legal status in inconsequential. You're not going to take a rebellion to court.
      1. Joe M 13 years ago
        
        This is to say, it's extralegal, by definition.
      2. Eric Holder 13 years ago
        
        Now, now, hold on there...
  5. Zeb 13 years ago
    
    Actually, the article is coverage of a staged debate on the subject.
    1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
      
      Right. Of course, the whole point of the Declaration of Independence is that people can tell a government to fuck off when they're being oppressed.
  6. The Implacable Mr. Dean 13 years ago
    
    It was illegal at the time, but became legal when we won.
    
    Seriously. As British subjects when the Declaration was issued, the Founders committed treason.
    
    As citizens of a new nation when we won, it was literally, definitionally, impossible for them to commit treason against against another nation.
    1. Resto Druid FTW 13 years ago
      
      ^^THIS^^
  7. MJ 13 years ago
    
    It was only treasonable if they could not make it stick. Hence Franklin's quote to the effect that "we must hang together or we will surely hang separately".
2. robc 13 years ago
  
  Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
3. WTF 13 years ago
  
  The Declaration of Independence was not only illegal, but actually treasonable.
  
  The winners get to make the rules, so fuck you, Limey.
4. Almanian 13 years ago
  
  England's still pissed we kicked their collective asses a couple hundred plus years ago? Fuck off.
  
  Oh, PS, we'll be joining you soon as a "former superpower", since people never learn! See ya soon!
5. robc 13 years ago
  
  expense of protecting them against the French
  
  Yeah, so you see, we dont need any fucking protection from the french, as they are ON OUR SIDE, you fucking limeys.
  
  And by OUR, I mean NOT YOU.
  1. Brett L 13 years ago
    
    There was that whole French and Indian War where our general got taught how to kill redcoats effectively. Not defending, just saying.
6. Elder Scroll Enthusiat Au H20 13 years ago
  
  Hey, England, if it's illegal, then why don't you come over here and try to arrest the President and Congress. See how far that gets you, you limy tea drinking git.
  1. wylie 13 years ago
    
    Slow down, that idea might actually have some merit...
7. rac3rx 13 years ago
  
  My first thought was that the Brits had decided to cash in on all of President Pooky's world apologizing and get themselves a little piece.
8. Aresen 13 years ago
  
  Rebellion is only illegal if you lose.
9. Live Free or Diet 13 years ago
  
  Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right.
  
  Texas did secede. No need for a what-if. We saw what happened.
  
  "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them," says Article III, Section 3. Lincoln levied war against the States. His actions are defined by the Constitution as treason.
  
  The English Bill of Rights forbids the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. Since the colonists had no representation in Parliament the taxes violated the guaranteed Rights of Englishmen.
  
  Funny how conveniently they forget the State rules by the consent of the armed governed. Perhaps that's why they seek to disarm their subjects.
  1. MJ 13 years ago
    
    "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them," says Article III, Section 3."
    
    Given that the hotheads in South Carolina started levying war first, but don't let that stop your Confederate apologetics.
10. Ray Pew 13 years ago
  
  There is no legal principle then or now to allow a group of citizens to establish their own laws because they want to.
  
  This is too stupid to read. Where do laws, or legal principles for that matter, come from?
11. Conservative Brit 13 years ago
  
  Well, the law is the law...
Lord Humungus 13 years ago

SugarFree?

Christian Louboutin Shares His Orgasmic High Heel Theory
http://www.tressugar.com/Chris.....c-20061909

"What is sexual in a high heel is the arch of the foot, because it is exactly the position of a woman's foot when she orgasms," explains iconic high heel maker Christian Louboutin. That's what a female French academic told him anyway! Speaking to a British paper, the shoe designer said his stylish stilettos have practical sex appeal.

If you ever had doubts about pounding the pavement in pumps, you should consider this. According to Louboutin, "putting your foot in a heel, you are putting yourself in a possibly orgasmic situation."
Name Nomad 13 years ago

Crap alchemist jailed for poo-into-gold experiment

Also, I was wondering the other day: besides John, are there any Reasoners who aren't in IT?
1. Tim 13 years ago
  
  Stephen King's IT?
  1. SugarFree 13 years ago
    
    "YOU'LL ALL FLOAT DOWN HERE, TIM!"
2. STEVE SMITH 13 years ago
  
  STEVE SMITH NOT IN IT. STEVE SMITH IN PLUMP, SQUIRMY CAMPER.
  1. Bee Tagger 13 years ago
    
    Finally, your need to scream everything has come back to bite you on the ass. What "it" are you not in?
    1. STEVE SMITH 13 years ago
      
      ALL IT SAME IT TO STEVE SMITH! STEVE SMITH HATE BEES! KEEP STEVE SMITH FROM DELICIOUS HONEY!
  2. Abdul 13 years ago
    
    Steve's family albumn recently discovered:
    
    http://thechive.files.wordpres.....ar-172.jpg
3. cynical 13 years ago
  
  Same comment as before: did he look like Obama, but with a goatee?
4. Spoonman. 13 years ago
  
  I'm an environmental engineer.
  1. nobody 13 years ago
    
    I'm a geologist for an environmental firm near Philly. Where are you?
    1. Spoonman. 13 years ago
      
      I'm in Houston, but my wife would absolutely love for me to get a job in SEPA as that's where she's from, so if you need somebody, my email address is linked in my name (obviously I didn't attend Cornell No Spam University).
      1. wylie 13 years ago
        
        obviously I didn't attend Cornell No Spam University
        
        You guys who went to the real Cornell are so pretentious when you point out that you didn't go to CNSU. Well, fuck The Real Cornell.
        
        *insert Cornell No Spam University's fight song*
  2. Auric Demonocles 13 years ago
    
    1: You forgot your quotes.
    
    2: I'm an aerospace engineer working in software.
    
    3: Cornell? Me too.
    1. Auric Demonocles 13 years ago
      
      Also if I remember correctly we are basically the same age.
5. John Thacker 13 years ago
  
  There are quite a few lawyers, IIRC. RC Dean?
  1. Barely Suppressed Rage 13 years ago
    
    Yup. I are one.
    1. Elspeth Flashman 13 years ago
      
      2.5L here. Almost 3L 🙂
      1. Abdul 13 years ago
        
        May God have mercy on your soul, because the job market sure won't.
        
        Loki 13 years ago
        
        Ditto what Abdul said. From one attorney to another, best of luck finding a job!
        
        Elspeth Flashman 13 years ago
        
        Thanks for the good luck wishes. I am hoping that the economy picks up by the time I graduate (since Obama will be out of office & places will want to start hiring again.) *Singing* "you've got to have a dream, if you don't have a dream, how you going to have a dream come true?"
  2. Ice Nine 13 years ago
    
    I dabble in Medicine - and all these goddamn lawyers here make me decidedly nervous.
    1. Abdul 13 years ago
      
      just drop some ball bearings behind your ambulance.
      1. Ice Nine 13 years ago
        
        True, though spike strips would be so much more gratifying.
        
        wylie 13 years ago
        
        are the spike strips deployed-from/attached-to the ambulance? Because I could see some fuel efficiency issues dragging the lawyer-laden-strips around all the time.
  3. rac3rx 13 years ago
    
    Will neither confirm nor deny...
  4. AZ 13 years ago
    
    In a particularly ironic turn for someone with libertarian leanings, I'm a patent attorney.
6. Quetzalcoatl 13 years ago
  
  I'm not in IT.
7. Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago
  
  As far as I can tell, everyone here is either in IT, law, science and engineering or academics. Or a professional gadfly.
  
  And there may be some overlap.
  1. grylliade 13 years ago
    
    Well, I'm in customer service at the moment (as in, "answer phones so customers can yell at you"). I'm hoping to get into IT at my company soon, and I'll be going back to school to get my computer science degree in January.
    
    So, for the moment at least, one data point to the contrary.
    1. Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago
      
      Pining for an IT job counts as being in IT.
      
      Anyway, I'm the exception that proves the rule. I'm a motivational speaker and part-time personal critic.
      1. Sparky 13 years ago
        
        I bet you'd make more money if you switched to personal critic and part-time motivational speaker.
        
        Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago
        
        You know what your problem is?
    2. FlyoverCountry 13 years ago
      
      My full time job is in mortgage banking at a community bank, though I also raise cattle and hay.
  2. Brett L 13 years ago
    
    Its not like people who work for a living have the time to comment on the morning links.
  3. Destrudo 13 years ago
    
    Accountant / IT auditor
    1. Brandon 13 years ago
      
      Accountant.
  4. mad libertarian guy 13 years ago
    
    Professional Stay-at-Home Dad!
    
    Booyah!!
    
    You lose. All of you.
8. BakedPenguin 13 years ago
  
  are there any Reasoners who aren't in IT?
  
  Ironically, I'm actually an alchemist, too. But I stick with attempting to transmute lead into gold.
  
  Just three neutrons away...
  1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
    
    I transmute gold into lead, myself.
    1. BakedPenguin 13 years ago
      
      You've always been a proponent of fusion...
      1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
        
        Why not? I'm made up of elements created by fusion reactors.
        
        Moby 13 years ago
        
        We are all made of stars!
        
        Pro Libertate 13 years ago
        
        Well, not to brag, but I'm made up of quite a few particles created during the Big Bang. I'm a universal blue blood, I guess.
9. T 13 years ago
  
  Oil industry product engineering, so no.
10. robc 13 years ago
  
  Im technically not any more, but Im still bringing in more money from my past IT venture than my current non-IT one.
  
  But that will change in 2012.
  1. kinnath 13 years ago
    
    How's the beer business going?
    1. robc 13 years ago
      
      Its not really going, per se, yet.
      1. kinnath 13 years ago
        
        Ok. Every home brewer thinks about going pro. So it's always interesting to hear about someone that actually makes the leap.
11. kinnath 13 years ago
  
  Engineer; not IT related
12. Lord Humungus 13 years ago
  
  IT - programming, EDI, etc at a plastics company.
13. Barely Suppressed Rage 13 years ago
  
  I'm not IT.
14. The Implacable Mr. Dean 13 years ago
  
  Ahem.
15. WTF 13 years ago
  
  Environmental Remediation Consultant
  1. Almanian 13 years ago
    
    Hello, Shit Facktory!
    
    But I keeeed! Where the fuck is The Gobbler, anyway? Gobby! Come home!
  2. Spoonman. 13 years ago
    
    A surprising number of us here, then, I guess.
    
