Election 2012

Reason Morning Links: Herman Cain Makes Word Salad, Rick Perry Promises a Coup, House Mulls a National Concealed Carry Act

|

New at reason.tv: "Shipwrecks, Treasure and Cannon Fire: The True Story of an American Privateer"

NEXT: Alabama's War on Immigrants

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

  1. Republican Party Candidates in Four-Way Dead Heat

    A Bloomberg News poll shows Cain at 20 percent, Paul at 19 percent, Romney at 18 percent and Gingrich at 17 percent among the likely attendees with the caucuses that start the nominating contests seven weeks away.

    1. Oh, and in case it’s not clear, that’s in Iowa, not nationally.

    2. So, according to the media it’s a virtual 3-way tie between Romney, Cain and Newcular Titties?

    3. So, Cain is in first, Romney third and Gingrich fourth? Did anyone poll second?

      1. You have to get the phrasing right:

        “Romney has a slim lead, followed closely in a virtual tie by Cain and Gingrich.”

    4. All jokes aside, this is huge for Paul. If he can maintain poll numbers like this, he’s a shoe-in to win Iowa. His supporters are far more dedicated and enthusiastic than any other candidate’s.

      1. … he’s a shoe-in to win Iowa.

        You’re fucking deluded.

        1. No. If he is polling in a statistical tie for first, he will win. It’s pretty straightforward.

          1. I agree, he has an excellent chance to take the caucus with those numbers.

            The question is whether his inability to rise that much in the polls as others stumble is a result of lack of coverage, or whether he is enough well-known to primary voters but his ceiling is simply low.

            1. He definitely has a ceiling, but with the vote split in so many directions, I think his ceiling is high enough to do well in Iowa. And winning Iowa would really get the ball rolling for him like nothing else. I can totally see him getting first in Iowa and second in NH. The biggest question is what happens in South Carolina and Florida, which are nowhere near as open to him right now, with their SoCon and elderly nonsense constituencies, respectively.

              1. I wouldn’t be so sure about FL. North FL is TP country, and the only place I’ve seen a Ron Paul interstate billboard ad.

                “Tired of the squeeze? Vote for Ron Paul”

                The graphic is of a vise with one size labeled Dem, the other Rep and RP in the middle.

                Almost made me tear up a little.

              2. I took a shit in Florida once.

                1. Big deal; “occupiers” are taking shits openly on city streets every day.

      2. His supporters are far more dedicated and enthusiastic than any other candidate’s.

        So are his detractors.

        If we get to mid-December and Paul is ahead or tied for first, the newsletters and the drug legalization stuff is going to hit the MSM for the first time.

    5. Wow. If Paul pulls out a win in Iowa somehow, there will be a media uproar. I will gladly eat my words when I said Paul had no chance.

      