    "We deal with regulations so you don't have to" is a good way to find out how confusing and silly they are, though.
16. Scruffy Nerfherder 13 years ago
  
  He's just doing it wrong. The Indian sweatshops that churn out gold jewelry have in-house sewage treatment systems that filter out and collect all of the gold dust that gets ingested during a day's work.
17. Scruffy Nerfherder 13 years ago
  
  Engineer/business owner
18. James Ard 13 years ago
  
  Small business owner/operator.
19. Almanian 13 years ago
  
  I actually started as a programmer in the mid 80's, but now I'm Catbert, Evul HR Manager.
20. Kristen 13 years ago
  
  I'm a web developer...nominally IT I s'pose, but I don't work with hardware. Hardware is haaaaaard.
  1. JD the elder 13 years ago
    
    I'm in IT, and I think hardware is more fun. You can't kick software when it doesn't work.
21. Live Free or Diet 13 years ago
  
  PCs are just toys to me.
22. Proprietist 13 years ago
  
  IT, but aspiring record label owner/pro musician.
23. sloopyinca 13 years ago
  
  Auctioneer, here.
24. sage 13 years ago
  
  Metrologist.
  1. Brandon 13 years ago
    
    So do you study the elusive Chevy Metro, or are you one of those Geo purists?
  2. Devil Inchoate 13 years ago
    
    You measure things?
25. Devil Inchoate 13 years ago
  
  Programmed for many years, now I am a PHB.
Jerry 13 years ago

Venezuela's Chavez Condemns Gadhafi's Killing, Calls Him 'Martyr': "They killed him; it's an outrage," the socialist leader said, adding that "we will remember him always as a great warrior, a revolutionary and a martyr."
1. Tim 13 years ago
  
  Colonel Gaddafi, would you stand up please?
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zekiZYSVdeQ
2. John 13 years ago
  
  For once I actually agree with Chavez. The US should not be in the business of killing national leaders. Capturing them and letting the new government try them and do what they will, like Saddam is one thing. But just to find them and kill them Chicago style is a disturbing precedent. If some other power shows up and whacks our national leadership are we going to be happy about it?
  1. $6M RoboTorso 13 years ago
    
    If some other power shows up and whacks our national leadership are we going to be happy about it?
    
    Whistles innocently, looking up at the sky......
  2. Jerry 13 years ago
    
    I like how this Chavez statement should disqualify him with the hard left. You need to be a real unabashed socialist/communist to still think Chavez is the good guy.
    1. John 13 years ago
      
      He hates the US. The hard left only hates the US when the wrong team is in power. I am sure they are shocked Chavez still hates the US even though the right people are now in charge.
  3. Warty 13 years ago
    
    If some other power shows up and whacks our national leadership are we going to be happy about it?
    
    Well, I might be slightly offended in a national pride sense...
    1. robc 13 years ago
      
      Saddam attempted to whack Bush I, so I figured we were justified in whacking him anyway.
  4. CoyoteBlue 13 years ago
    
    ....
    ....
    .....
    ......
    I'm thinking. Umm, I'll get back to you on that.
  5. Zeb 13 years ago
    
    What I heard this morning said that his convoy was bombed by a US drone, but a mob of Libyans finished him off. Honestly, if that is the way it went down, I'm fine with it. Fuck that guy.
    It would have been amusing to hear his crazy speeches if he had been put on trial, though.
    1. Red Rocks Rockin 13 years ago
      
      It's pretty amazing that Saddam's execution looks downright dignified by comparison.
3. Warty 13 years ago
  
  we will remember him always as a great warrior
  
  I'm thinking maybe he wasn't, after all.
  1. John 13 years ago
    
    It doesn't take much of a warrior to plant bombs in night clubs and jumbo jets.
    1. Cabeza de Vaca 13 years ago
      
      Ghaddafi had a gold plated semi-auto handgun on him when he was captured. If he was a warrior he would have died fighting in battle not surrendering and asking for mercy.
      1. John 13 years ago
        
        They never are. Bin Ladin had an AK 47 by his bed, but I think at least, tried to surrender.
        
        Cabeza de Vaca 13 years ago
        
        In a way it shows what cowardly monsters they are. They expect other people to die fighting on their behalf, but are to scared to fight for themselves.
        
        Barrack H Obama 13 years ago
        
        Let me be clear...err...yeah.
  2. Name Nomad 13 years ago
    
    If you can't get past colonel after decades, even when you've got multiple ins with the people running the country, that would suggest a lack of military competence.
    1. robc 13 years ago
      
      He wanted to be a leader, not general staff.
      1. sloopyinca 13 years ago
        
        Hell, I can remember a Corporal who rose to some national prominence 75 years ago in Europe. Rank isn't relevant.
        
        mike 13 years ago
        
        Drink?
Lord Humungus 13 years ago

In the aftermath of those raids, much of the music community feared federal authorities would confiscate their guitars and other instruments. The Justice Department later issued a letter clarifying that people who "unknowingly" possess instruments that might contain illegally taken wood "do not have criminal exposure."

On Thursday, Democrat Jim Cooper and Republican Marsha Blackburn said that clarification was not enough.

Cooper, a banjo player himself, said he wanted to ensure that musicians could travel safely without fear of having their guitars confiscated.

http://www.bizjournals.com/nas.....a=e_du_pub
1. Abdul 13 years ago
  
  If confiscating banjos is wrong, I don't want to be right.
  1. Barely Suppressed Rage 13 years ago
    
    The definition of perfect pitch: when you throw the banjo straight into the toilet without hitting the rim.
    
    Definition of a gentleman: one who knows how to play the banjo, but doesn't.
    
    Seven words you never will hear: "The Ferrari belongs to the banjo player."
    1. John 13 years ago
      
      LOL. I love the last one.
    2. Matt Welch 13 years ago
      
      We're reading these out loud in the office, and laughing.
      1. Lucy Steigerwald 13 years ago
        
        Even though I am a fan of banjos, those jokes are still awesome.
    3. Steve Martin 13 years ago
      
      Bite me
    4. Abdul 13 years ago
      
      What do you call a banjo player who's girlfriend dumps him? Homeless.
      
      How can you tell if a stage is level? Drool comes out both sides of the banjo player's mouth.
      
      How is a banjo different from an onion? People cry when they chop up an onion.
    5. Live Free or Diet 13 years ago
      
      Me too, though I heard the second one long ago.
      
      Personally, I find the phrase "illegally taken wood" disturbing.
      For some reason it reminds me of all of Virginia's old sex laws.
  2. Lord Humungus 13 years ago
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxzWdKKu8
  3. wylie 13 years ago
    
    "What about my award for playing the banjo with a snake?!"
    
    "Technically, the snake won that award."
    
    (got no good banjo jokes, *sob*)
Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago

The birthers rely on writings at the time of the formation of the republic and references in court cases since then to contend that "natural born" means a person born to U.S. citizens. Rubio was born in 1971 at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, his office said, but his parents did not become citizens until 1975.

President Anchorbaby!
1. T 13 years ago
  
  Jesus Christ. Jus soli, jus sanguine, both are valid, this is settled, have a nice fucking day.
2. Zeb 13 years ago
  
  Pretty sure Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, etc. were not born to US citizens either. This whole country has been a sham from the beginning!
  1. robc 13 years ago
    
    Marty Van Buren was the first president born a US Citizen.
3. The Implacable Mr. Dean 13 years ago
  
  Anchor babies, of course, are born to illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants.
  1. Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago
    
    What are joke-killers born to?
    1. wylie 13 years ago
      
      Human Resource Managers and Public School Teachers.
4. Scruffy Nerfherder 13 years ago
  
  These guys can probably suck the joy out of any social gathering.
5. Elder Scroll Enthusiat Au H20 13 years ago
  
  So... I guess the birther aren't racist?
  1. Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago
    
    Rubio is brownish.
SugarFree 13 years ago

The Fashion of Occupy Wall Street

First I encountered two perkily attired gals from New Jersey, fresh off the Path train: Nathalie was wearing a Batman hoodie from Hot Topic accessorized with a fake Le Sportsac bag. Janelle was rocking a fetchingly luscious flesh-colored angora scarf from H & M. There is, the Chinese will be glad to hear, no restrictive prohibition against aggressively sourced garment manufacture among the Zuccottees.

As appealingly jaunty as they appeared, my Garden State girls were lacking the garnish du jour: a cardboard sign. This season, ladies and gents, do not even think about leaving the house without one of these declamatory accessories. No need to obsess too much about the actual slogan. During my recent visit I noticed everything from "Kill A Banker" to "My Arms Are Tired." I encountered one young man?his name was Scotty and he was wearing a faux-fur Kmart hat and homemade Jesus sandals?sporting a sign which simply said, "I LOVE YOU."
1. John 13 years ago
  
  This is going to end so badly. A bunch of young, naive girls from the colleges and suburbs living in tens in the middle of large cities. No potential for sexual assault and all around victimization there.
  1. Quetzalcoatl 13 years ago
    
    Don't worry, as the RoboTorso points out, the Security Committee will supply the abusers with counseling resources.
  2. JW 13 years ago
    
    Who isn't going to these things to get laid?
    1. John 13 years ago
      
      A good number of those dumb college girls. These people have no idea that there are people on the streets of this country you don't want to meet. This is just a mini version of Height Ashbury all over again. The criminals and the deviants are no doubt figuring out these tent cities are real places of opportunity. It is just sad. There is no way those places are safe. You would have to be a complete nitwit to go to them.
      1. wylie 13 years ago
        
        You would have to be a complete nitwit to go to them.
        
        I see a pattern forming...
2. Devil's Advocate 13 years ago
  
  So far most of the comments boil down to THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!!
  1. The Collective Left 13 years ago
    
    Sense of humor, how the fuck does it work?
  2. Elder Scroll Enthusiat Au H20 13 years ago
    
    And this is news? Seriously, I think the single reason that men are, on average, funnier than women, is because feminists are fucking with the numbers.
    1. Devil's Advocate 13 years ago
      
      Sometimes I imagine a certain ilk of "feminist" as a species of Beholder-kin, using their Feminine Gaze-ray to suck the sense of humor out of any hapless bystanders.
John Thacker 13 years ago

Senate Democrats vote down an amendment "that would have made it easier for individuals to get prescription drugs from Canada for personal use."

Let's be fair, this vote was extremely bipartisan-- on both sides. It was 44-55, and the roll call looks about perfectly balanced on both sides.
1. John Thacker 13 years ago
  
  Incidentally, from the votes of Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Jim DeMint (all "aye" on imports), it looks like the more economically libertarian crowd decided to vote pro-import. (As did McCain, natch, considering that he's long supported this.)
  1. # 13 years ago
    
    the problem with the whole import from canada thing is that all that would do is make the US effectively use Canada's price controls.
    
    If we did that, R&D would plumit.
    1. # 13 years ago
      
      I would add that most of the rest fo the world has been free loading off of our market, via their price controls, which pays for the R&D.
      1. John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        Yes, that is basically correct, and the argument against.
        
        Someone could, however, still take the view that the US should stop subsidizing free riders so much.
      2. robc 13 years ago
        
        The drug companies handle that easily. Refuse to export to Canada until they pay market prices.
        
        If they threaten to not support patents, the US military intervenes.
        
        Cabeza de Vaca 13 years ago
        
        It would end price controls for Canada, not impose them here.
        
        robc 13 years ago
        
        ???
        
        John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        It would end price controls for Canada, not impose them here.
        
        What, importing the drugs from Canada? The first order effect would be to impose the Canadian price controls here. The second order effect might be to end the Canadian price controls, but that's far from certain.
        
        mike 13 years ago
        
        Agree it's far from certain, but I think pharma would be more likely to refuse to sell to Canada at sub-market prices than to kill R&D. No military intervention is needed (or reasonable). "That's all you're willing to pay? We do not have a deal. Good day, sir."
Quetzalcoatl 13 years ago

HuffPo tells women to stop taking so much responsibility for their career outcomes. Don't you realize that you're all victims?

via former reason intern and noted high school graduate James Taranto
John 13 years ago

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....1319148475

Steve Jobs apparently explained to Obama how stupid his policies were in a 2010 meeting. I guess liberals are going to have to get rid of their Iphones now.
1. John Thacker 13 years ago
  
  Democratic politicians don't mind if Silicon Valley techies spout all kind of libertarian sentiments, so long as they still open the pocketbooks for Democrats no matter what.
  
  Not sure if their voters feel the same, though.
  1. John 13 years ago
    
    What is puzzling is how an obviously very smart and informed guy like Jobs could have been surprised by Obama's policies. I guess Red Team Blue Team culture really is that strong.
    1. T 13 years ago
      
      I guess Red Team Blue Team culture really is that strong.
      
      Of all people here, this should shock you the least.
    2. BakedPenguin 13 years ago
      
      Red Team Blue Team culture really is that strong.
      
      Apparently. Jobs couldn't realize - he would not allow himself to see - that he really wasn't TEAM BLUE anymore. The thought of himself as anything other than a liberal was just too offensive to him.
      1. John 13 years ago
        
        I think that is probably it. Liberalism, since it no longer is a coherent ideology, is a brand now more than anything else. It is like wearing designer clothes. It is a way to show people that you are smart and tolerant and not one of the "other".
        
        Neu Mejican 13 years ago
        
        If Liberalism is really just self-identified group membership, then their can't be an ideological test. That would mean John would have to ask each individual whether or not they are liberal so he could decide whether he agrees with them or not. But John, of course, doesn't do that. He labels people as liberals when they disagree with him on facts, policies, or ideological assumptions.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        No I just label people as liberals when they support liberal things. There is nothing wrong with that. You have a right to believe whatever you like. Just be honest about it NM.
      2. JW 13 years ago
        
        Knowing of Jobs' ego, I seriously doubt that he thought that he belonged to any TEAM or party.
2. Warty 13 years ago
  
  Jobs' Meeting With Obama
  
  Jobs, who was known for his prickly, stubborn personality, almost missed meeting President Obama in the fall of 2010 because he insisted that the president personally ask him for a meeting. Though his wife told him that Obama "was really psyched to meet with you," Jobs insisted on the personal invitation, and the standoff lasted for five days. When he finally relented and they met at the Westin San Francisco Airport, Jobs was characteristically blunt. He seemed to have transformed from a liberal into a conservative.
  
  "You're headed for a one-term presidency," he told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly. As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where "regulations and unnecessary costs" make it difficult for them.
  
  Jobs also criticized America's education system, saying it was "crippled by union work rules," noted Isaacson. "Until the teachers' unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform." Jobs proposed allowing principals to hire and fire teachers based on merit, that schools stay open until 6 p.m. and that they be open 11 months a year.
  
  Delicious.
  1. John 13 years ago
    
    And it was in the Huffpo. Liberals' heads must be exploding all over America right now.
    1. Restoras 13 years ago
      
      More likely they just aren't reading it.
    2. Brandon 13 years ago
      
      Actually, they're responding like this:
      "". . . United States, where "regulatio?ns and unnecessar?y costs" make it difficult for them" (business)?. "crippled by union work rules," Sounds pretty self serving, like all other big business. Too bad he didn't have the vision, or common sense, to have his operation "before it was too late."
      
      From deity to someone who doesn't even deserve the respect afforded a human being. For the crime of having criticized Obama.
      1. Brandon 13 years ago
        
        There's also this gem:
        "Steve Jobs was nothing more than an Ayn Rand Objectivis?t. He only cared about making as much money as possible at the expence of everyone else."
        
        Brandon 13 years ago
        
        And the Topper:
        
        "Jobs obviously made this observatio?n before he saw who the Republican candidates were going to be. Now he is rolling over in his grave hoping and praying Obama is re-elected?."
        
        Of course! Jobs probably came back to the fold after he died, so Obama should feel free to ignore his advice from way back when he was, like, alive!
  2. JW 13 years ago
    
    Jobs, who was known for his prickly, stubborn personality, almost missed meeting President Obama in the fall of 2010 because he insisted that the president personally ask him for a meeting. Though his wife told him that Obama "was really psyched to meet with you," Jobs insisted on the personal invitation, and the standoff lasted for five days. When he finally relented and they met at the Westin San Francisco Airport, Jobs was characteristically blunt. He seemed to have transformed from a liberal into a conservative...
    
    Jobs suggested that Obama meet six or seven other CEOs who could express the needs of innovative businesses -- but when White House aides added more names to the list, Jobs insisted that it was growing too big and that "he had no intention of coming." In preparation for the dinner, Jobs exhibited his notorious attention to detail, telling venture capitalist John Doerr that the menu of shrimp, cod and lentil salad was "far too fancy" and objecting to a chocolate truffle dessert. But he was overruled by the White House, which cited the president's fondness for cream pie.
    
    That's some weapons-grade megalomania.
    1. SugarFree 13 years ago
      
      which cited the president's fondness for cream pie
      
      [spit-take]
      1. T 13 years ago
        
        Although what that has to do with the dinner menu, I'll never know...
      2. Warty 13 years ago
        
        Do you think Michelle's bulls live in the White House, or does Obama just put them up in hotels?
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        Hotels. It takes a pretty rough crowd to fill that role. They would never pass the clearances to get into the White House.
    2. John 13 years ago
      
      I assume you are talking about Jobs. I can forgive megalomania in people who actually accomplish things.
    3. robc 13 years ago
      
      On Obama's part? For not taking the advice?
      
      Oh, you mean the personal invitation? Why? Jobs has the more important job, Obama should be meeting him in Jobs' office.
  3. Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago
    
    Jobs also criticized America's education system, saying it was "crippled by union work rules," noted Isaacson. "Until the teachers' unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform." Jobs proposed allowing principals to hire and fire teachers based on merit, that schools stay open until 6 p.m. and that they be open 11 months a year.
    
    Obama's takeaway from that meeting was a confirmation of just how much smarter he was than Steve Jobs.
  4. Red Rocks Rockin 13 years ago
    
    Jobs, who was known for his prickly, stubborn personality, almost missed meeting President Obama in the fall of 2010 because he insisted that the president personally ask him for a meeting.
    
    The balls on this guy--I'm not sure whether to praise him for trying to make the President genuflect to him, or criticize him for being such an egomaniac.
Lord Humungus 13 years ago

President Obama at war with himself over Wall Street
http://www.politico.com/news/s.....66514.html

"In some ways, he's lost both sides," said Robert Reich, labor secretary in the Clinton administration and public policy professor at the University of California-Berkeley. "The business community, especially Wall Street, has concluded he is against them even though this administration has been one of the most business friendly in history. At the same time, a large portion of the Democratic base doesn't think he has been tough enough on Big Business and Wall Street."
1. Warty 13 years ago
  
  These people actually believe that cronyism and stealing is the same as business. That's the only explanation.
  1. John 13 years ago
    
    ^^This^^
  2. John Thacker 13 years ago
    
    These people actually believe that cronyism and stealing is the same as business.
    
    In fairness, a large bloc of the Republicans (especially "moderates") and the GWB Administration did help to give the that impression, no?
  3. Jersey Patriot 13 years ago
    
    In fairness, stealing and cronyism are a big part of big business.
2. Joe M 13 years ago
  
  Dude, it's Robert "III" Reich. Of course he knows jack shit about the economy and business.
3. Elspeth Flashman 13 years ago
  
  I imagine he is always at war with himself, because if he wants to cater to the moonbats, he is not trying hard enough, he isn't going far enough. But once he does cater to the moonbats, he loses people who thought he was "moderate."
  1. Red Rocks Rockin 13 years ago
    
    I think their biggest disappointment with him is that he wasn't able to charm moderates into becoming progressives, thus handing Team Blue 40 years of unbroken power.
Ken Shultz 13 years ago

"Senate Democrats vote down an amendment "that would have made it easier for individuals to get prescription drugs from Canada for personal use."

Forcing the taxpayers to pay for people's healthcare--that's not a problem for Congress.

But if people want to buy their own healthcare--well Congress is against that?!

I know someone whose monthly medication supply costs about $1,600 a month from the local retail pharmacy. He can get the same medication from Canada for about $235 a month.

Why does Congress have to be so mean?
1. Quetzalcoatl 13 years ago
  
  Just curious because I haven't really looked into it, what accounts for the vast price difference between American and Canadian medicine?
  1. T 13 years ago
    
    The usual explanation is price fixing by the Canadian gov't. Many countries price fix prescription pharma by the club of not recognizing the patent protection if the manufacturers don't play along.
  2. Ken Shultz 13 years ago
    
    Well, speaking as someone who worked in hospital reimbursement for years--and helped make payer software for some of the biggest hospitals and hospital chains in the country...
    
    In Canada, the government pays for the full price of care.
    
    In the United States? People think that if you're on Medicare and Medicaid, that the government pays for the full cost of care.
    
    But that is not true.
    
    They only pay for a small fraction of the cost of care--and then the providers have to gouge private insurers, the uninsured, et. al. to make up the difference.
    
    The cost of my medication went up dramatically after Bush's prescription drug benefit went through. I'm having to pay for my medication--and I'm having to reimburse providers for the un-reimbursed cost of all the people on government programs too!
    
    In Canada, they don't have that problem so much. The government pays for the full cost of care. And private insurance companies and the uninsured aren't forced to pay for what the government doesn't pay.
    1. John Thacker 13 years ago
      
      In Canada, they don't have that problem so much. The government pays for the full cost of care.
      
      But the government in Canada still pays less on its Medicare than the US pays for the same procedures on Medicare, so this isn't an answer to the price difference.
      
      The US government spends the same percentage of GDP on health care as the Canadian government does; the US just also spends a fraction privately.
      
      Ergo, Canada is still cheaper, and that "full cost" of health care that it's covering is still less.
      
      That, in the end, comes down to providing less care and the government rationing what it will choose to support (which people may argue is justified.)
      1. Ken Shultz 13 years ago
        
        I was talking about the cost difference between what I pay for the same medication as someone who is uninsured...
        
        Case 1: for medication x at your local retail pharmacy. $1,600.00
        
        Case 2: for the same medication x at an online pharmacy in Canada. $235.00
        
        The difference is between what I as uninsured pay in the U.S. versus what I can buy it for in--as an uninsured person--in Canada.
        
        And the difference is that when I buy from Canada, I'm not covering both my own cost--and the un-reimbursed Medicare and Medicaid costs.
        
        If Medicare and Medicaid covered all the costs of care--I would only have to pay about $235 here in the U.S.
        
        If you add up everything the uninsured in the U.S. pay plus everything the privately insured pay plus everything the government pays for people on government programs? You may get a number close to or higher than the percentage of GDP that they pay in Canada as a whole.
        
        The difference is that in the U.S., the uninsured and privately insured pay several times their proportion of total costs--and the government programs pay only a fraction of the costs their patients ring up.
        
        That probably accounts for 90% of the difference in price.
        
        If Medicare and Medicaid paid the full cost of care? We would be spending 4 or 5 times as much as we do on Medicare and Medicaid.
        
        ...but the cost of care to the uninsured and privately insured would drop precipitously. And my medications would cost about what they cost now to buy in Canada.
        
        John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        Ah, I'm sorry, I was thinking of "medicine" in the broad sense of medical care, not just in drugs.
        
        If Medicare and Medicaid paid the full cost of care? We would be spending 4 or 5 times as much as we do on Medicare and Medicaid.
        .but the cost of care to the uninsured and privately insured would drop precipitously. And my medications would cost about what they cost now to buy in Canada.
        
        Nope, this doesn't work; this is bad economics. Simply because we're shouldering the burden of R&D does not mean that prices would drop to the price controlled level if there were free trade. What would happen is that the supply of drugs would be effected, new research would be stimulated and drugs discovered. This would be particularly helpful for rare diseases where the size of the unregulated US market is not large enough for a drug to be profitable based on that alone. But prices would not decline so much.
        
        The drug companies charge the uninsured and the privately insured whatever the market will bear. There is no sense in which they'd lower the price just to be nice because they suddenly got extra revenue from elsewhere.
        
        It's possible that prices would be lowered because the extra research would lead to more "me too" competing drugs being discovered, and the competition would lower prices.
        
        But it's incorrect to assume that the cost of R&D would be smeared out so that we'd all pay the marginal cost price that they do in price controlled areas.
        
        Even if our prices dropped somewhat, they'd still be significantly higher than the Canadian price controlled prices.
        
        The only way to make our prices the same for non Medicare/Medicaid patients as for them (and Canada) is to institute our own price controls. That would decrease prices, at the cost of killing innovation and research.
        
        John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        The key point is that drug companies don't-- and can't-- just raise prices on the uninsured because of price controls elsewhere. That doesn't make sense.
        
        What they do is choose not to research or produce drugs that can't be profitable because the price controlled markets don't allow them to recoup R&D.
        
        Removing the price controls in other markets would lead to more and better drugs, but shouldn't drop prices by nearly as much as you're thinking.
        
        John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        If the most profitable price that can be charged to group A is $1,600, there is no sense in a company cutting that price because they are suddenly getting more money from group B.
        
        The effect would be to make that drug-- and other potential drugs-- more profitable, thus promoting research of additional, better drugs and drugs for rare diseases.
        
        Your argument makes it seem like drug companies make back exactly R&D on each of their drugs. They don't. They (attempt to) produce drugs where the profit sufficiently exceeds R&D. Removing price controls means more profit on each drug, which means more drugs are worth researching, which eventually means better drugs. But not necessarily lower prices, and almost certainly not down at the price controlled level.
        
        Ken Shultz 13 years ago
        
        "The key point is that drug companies don't-- and can't-- just raise prices on the uninsured because of price controls elsewhere. That doesn't make sense."
        
        You're not paying attention.
        
        No one is saying that the drug companies are charging patients different amounts.
        
        If the drug companies sell their products to the Canadian health service for less than it costs in the United States, it isn't by much.
        
        Certainly not by enough to account for the difference in price.
        
        I don't know anyone who in the U.S. who buys prescription medications directly from the manufacturer. You get a prescription, and then you buy it from a pharmacy or healthcare provider.
        
        The healthcare providers charge different people different rates. The rates they charge for Medicare and Medicaid patients are set by the government. The prices they charge private insurers are fixed by contract--that's why your PPO doesn't want you going to a hospital it doesn't have a contract with...
        
        The point of the matter--the fact is? Healthcare providers make up for all the money they lose giving healthcare to people on Medicare and Medicaid by charging the uninsured and privately insured through the ying yang to make up for all the money they lose.
        
        Canada doesn't have that problem! The Canadian health service pays for all procedures in full. Medicare pays only about twenty-five cents on the dollar billed (across all codes), and Medicaid only pays about twelve and half cents on the dollar billed.
        
        The shortfall if covered by overcharging private insurers and the uninsured for the difference!
        
        That's why medications cost more--to privately insured and uninsured patients--here in the United States.
        
        The question is whether the drug companies charge healthcare providers more here than they do in other countries--that's a red herring thrown out by progressives to confuse people! Don't fall for it.
        
        The difference in price is a function of healthcare providers having to charge uninsured patients to make up for all the money they lose on patients in the government programs.
        
        That's why the individual mandate is essential to ObamaCare--because it makes young healthy people, who don't consumer much healthcare--pay into the system to help cover the costs healthcare providers lose on Medicare and Medicaid patients.
2. JMW 13 years ago
  
  Why does Congress have to be so mean?
  
  They're afraid, that if the constituents get their pills from Canadians, they will all start wearing toques, munching poutine, and tuning into Hockey Night in Canada?
Eduard van Haalen 13 years ago

"All occupiers are equal ? but some occupiers are more equal than others....

"As the protest has grown, some of the occupiers have spontaneously taken charge on projects large and small. But many of the people in Zuccotti Park aren't taking direction well, leading to a tense Thursday of political disagreements, the occasional shouting match, and at least one fistfight.

"It began, as it so often does, with a drum circle....

""They're imposing a structure on the natural flow of music," said Seth Harper, an 18-year-old from Georgia....

"To Shane Engelerdt, a 19-year-old from Jersey City and self-described former 'head drummer,' this amounted to a Jacobinic betrayal....

"The drummers claim that the finance working group even levied a percussion tax of sorts, taking up to half of the $150-300 a day that the drum circle was receiving in tips. "Now they have over $500,000 from all sorts of places," said Engelerdt. 'We're like, what's going on here? They're like the banks we're protesting.'...

"As the communal sleeping bag argument between Lauren Digion and Sage Roberts threatened to get out of hand, a facilitator in a red hat walked by, brow furrowed. 'Remember? You're not allowed to do any more interviews,' he said to Digion. She nodded and went back to work. But when Roberts shouted, 'Don't tell me what to do!' Digion couldn't hold back.

"'Someone has to be told what to do,' she said. 'Someone needs to give orders. There's no sense of order in this fucking place.'"

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2.....DailyIntel
1. John 13 years ago
  
  That is downright creepy. How long before they start handing out kool-aide because the CIA is coming?
2. Ken Shultz 13 years ago
  
  "The drummers claim that the finance working group even levied a percussion tax of sorts, taking up to half of the $150-300 a day that the drum circle was receiving in tips. "Now they have over $500,000 from all sorts of places," said Engelerdt. 'We're like, what's going on here? They're like the banks we're protesting.'...
  
  He's obviously so very wrong, wrong, wrong on one point--taxing people isn't like what the banks are doing.
  
  Taxing people is like what the government is doing.
  
  I mean, seriously?! If you're being organized by a group who thinks taxing the hell of people is the solution to America's problems, then why wouldn't they think taxing the hell out of you is the solution to their problems?
  
  I guess he thought they only wanted to tax other people? LOLs.
  
  Oh, well, I'm sure the irony will never sink in for that guy, and there's really only one practical solution anyway--emergency drum circle!
  1. Quetzalcoatl 13 years ago
    
    Haha, good point!
  2. Zeb 13 years ago
    
    They want to tax "the rich". Somehow, a lot of people seem to actually believe that doing so would somehow solve the country's financial problems.
    1. Ken Shultz 13 years ago
      
      To paraphrase a very wise woman, the problem with those who would tax other people to solve our problems is that they eventually run out of "other people" to tax.
      
      http://www.goodreads.com/autho.....t_Thatcher
      
      In this case, they seem to have run out of "other people" to tax before they even got started! If they're starting out by taxing the damn hippies in the drum circle, then there certainly isn't any reason to think anyone is safe from their ideas about taxation.
      
      If you're richer than a drum circle hippie? Then you're rich enough for them to tax you too.
      1. WTF 13 years ago
        
        I like how they are 'taxing' the drum circle. What a great illustration that taxation is merely theft, after all.
        
        Ken Shultz 13 years ago
        
        And they're taking half of the drum circle's proceeds?!
        
        The federal government doesn't even take half of what those poor hippies make!
        
        If they want half of what drum circle hippies make, how much of the paychecks of the middle class do they want? The working poor?
        
        I just grabbed my wallet. It's still there--thank God!
  3. mad libertarian guy 13 years ago
    
    Liberals LOVE taxes until they see the deductions from their paycheck.
    
    I had a colleague while I taught at UK who had won a prize for superior scholarship. The prize was for $500, and went apeshit when she discovered that the check was for substantially less than $500.
    
    Of course that morning she was spouting off about the need for more government programs this that and the other.
    
    She wasn't happy when I reminded her that those government programs had to be paid by someone . . .
    
    Liberals don't want to pay more taxes, they want to see the government force "the rich" (usually defined as anyone who has even 1 more cent than themselves) to pay more in taxes.
3. The Implacable Mr. Dean 13 years ago
  
  Nice. The mask slips.
John 13 years ago

http://campaign2012.washington.....-war-legal

Since we killed Gadafi, the Libyan war is now legal.
1. Kant feel Pietzsche 13 years ago
  
  I'm kind of curious where this leaves al-Megrahi
2. Ken Shultz 13 years ago
  
  In all of American history, have we ever refrained from engaging in a military conflict--just because it was illegal?
  
  If you want to argue any particular military conflict is against our best interests, I think you'll get more traction. If you want to undermine an ongoing military action with the general public--go ahead and tell people that ongoing conflict is illegal.
  
  But I don't think any president ever denied himself a military engagement--just because he thought it was illegal.
  1. John 13 years ago
    
    Other than the odd messing in Central America, pretty much all of our wars have been legal. If you run through the big ones, the Barbary Pirates declared war on the US, England was impressing US Sailors and violating the law of the sea, the Mexican War would be illegal today but it wasn't at the time and was lawfully declared, the civil war was putting down a rebellion strictly an internal matter, the Spanish American War was declared and legal by the standards of the time, same with World War I and II. The Korean War was authorized by both Congress and the UN. The Vietnam War was fully authorized by Congress. Same with both Gulf Wars.
    
    Kosovo is probably the closest to a flat out illegal war as we have had. The US and NATO had no UN authorization and it wasn't in self defense.
    1. Apostate Jew 13 years ago
      
      You're wrong. Not about declarations of war and congressional authorizations but about how many times we've used force without much legal basis.
      
      See CRS Reports RL 31133 and RL30172.
Kant feel Pietzsche 13 years ago

A little mini-Solyndra...

http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....z1bNm3jr9U
Mike M. 13 years ago

This is what happens when the "Occupy Wall Street" mentality reaches its apotheosis as it has in Greece; when your once-great country has turned into a bunch of lazy, communist losers.

And it's on the way to happening here in America thanks to our horrendous education system and verminous media.
1. Warty 13 years ago
  
  your once-great country
  
  Greece hasn't been great for 2400 years. Thanks for Aristotle and Plato, guys, but you really need to quit coasting on your reputation.
  1. Eduard van Haalen 13 years ago
    
    Don't forget Melina Mercouri, Spiro Agnew and Aristotle Onassis.
    1. Jerry 13 years ago
      
      You missed Nana Mouskouri!!
  2. John 13 years ago
    
    They had a joke on Top Gear last summer. It went something like "I will sit on my ass and do nothing of value for 2400 years and expect a check from the Germans".
  3. Quetzalcoatl 13 years ago
    
    you really need to quit coasting on your reputation.
    
    This would have been a great opportunity to use the idiom "resting on your laurels".
    1. Warty 13 years ago
      
      "Do you even know what an idiom is?"
      "Uh...a colloquial metaphor?"
      "No! Um, I mean, yes."
      1. robc 13 years ago
        
        I was disappointed in parts 2 and 3, part 1 was so great.
        
        Elder Scroll Enthusiat Au H20 13 years ago
        
        The Lacrosse game at the end of Part 3 was classic.
2. Ice Nine 13 years ago
  
  Wonder if the same thing will happen when it reaches its apex?
3. Jersey Patriot 13 years ago
  
  Greeks work more hours than Germans
  
  Shove it up your ass.
  1. Mike M. 13 years ago
    
    Germans make shit that people want, the Greek workers are overwhelmingly useless government bureaucrat types.
    
    And if the Greeks work so damn hard, why do they have to beg for so much money to keep their bankrupt country afloat?
    
    Go fuck yourself in your earhole.
robc 13 years ago

Bill Kristol's dream VP

I know nothing about Rubio, but that eliminates him in my mind.
1. John Thacker 13 years ago
  
  He seems a decent enough sort, but he's definitely pro-intervention in foreign affairs, so I understand you.
2. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
  
  Rubio has been pretty clear that he doesn't think he's ready for the VP spot. Since we're approaching a reality show format for selecting the president--no experience needed--that's a refreshing difference.
Warty 13 years ago

I wonder how many times this has been posted to Stormfront

Ulcerate
hmm 13 years ago

Glad to see Gutfeld and Levy are still willing to stoop to trolling stupid people. Oh I miss the days of Gutfeld trolling Huffington Post.

http://www.usmagazine.com/cele.....s-20112010
1. Warty 13 years ago
  
  Read the comments for real fun.
Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago

The damaged portion of the Great Wall is located in a remote area near the county of Laiyuan in Hebei Province, about 200 kilometers southwest of Beijing. The area is home to a dozen small mines, with some operating as close as 100 meters to the centuries-old wall.

It just goes to show, Chinese architecture simply can't hold up.
1. Warty 13 years ago
  
  Goddamn Mongorians tink tey gonna get past my warr!
rsi 13 years ago

How about this?

Solyndra on wheels. Chu gave $526 million to a *Finnish* company to build this junk.

http://www.fantasticalandrewfo.....on-wheels/
rsi 13 years ago

How abut this.

Chu gave 526 million to a *Finnish* company to build this junk.

http://www.fantasticalandrewfo.....on-wheels/
Lord Humungus 13 years ago

France Likely to Lose Top Rating: S&P
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/.....;=&ccode;=

France is among euro-region sovereigns likely to be downgraded in a stressed economic scenario, according to Standard & Poor's.

The sovereign ratings of Spain, Italy, Ireland and Portugal would also be reduced by another one or two levels in either of New York-based S&P's two stress scenarios, the ratings firm said in a report dated today. These assume low economic growth and a double-dip recession in the first set of circumstances, and add an interest-rate shock to the recession in the second.
1. Restoras 13 years ago
  
  This is really just a formality - there is no way they can pay off their debt, just like there is no way we can.
2. Old Mexican 13 years ago
  
  Re: Lord Humungus,
  
  France Likely to Lose Top Rating: S&P
  
  What? France has a rating still???
John 13 years ago

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50.....03544.html

Clinton on Qaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died"

That is classless, stupid, and idiotic. I fail to see how that helps the US in any way. Why would you say such a thing?
1. Restoras 13 years ago
  
  Reset, baby!
2. Mike M. 13 years ago
  
  Imagine what an apoplectic fit the left would be having if Bush had said that.
  
  If one good thing has come about as a result of Obama, it's that the left has been exposed as more venal and hypocritical than most people would have ever imagined.
  1. John 13 years ago
    
    It is amazing how blood thirsty they are.
  2. The Left 13 years ago
    
    It's okay when our guy does it!
3. Ice Nine 13 years ago
  
  The important question is (since Tim is apparently not going to ask it), have we won in Libya yet?
4. The Ghost of Julius Caesar 13 years ago
  
  Futue te ipsum!
5. Tony 13 years ago
  
  Much classier to spend a trillion $ and get 4000 American soldiers killed when ousting dictators.
  1. John 13 years ago
    
    Yes Tony we know. Illegal wars and assassinations are okay with you as long as your side does it. You don't need to remind us.
    1. Tony 13 years ago
      
      You could be describing yourself, and at least my "side" kills fewer Americans and spends less money.
      1. John 13 years ago
        
        Yes because it is okay to kill foreigners as long as it doesn't involve any Americans. Why do you come here to embarrass yourself every day?
        
        Tony 13 years ago
        
        I don't believe I've judged anything we're discussing "OK."
        
        mad libertarian guy 13 years ago
        
        But you're still defending it vis-a-vis Iraq.
        
        So your argument is, "It's not okay, but it's better than Iraq!! derp."
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        You're completely disingenous here John, you've said before that as a matter of policy we should protect American lives over others.
        
        Joe M 13 years ago
        
        Well, technically, that's correct. The job of the American government is to protect its citizens, not the entire planet.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        Whatever the job of the American government is (I should think it is to do what the citizens tell it to do, whether that protects American lives or, as in some wars we believe in, puts them at risk), if you hate Americans being killed and American dollars being spent on wars then you have to hold the recent Democratic military interventions to be less bad than the recent GOP ones. Case closed.
        
        John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        if you hate Americans being killed and American dollars being spent on wars then you have to hold the recent Democratic military interventions to be less bad than the recent GOP ones.
        
        Exactly when does Obama take credit for Afghanistan, where more Americans have died than under Bush?
        
        If never, does that mean that Nixon isn't responsible for Vietnam at all, since that was LBJ's war?
        
        The Implacable Mr. Dean 13 years ago
        
        you have to hold the recent Democratic military interventions to be less bad than the recent GOP ones. Case closed.
        
        Leaving aside, of course, the illegality under the Constitution of the Libyan war.
        
        And, of course, the hypocrisy of going to war to prevent the Libyan government from shelling and launching air strikes on cities, and then not only allowing "our" Libyan governmetn to shell cities, but actually handling the air strikes ourselves.
        
        But, yeah, other than the illegality, the hypocrisy, and the bad precedent, the Libyan war has been just peachy.
        
        And, MNG, would it kill you to admit that Obama violated the Constitution, not the War Powers Act?
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        We should in some cases sure. But the validity of doing that is not affected by how hard it is. It is either the right thing to do or it is not. You guys are acting like "since we didn't lose any people, it doesn't matter how many people we killed or how brazenly we violated US law." Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
        
        Joe M 13 years ago
        
        Do you think Bush violated any U.S. law with regard to Iraq?
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        Nope. As I had to correct you on the other day I think Obama violated WPA in this action and that this is a terrible, terrible thing. The WPA is something liberals have fought and cons have lamented for for decades and he shat upon it.
        
        Having said that, as someone who values American lives and dollars I find interventions that with less costs in both to be much preferable to interventions with more.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        I find interventions done without Congress approval to be a much worse precedent and more damaging to the country in the long term than a war that is legal and costs a few lives.
        
        Something tells me when the next Republican President goes to war without asking Congress and no public debate, you will agree with me.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        I'm glad to see John and other conservatives enthusiasm for the WPA. I'm sure they can point to where in the past they criticized GOPers like Cheney, Boehner, etc., who shat upon it regularly.
        
        Surely.
        
        Tony 13 years ago
        
        To sit and here and pretend that if the potus had an (R) after his name you wouldn't be pumping your fists...
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        We don't have to imagine. When Reagan tried to kill Gaddaffi cons cheered loudly, talking about how he had made America respected again.
        
        Imagine if OBL had been brought down during a R's administration. John would hijack a sound truck and make rounds screaming about MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        "We don't have to imagine. When Reagan tried to kill Gaddaffi cons cheered loudly, talking about how he had made America respected again."
        
        Kadafi had just killed a bunch of US service members in Berlin. He hasn't done anything to the US since the Lockerbee bombing. You people are just cheering because you love blood and want to show the world how tough you are.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        "people are just cheering because you love blood"
        
        The blood of the tens of thousands whose deaths at Gaddaffi's hands were averted due to our actions?
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        I mean, since you were just extolling the importance of other people's lives surely you are not going to be all dishonest and discount them now to try to make a cheap partisan point?
        
        Surely.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        Other people's lives are important. And war sucks. And I am appalled by people who cheer lead a war simply because it doesn't cost any American lives. It is disgusting. If the cause isn't worth your people dying for, it is not worth killing other people for. The implication of your argument is that if the Libyan war had resulted in American deaths, it would have been wrong. That is bullshit. Either it was the right thing to do or it wasn't. If it was, then it was worth sending Americans to die for. And if the cause wasn't worth sending Americans to die for, it wasn't worth killing Libyans for.
        
        John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        The blood of the tens of thousands whose deaths at Gaddaffi's hands were averted due to our actions?
        
        That's a difficult counterfactual. And again it opens you up to a much more complicated argument than your previous attempt to boil it down to a simple metric.
        
        T 13 years ago
        
        It also opens up the question of how many people died during the rebellion and our bombing campaign.
        
        If we & the rebs killed more, than perhaps leaving Qaddafi in place would have been the right call.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        "If we & the rebs killed more, than perhaps leaving Qaddafi in place would have been the right call."
        
        I don't disagree with that, but I'd qualify it. If "give me liberty or give me death" means anyting then it's at least conceivable that an intervention that frees a people from tyranny but that results in a net number of deaths more than leaving the tryant in power would have could be morally ok.
        
        WTF 13 years ago
        
        it's at least conceivable that an intervention that frees a people from tyranny but that results in a net number of deaths more than leaving the tryant in power would have could be morally ok.
        
        I think it's a mighty big assumption that what we've got in Libya now will result in anything resembling a free society. It remains to be seen whether they even end up better or worse than under Qadaffi.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        Sure. I've always said if you conclude that our intervention will just make things worse then you can't support it.
        
        My point is that it is wrong to just initially assume every intervention will produce results worse than non-intervention. I can respect that as a well deserved general attitude and rule, but to hold it absolutely true is nonsense in my opinion.
        
        MiNGe 13 years ago
        
        And we just assume 'tens of thousands' of deaths were averted, just like millions of jobs have been created or saved. Just because we can't prove any of it, and just pull this shit out of our asses to justify doing whatever the fuck we want, doesn't mean a thing. derp
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        Actually, several sources estimated around 30,000 had been killed when we intervened. And there was extrapolation that we were on the eve of tens of thousands more.
        
        Of course if it were shown that our support caused more deaths than that then it undercuts the justification (I'd say this is what an honest argument looks like so you could recognize it, but a person with a spoof handle has no integrity or honesty so why bother?). But you don't know if that is the case or not, you just want to throw something, anything on the wall and see if it sticks.
        
        The Implacable Mr. Dean 13 years ago
        
        Actually, several sources estimated around 30,000 had been killed
        
        Linx or it didn't happen.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        I've supplied this in the past. You know how to use google, use it fool.
        
        Or, make it worth my while. Promise if I provide it you will post "Shit, you were right, sorry I doubted you man."
        
        Otherwise, fuck you. Find it yourself.
        
        Red Rocks Rockin 13 years ago
        
        The blood of the tens of thousands whose deaths at Gaddaffi's hands were averted due to our actions?
        
        How exactly do you know this? From what I saw, there was plenty of killing on both sides, irrelevant to whether or not NATO got involved.
        
        Hell, by that logic, why the fuck aren't torching the Assad regime right now?
        
        Bradley 13 years ago
        
        If "give me liberty or give me death" means anyting then it's at least conceivable that an intervention that frees a people from tyranny but that results in a net number of deaths more than leaving the tryant in power would have could be morally ok.
        
        Even the most humanitarian of humanitarian interventions boils down to "give those guys over there liberty or give them death". Somehow that seems less "morally ok" than self-sacrifice.
      2. Barack Obama 13 years ago
        
        I WON!
      3. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
        
        at least my "side" kills fewer Americans and spends less money
        
        Oh, yeah, that's something of which to be proud.
    2. MNG 13 years ago
      
      It's amazing how John misses the point Tony makes, that interventions with lower price tags and body counts are preferable to the ones that John waved pom-poms for.
      
      John knows that, but he knows he's on a libertarian site and that's an unpopular view, so he hopes it will just go away.
      1. John 13 years ago
        
        The lack of loss of American life doesn't make the intervention in Libya any more legal or the deaths of the Libyans that we bombed any less tragic for the people involved.
        
        Your view seems to be that as long as no Americans lives are lost, it is okay for the President to ignore the law and bomb as much as he likes.
        
        If you want to have a debate about Iraq, fine. But even if you win that debate, for 500th time, they did it too is not a defense. It won't make the war in Libya any more legal or liberals any less unseemly and crass for doing a victory dance over every dead body our assassin in chief creates.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        You're being totally dishonest here. If anything the war you cheerleaded was much more open tothe charge of being illegal as in Libya there was at least some approval by the UN. If you're talking about domestically, then you run up again behind the long-time GOP assertions about broad executive military powers.
        
        Barack Obama 13 years ago
        
        fuck yea. i didnt get congreshinal approvalz n shit, but i won. fuckin deal w/ it john, u fucken wack ass mothafuckaaa.
        
        thx minge, u alwayz got my bak.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        The President had a direct authorization from Congress to go into Iraq. That war was perfectly legal under US law. The Libyan war had no such thing and is thus illegal under US law.
        
        The Iraq war was nothing but an enforcing on the original UN resolutions going back to the first Gulf War and the cease fire Saddam signed. He violated the cease fire repeatedly and the US had a right to restart conflict because of that.
        
        The Libyan war is flat out illegal under US law. There is no way to defend it. It is an undeclared unauthorized war taken unilaterally by the President in direct violation of the Constitution. And you only defend it because your team did it.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        As I corrected you the other day, from the outset I criticed the war as illegally conducted. I could reproduce that and me reminding you of that from the other day in order to demonstrate your continued partisan dishonesty here if you'd like, but perhaps you'd like to have some small sliver of manly backbone and just admit you knew that.
        
        See, I can say "there were good reasons to intervene," "this intervention is preferable to the one in Iraq" and still flatly and unequivocally conclude the war was illegally conducted.
        
        Because I'm not a simplistic partisan like you.
        
        Destrudo 13 years ago
        
        Only naive pussies give a shit about what the U.N. has to say. It's the U.S. constitution that matters, not the collective opinion of an organization filled with third world shitholes and the like.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        "Only naive pussies give a shit about what the U.N. has to say."
        
        Like GWB? He went to the UN for approval too. He just didn't get it.
        
        It matters if you hold out any hope for international law and norms. But some people don't, I realize that.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        "Your view seems to be that as long as no Americans lives are lost, it is okay for the President to ignore the law and bomb as much as he likes."
        
        Again, more willful dishonesty. My view was stated plainly above and has been so before:
        
        "interventions with lower price tags and body counts are preferable to the ones that John waved pom-poms for"
        
        John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        "interventions with lower price tags and body counts are preferable to the ones that John waved pom-poms for"
        
        Does the fact that the total body count in Afghanistan is higher under less than three years of Obama than eight years of Bush alter your argument at all?
        
        Or will you argue that it can't really be reduced to some sound bite about "lower body counts" after all?
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        Nice try, but I opposed the surge for exactly those reasons.
        
        I will say I see Afghanistan as a bit different, there was a direct attack on us from there.
        
        John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        I will say I see Afghanistan as a bit different, there was a direct attack on us from there.
        
        Ah, so you're admitting that John is correct to view Reagan's bombing of Libya as different, since there was a direct attack on us from there?
        
        Democratic Presidents are the ones who fight the wars without the casualities; Republicans fight wars like Grenada and Panama.
        
        This, combined with the evidence on spending, is just more proof that GWB was an LBJ, a Southern Democrat (and that Clinton was a Republican.)
        
        I don't think you can exempt President Obama's responsibility for the current tactic in Afghanistan. Indeed, I think that by your lights, the initial invasion strategy (working with the Northern Alliance) in Afghanistan was correct, but, as you say, not Obama's surge.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        "Democratic Presidents are the ones who fight the wars without the casualities"
        
        Is this a misprint or more confused thinking here?
        
        I said yesterday that I my preferred approach in Afghanistan was to have supplied air support to the NA. Whenever our goals can be achieved in that way my support for such increases.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        "interventions with lower price tags and body counts are preferable to the ones that John waved pom-poms for"
        
        You don't know what the body count is for this war. It is not over yet. And regardless, it doesn't make them any more or less legal.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        We don't know what the final, ultimate body count in Iraq is either. But I do know this, the American body count in Libya right now is 0.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        Last I looked MNG, Libyans were people too. And it is gross and immoral to kill people for a cause that you don't think are worth any American lives.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        "Libyans were people too"
        
        Yes, which is why there was a moral imperative to act when tens of thousands of them had been slaughtered and more looked to come.
        
        In your Protean Partisanship you are flopping around like a newly caught trout John. You veer back and forth between "Libyan lives are important" to "we should not have intervened in a war that did not have American lives at stake."
        
        You hate Obama more than you love war, I guess that is something there.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        I am the last person to love war you piece of shit fuck. You really are the most loathsome person ever to comment on here MNG. Few things really make me angry on here. But your shit has finally crossed the line. Fuck you. You have never so much as heard a shot fired in anger. And you are perfectly willing to cheer lead wars that don't affect you and that you will never serve in. And then call someone who says "hey maybe we shouldn't be killing people when we aren't willing to risk our own lives for the case" a lover of war.
        
        You disgust me. I just feel sorry for you. What a sad, small person you are.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        "I am the last person to love war you piece of shit fuck."
        
        We wouldn't know that from your years of posting here (well, as long as there was a R beside the Commander in Cheif's name). Your raison d'etre for years was to cheerlead the war in Iraq even long after most cons tried to walk away from it. Even recently you were beating the drums of war against Iran.
        
        As for you pussy whining, get over it.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        MNG, if I ever meet you in person, I would advise you to go the other way. I am not kidding. And I don't cheer lead wars. I supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just like you support this one. But I supported those because I believed in the cause. You support this war because you think it is easy and good politics. That is why your position is so loathsome. And why you are so defensive and calling names.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        "MNG, if I ever meet you in person, I would advise you to go the other way."
        
        TUFF GAI!!! Are you going to whine me to death?
        
        "You support this war"
        
        Up, there you go again with the dishonesty, so:
        
        The war was illegally conducted, Congress should have and still should have slapped Obama down.
        
        But there were good reasons for the war and it was preferable to Iraq.
        
        I'm just going to keep posting the above until your dishonest partisan self recognizes it, because it is what I've been saying over and over.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        "why you are so defensive and calling names."
        
        " piece of shit fuck. You really are the most loathsome person ever to comment on here MNG."
        
        "Fuck you."
        
        "You disgust me. I just feel sorry for you."
        
        We all know how John hates taking the low road, unless he's the one doing it as usual.
        
        You don't disgust me or anger me John, you're one of the more amusing things in my mornings!
        
        crrpycrawler 13 years ago
        
        john, you mad brah?
        
        Jersey Patriot 13 years ago
        
        I am the last person to love war you piece of shit fuck.
        
        LMFAO
        
        John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        But I do know this, the American body count in Libya right now is 0.
        
        If you exclude some American journalists that were captured by Gaddafi's forces after the bombing started, yes.
        
        But that misses the point. What I wonder about is whether you think President Obama bears any responsibility for increasing casualities in Afghanistan? Isn't that President Obama's war now, even if it isn't on the front page?
        
        And if he doesn't, does that mean that Nixon (and Kissinger) are absolved of US casualties in Vietnam?
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        The body count in our war with Japan after Pearl Harbor was quite high too JT.
        
        John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        The body count in our war with Japan after Pearl Harbor was quite high too JT.
        
        Of course it was. But you're the one who decided to simplify it all down to body counts and cost.
        
        Once you start throwing in questions of justification, it muddies the water.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        Not all, you assumed that simplification. Let me help you:
        
        If we are directly attacked or threatened then body counts and such are less relevant in judging the wisdom of military action.
        
        If it is a "war of choice" then those things are incredibly important.
        
        BakedPenguin 13 years ago
        
        How about this: we stop intervening everywhere, and we don't go to war unless Americans have been attacked, or there is very clear evidence of an imminent attack. Is that really so hard?
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        I'm fine with that stance BP, it is at least honest. But that is not John or other GOPers stance.
        
        What I'm getting at is that only if you have no sense of degree can you equate as equally bad an intervention that costs no American lives and comparatively few dollars to one that costs much, much more. John et al., seem to think they have some kind of "gotcha" moment here because the people they hate so passionately are treating the former different from the latter, and in their simplistic, literal minds they think that is hypocrisy. But differences in things like that mean differences AT LEAST in degree (like the difference between a felony and a misdeamnor, what fool equates the two because they are "both crimes") and possibly in more.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        Any time you go to war you kill people MNG. You act like that is a great thing as long as we don't get killed ourselves. Well in some ways that is true. Not getting killed is always a good thing. But killing people is not a good thing either. Sometimes it is necessary. It is a tough world. But it is not something that should be done lightly.
        
        What makes you and Tony so repulsive is that you are totally un-bothered by us bombing and killing people, not because you think the cause is just, but because the political costs are low and it gives you something to cheer about. If the political costs for this war were high, you would turn on it in a minute. The morality or legality of being there means nothing to you. It is just appalling.
        
        MiNGe 13 years ago
        
        Look, it would have been better if we just nuked Iraq into a glass crater, then there would have been no American casualties, which is better for an intervention. Iran, too.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        "it would have been better if we just nuked Iraq into a glass crater
        Iran, too"
        
        Thanks for your input John McCain.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        You continue to not credit people defending the action's claim that they acted to save the very lives you then bewail them for not caring about. They acted to kill people that were killing people. If you want to say they were wrong in that calculation go ahead, but you are willfully trying to ignore that is their stated aim.
        
        I've said this several times but unless you can stop being dishonest and recognize it I think it pointless to continue this conversation further: all other things (including justifications) being equal I think interventions with lower American body counts and dollars spent to be superior to ones with higher counts.
        
        So enough about "you just want to approve of this war blah, blah, blah". That's just your partisan dishonesty talking. I'm merely saying it is less bad for those reasons, and I've said it over and over.
        
        John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        What I'm getting at is that only if you have no sense of degree can you equate as equally bad an intervention that costs no American lives and comparatively few dollars to one that costs much, much more.
        
        I'm pretty sure you could if we just up and nuked some country that didn't do anything to us.
        
        But on point, the cost in American lives and dollars has nothing to do with the degree of legality, the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor.
        
        The cost in American lives and money has to do with prudential arguments about whether or not it was a good idea. That's a perfectly good basis for objecting to one policy and favoring another.
        
        But it doesn't hold much weight on the legal or moral aspects. A war with low casualties sets as much precedent, perhaps even more.
        
        Tony 13 years ago
        
        It's lonely in John's hypocrisy corner. He needs friends.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        Shut up Tony. You are just a dumber version of MNG.
        
        Tony 13 years ago
        
        BTW when have I ever said I was a bleeding heart pacifist?
        
        I voted for Obama knowing full well his position was to be "not against all wars, just dumb wars."
        
        WTF 13 years ago
        
        I voted for Obama knowing full well his position was to be "not against all wars, just dumb Team Red wars."
        
        Fixed
        
        Tony 13 years ago
        
        It's not my fault Republicans can't even do wars right.
        
        Destrudo 13 years ago
        
        I like to imagine Tony as a cross between Michael Moore and Liberace.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        This is a common John tactic. When he is mad at me he says "You are worse than Joe!!!" When he is mad at you "you are worse than MNG."
        
        Go back and look at what he used to say at Joe when he was arguing with him. His protestations to the contrary John is one of the first and most vehement to insult and attack those he disagrees with.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        I'm saying there are often good humanitarian reasons to enter into a war, but a US leader must weigh that against US lives and dollars and the latter should be weighted heavily. If one can achieve the former with low costs in the latter then that is much preferable to other scenarios.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        I'm saying there are often good humanitarian reasons to enter into a war, but a US leader must weigh that against US lives and dollars and the latter should be weighted heavily. If one can achieve the former with low costs in the latter then that is much preferable to other scenarios.
        
        Translation, I am okay with wars, regardless of their legality, as long as it doesn't cost any American lives. And it is amazing how naive you are. You think that it is just so easy to determine what the humane thing to do is as if there are no unintended consequences or war, once they are started, are in any way predictable.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        The war was illegally conducted, Congress should have and still should have slapped Obama down.
        
        But there were good reasons for the war and it was preferable to Iraq.
        
        I'm just going to keep posting the above until your dishonest partisan self recognizes it, because it is what I've been saying over and over.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        But it doesn't hold much weight on the legal or moral aspects. A war with low casualties sets as much precedent, perhaps even more.
        
        Exactly.
      2. John Thacker 13 years ago
        
        If it's casualties you want, then you have to look at Afghanistan, where US casualties have skyrocketed under President Obama but it's hardly been in the news.
      3. Red Rocks Rockin 13 years ago
        
        And if Tony's point was valid, he'd be reaming Obama for what's going on in Afghanistan. But there's not much of a peep out of him on that.
    3. Mike M. 13 years ago
      
      Yep, and as soon as a republican is back in the White House once again, the Krugmanian scum will be right back out on the street screaming in about a week or two later, pretending to just hate war with every fiber of their being.
      
      They are utterly shameless creeps.
      1. MNG 13 years ago
        
        I resemble that statement.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        I've said it before, spoofing, the first refuge of the silly pussy.
      2. Jersey Patriot 13 years ago
        
        And you will be frothing at the mouth to attack Iran, excusing the President if he doesn't bother with the niceties of legality or morality. TEAM RED fanboys don't get to call others hypocrites.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        I am not frothing at the mouth to attack, unless they attack us. And we had 8 years of Team Red in charge and we never attacked Iran. Bush sure has hell could have bombed Iran in the fall of 2008. What would any one have done about it?
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        John played bass and back-up vocals on "Bomb, bomb, Iran"
6. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
  
  Holy shit. She's a terrible SoS.
  
  Let's put this in perspective. If killing tyrants is always okay, why not kill them all? Why some and not others? Bush could've done the same thing without waiting for a rebellion. What would the reaction have been then?
  
  The Democrats love to portray the GOP as warlike and vicious, but I see no difference in their behavior.
  
  It's all so haphazard, anyway. What's the strategy here?
  1. MNG 13 years ago
    
    "If killing tyrants is always okay, why not kill them all?"
    
    If feeding the poor down the street from you is okay, why not feed them all? And if someone volunteers for their local soup kitchen and not the one down the street too, does that make them hypocrites?
    
    There are all kinds of reasons at play and Obama was quite clear about that when he announced the Libya action.
    1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
      
      Give war a chance.
    2. MNG 13 years ago
      
      I think there are several grounds to criticize Obama's Libya action, some of which I agree with.
      
      1. He violated WPA and/or the Constitution. I agree.
      
      2. We should only intervene when our direct interests are involved. I actually tend to agree here as well, though it can be complicated.
      
      What I think is silly is arguing that Obama and supporters of the action must be hypocrites unless they supported all other actual or hypothetical regime changes operations. That's lazy thinking.
      1. John 13 years ago
        
        What I think is silly is arguing that Obama and supporters of the action must be hypocrites unless they supported all other actual or hypothetical regime changes operations. That's lazy thinking.
        
        But you accuse anyone who supported Iraq and Afghanistan of being a hypocrite for not supporting this one, as if supporting one war means you should should support them all. Could you be anymore dishonest?
        
        I don't think you are a hypocrite. I think you are a nasty political creature who supports killing other people so long as it is easy and good politics.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        "But you accuse anyone who supported Iraq and Afghanistan of being a hypocrite"
        
        No, just you. You're obviously just being a partisan hack here. Look at how one minute you claim "there were no American lives at stake here we should have looked the other way" and the next equate American lives with Libyan ones.
        
        If you want to say all wars are bad (don't hold your breath on that one folks), then say it. If you want to say this one was fought for silly reasons, say it (though you'll have to explain how Iraq, which you supported, wasn't silly). But what you are doing is saying that everyone who supports this was but not Iraq is a hypocrite. You're guilty of your own critique (something not uncommon for you actually).
        
        If wars can be differentiated by numerous factors then you should recognize that, those factors being different with Iraq and Libya, a person can honestly see them differently.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        I don't think all wars are bad. I think some causes are just and worth dying for. But only the causes worth dying for are the ones worth killing for. You in contrast think anything that is easy and politically expedient is worth killing for. And that is why both you and Tony are repulsive.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        I value American lives and weigh them heavily, though I value other lives too. If we can do good in the world for the latter without much risk to the former then yes, I find that preferable to the was you've cheerleaded.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        If you think Libya is a just cause, then make your case why. But don't sit around and pretend that because we didn't lose any Americans, that makes it a more or less moral or legal war.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        It was a just cause because it toppled a dictator and saved thousands of lives. But yes, I weigh that against the risk of American lives and dollars too. With the latter being so low it helps that cause.
        
        I ultimately wish we had not gotten in, or that we had provided much more limited air support for civilian protection earlier in the conflict. Like a lot of people I'm worried about where this goes. But I don't simplistically condemn people who concluded otherwise with vitriol and hate like you do. In your simplistic black and white world that makes me a "defender" of the action.
        
        MNG 13 years ago
        
        It's silly to think these things don't factor in. It's a good thing to do to feed hungry people, but if someone believes in feeding hungry people in place X but doesn't do it in place Y because, for example, place y is farther away and more costly for him to go there, that doesn't make them a hypocrite.
        
        Toppling dictators and averting massacres is a good thing, but it's not hypocritical to take costs into account before deciding to do it. You act like if a cause is just then other factors be damned. I hold that is wrong (but typical of a fanatic). Cost in American lives and dollars can make me back off what would be a cause worth engaging were those costs lower.
        
        Sparky 13 years ago
        
        You act like if a cause is just then other factors be damned. I hold that is wrong (but typical of a fanatic).
        
        In other words, you have no principles. Except as applies to the justice of taking away from those you believe have "too much" to give to those you believe "don't have enough".
        
        Tony 13 years ago
        
        You don't have principles. You have principle-like excuses for supporting every demand and whim of the wealthy elite.
        
        Sparky 13 years ago
        
        You don't have principles. You have principle-like excuses for supporting every demand and whim of the poor.
    3. cynical 13 years ago
      
      "If feeding the poor down the street from you is okay, why not feed them all?"
      
      What a stupid analogy. Do you think other dictators are farther away or harder to reach than Qaddafi? We have the world's most powerful military -- short of China or North Korea, we could pretty much devastate any other state out there, so long as we didn't worry about what happened afterwards.
rsi 13 years ago

Solyndra on wheels. Chi gave 526 million to a Finnish company to build this:
http://www.fantasticalandrewfo.....on-wheels/
Warty 13 years ago

Can We Please Stop Setting Weight Loss Goals?

I love all the fatties in the comments pretending like they packed on a bunch of muscle.
1. Lord Humungus 13 years ago
  
  semi-related: I get annoyed by the BMI scale. According to that, I'm 'overweight'. Of course any weightlifter, or athlete who requires strength, would fall into that range.
  1. MNG 13 years ago
    
    And, don't they 'recalibrate' weight measures every few years?
    
    I can see trying to get info to ease healthy choices to people. But after that if people want to scarf Big Macs it's nothing but patronizing to stand in their way.
  2. Joe M 13 years ago
    
    BMI is useless.
  3. Warty 13 years ago
    
    By the BMI, I'm obese, and I have visible abs and all sorts of veins all down my arms.
    
    Plus, I bet I make more money than you.
    1. Joe M 13 years ago
      
      I'm also obese according to BMI, and I have veins inside my arms for safekeeping.
    2. T 13 years ago
      
      Yeah, me too. To get down to what BMI says is a normal weight, I'd have to drop 40 pounds. I'd look like Skeletor if I dropped 40 pounds.
    3. SugarFree 13 years ago
      
      BMI says I'm obese too. But it's because I'm obese. 🙁
    4. MNG 13 years ago
      
      I'd rather not even imagine what a guy whose handle is "warty" looks like thank you.
      1. Warty 13 years ago
        
        Did you say something, dipshit? Fuck you.
      2. Restoras 13 years ago
        
        Yeah, because nothing says beautiful like MaNGe.
    5. Lord Humungus 13 years ago
      
      by abs are sadly still invisible, but yeah, I've been weight-lifting (off and on) for the past 12 years. These days I don't have the time for the gym that I once had.
      1. Warty 13 years ago
        
        You are being lied to
        
        Minimal time.
    6. WTF 13 years ago
      
      Plus, I bet I make more money than you.
      
      Fuck, Warty just won every argument.
      1. FlyoverCountry 13 years ago
        
        How does Warty know, though? Has he consulted the tables relating to income distributions?
        
        Because people who claim to have consulted those are the only people I'll trust.
2. T 13 years ago
  
  I'll agree with her point that other metrics are important. But I'm still carrying around an extra 20 pounds. Short of getting a body comp analysis done, weight is one of the best quick numbers you can get to see if what you're doing for your fitness plan is working. Pretending otherwise is fucking stupid, and 50 pounds ain't chump change. If you're 50 over whatever you think is ideal, it ain't muscle mass.
3. Auric Demonocles 13 years ago
  
  Your weight does matter. Sorry, but 400 pounds isn't healthy regardless of your circumstances.
  1. Elspeth Flashman 13 years ago
    
    +1. My family has a history of heavy people. Unfortunately, a few of them have convinced themselves that it's OK to eat large (I mean large) portions, as long as it is healthy food. OK, you're fat from healthy food, but you're still fat. The fact that it was healthy food is not gonna stop your legs & knees & back from having problems carting you around for years.
  2. rac3rx 13 years ago
    
    Yeah, but 140 pounds looks different on someone who is 5'8" versus someone who is 5'.
4. Audrey the Liberal 13 years ago
  
  I'm a fatty, but it's because I love to eat.
P Brooks 13 years ago

The drummers claim that the finance working group even levied a percussion tax of sorts, taking up to half of the $150-300 a day that the drum circle was receiving in tips.

From each, according to his ability...
Neu Mejican 13 years ago

How do you tell if someone is a skeptic versus a denier.

Here's a good test.

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resou.....ary_20_Oct

"Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK."

Koch brothers funded research moves the science forward nicely.
1. John 13 years ago
  
  So what? The earth has warmed since 1950. That doesn't mean it was greenhouse gases that caused it. To say that you have to first prove that that that warming wasn't caused by something else.
2. Joe M 13 years ago
  
  I would say the deniers are the ones that say the Earth hasn't been getting warmer. The skeptics are the ones who disagree about the cause(s).
  1. Neu Mejican 13 years ago
    
    Joe,
    
    You can be a denier in that arena as well, it seems to me. But there is certainly more to be skeptical about.
    1. Old Mexican 13 years ago
      
      Re: Neu Mejican,
      
      What Berkeley Earth has not done is make an independent assesment of how much of the observed warming is due to human actions, Richard Muller acknowledged.
      
      Quite an acknowledgment. Yet:
      
      Elisabeth Muller, co-founder and Executive Director of Berkeley Earth [what a name!], said she hopes the Berkeley Earth findings will help "cool the debate over global warming by addressing many of the valid concerns of the skeptics in a clear an rigorous way." This will be especially important in the run-up to the COP 17 meeting in Durban, South Africa, later this year, where participants will discuss targets for reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHG) for the next commitment period as well as issues such as financing, technology transfer and cooperative efforts.
      
      Wait a minute! The findings of the so-called "Berkeley Earth" research group only confirms global warming on a 1 deg C scale over 50 years, not the origin of the warming. So why would this report be of any usefulness to establish so-called greenhouse emission targets, financing (read: largesse) and technological exchanges? All the report says is that the temperature stations are more or less accurate if accounting for noise - that's all!
P Brooks 13 years ago

at least my "side" kills fewer Americans and spends less money.

You openly believe the lives of sand niggers are worthless.

Nice.
1. T 13 years ago
  
  African intervention has always been a tough sell because, as near as I can tell, the world community in general doesn't give a shit if Africans kill each other. So while his comments are horrible from a moral standpoint, he's got plenty of company.
2. Tony 13 years ago
  
  Pretty sure fewer Arabs were killed as well.
P Brooks 13 years ago

Clinton was in Tripoli earlier this week for talks with leaders of Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC).

The reporter asked if Qaddafi's death had anything to do with her surprise visit to show support for the Libyan people.

"No," she replied, before rolling her eyes and saying "I'm sure it did" with a chuckle.

What a loathsome cunt.
Almanian 13 years ago

"Is Libya the Next Somalia?"

No, silly goose! They have ROOAAAADDZZ in Libya!

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a.....iterranean
1. John 13 years ago
  
  You mean wiping out the leader of a country is the easy part? MNG tells me this thing is over and we are covered in glory for it.
My Myself and I 13 years ago

REVEALED: The Capital Network That Runs The World
1. Scruffy Nerfherder 13 years ago
  
  It's not so hard to do when you control the printing presses.
2. Brett L 13 years ago
  
  Wait, the banks? The too big to fail banks? This is my surprised face.
3. cynical 13 years ago
  
  BI might be commie bastards, but I feel like these sorts of network analysis are actually pretty useful and informative. Would be interesting to see a similar analysis of natural persons to companies (looking at wealth, and particularly at boards and executive positions). Expand that to ties with political officials, and you have a really interesting power map.
  
  It would also be interesting to look from the other side, at high federal offices and the networks there (for example, a lot of the current guys are Clinton retreads, a lot of Bush II's guys were from older R elections, and so on). Maybe we could establish some hidden, competing networks and how closely they relate to the parties. Could also map that to corporate networks via stocks, board/executive positions, or revolving door lobbying positions.
Old Mexican 13 years ago

Senate Democrats vote down an amendment "that would have made it easier for individuals to get prescription drugs from Canada for personal use."

So much for the "affordable" part of the "affordable care" canard.
Old Mexican 13 years ago

If you are Chinese, Russian, Muslim, hispanic, or black, the FBI may be spying on you because of the color of your skin or your nation of origin.

Yeah, tell me something I haven't known already for 20 years.
Elder Scroll Enthusiat Au H20 13 years ago

Obama in bed with the Kochtopus!!!

Basically, the Kochs own 25% of the tar sands, so if the Keystone XL pipeline goes through, they'll get money.

THEIR TENTACLES ARE EVERYWHERE!
1. The Homicidal Mr. Dean 13 years ago
  
  I'd kill to be a Koch.
  
  Seriously. Is there someone they want dead bad enough to adopt me if I do the wet work?
P Brooks 13 years ago

I used to know a guy on the U S Olympic weightlifting team; he weighed about 325 lbs and could slam dunk a basket ball two handed from a standing start.

I'm pretty sure he didn't worry much about BMI.
P Brooks 13 years ago

You mean wiping out the leader of a country is the easy part?

Dude, where have you been? If you kill the chief, all the indians throw down their weapons and go home.
1. John 13 years ago
  
  It is funny. After Iraq, when liberals did the happy dance over it not being over when Saddam went into hiding, are now acting like Libya is this unqualified success because Kadafi is dead.
  
  You can't spoof people like MNG and Tony. You couldn't make them up if you tried.
Old Mexican 13 years ago

Re: Neu Mejican,

What Berkeley Earth has not done is make an independent assesment of how much of the observed warming is due to human actions, Richard Muller acknowledged.

Quite an acknowledgment. Yet:

Elisabeth Muller, co-founder and Executive Director of Berkeley Earth [what a name!], said she hopes the Berkeley Earth findings will help "cool the debate over global warming by addressing many of the valid concerns of the skeptics in a clear an rigorous way." This will be especially important in the run-up to the COP 17 meeting in Durban, South Africa, later this year, where participants will discuss targets for reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHG) for the next commitment period as well as issues such as financing, technology transfer and cooperative efforts.

Wait a minute! The findings of the so-called "Berkeley Earth" research group only confirms global warming on a 1 deg C scale over 50 years, not the origin of the warming. So why would this report be of any usefulness to establish so-called greenhouse emission targets, financing (read: largesse) and technological exchanges? All the report says is that the temperature stations are more or less accurate if accounting for noise - that's all!
1. Neu Mejican 13 years ago
  
  Why do you always have to post twice?
  
  More information that is more accurate can't be a bad thing in a policy debate. Not sure why you think it wouldn't be useful information.
  1. Gaddafi 13 years ago
    
    [tap tap]
    
    Is this thing on? Helloooo!
  2. Neu Mejican 13 years ago
    
    Now, of course, they may want to wait to use these findings until they've gone through peer-review. The reason I posted it was to point out that Muller behaves like a skeptic rather than a denier. I am sure he is skeptical about the causal stuff too. It will be interesting to see if he tackles that question next.
  3. Old Mexican 13 years ago
    
    Re: Neu Mejican,
    
    Why do you always have to post twice?
    
    Well, the Postman Always Rings Twice.
    
    The reason is because the thread was already 400+ long.
    
    More information that is more accurate can't be a bad thing in a policy debate.
    
    Not if the information is irrelevant to the policy goals, it is not. The fact that the Earth is indeed warming does not lead ipso facto to economy-destructive policies, one. Two, it does not even lead to the conclusion that humans are causing it.
    
    Not sure why you think it wouldn't be useful information.
    
    Not useless, Neu, but irrelevant to the issue at hand. The skepticism from the scientific camp is not based on the belief that the Earth is not warming. The skepticism rests totally on the AGW hypothesis that the Warmists take as "settled science." It is NOT a debate on the phenomenon, Neu. The debate is about what causes the warming.
    1. Neu Mejican 13 years ago
      
      Not useless, Neu, but irrelevant to the issue at hand.
      
      No, not really. It can be combined with...wait for it...other information.
      
      The skepticism from the scientific camp is not based on the belief that the Earth is not warming. The skepticism rests totally on the AGW hypothesis that the Warmists take as "settled science."
      
      If the debate isn't about the warming, why do you label people as "warmists"? Odd. But as far as that goes...Muller did his studies because he was skeptical about...wait for it...the idea that the earth was warming.
      
      It is NOT a debate on the phenomenon, Neu. The debate is about what causes the warming.
      
      It? There are some who debate that. Others who debate other things. Muller was part of a large group that doubted the accuracy of statements made about warming itself. The whole climategate "scandal" was about the supposed fraud in the warming data. Now as far as the AGW hypothesis...it is a tougher thing to prove than the warming and the evidence is not AS strong. But you are over selling the "skepticism from the scientific camp" on this issue as well.
      
      And no...the science does not lead inevitably to any particular policy.
The Implacable Mr. Dean 13 years ago

What I think is silly is arguing that Obama and supporters of the action must be hypocrites unless they supported all other actual or hypothetical regime changes operations.

The justification for the illegal war was a moral one - "protection of the innocent."

Selective application of morality is the essence of hypocrisy. The refusal to protect the innocent in Syria and Iran proves the hypocrisy.

But you don't even have to leave Libya. We not only allowed "our" Libyan government to shell cities, we actually ran the air strikes for them.
P Brooks 13 years ago

But I don't simplistically condemn people who concluded otherwise with vitriol and hate like you do.

...says the guy who detests "smug moralizing".
Hermanator 13 years ago

Cain: Anti-Abortion, But Pro-Choice
http://tinyurl.com/3bdk8bd
JohnJohn 13 years ago

Are we going to war with Iran next -- uh, help the freedom fighters -- and justify it with the Iranian Hostage Crisis from decades ago?
1. John 13 years ago
  
  that is pretty much what we have done in Libya. Gadafi hasn't done anything to the US in decades.
  
  To go to your larger more retarded point, we are at war with Iraq for the entire time leading up to 2003. We violated their sovereignty and bombed them daily, all on the basis of the 1991 UN resolutions. Finally he violated the cease fire for the last time, we invaded and ended the ten year running low intensity war.
  
  Tell me is it hard going through life knowing little or nothing and being completely stupid? I would think that would be a disadvantage most days. But you somehow have managed.

Please log in to post comments

Reason Morning Links: Senate Dems Preserve Canadian Prescription Drug Ban, Obama Hagiographers Celebrate Murder of Old Man Muammar, FBI Caught Profiling Everybody

Latest

Yes, Trump Really Put Higher Tariffs on Israel Than Iran

Senators Make Modest Moves To Reclaim Tariff Powers From Trump

The Supreme Court Blesses the FDA's Rejection of Flavored Nicotine Vapes

Trump's Tariffs Target Uninhabited Islands, Economic Dead Zones, and Individual Regions of France

Trump's New Tariffs on These 3 Countries Look Particularly Foolish

Recommended

Login Form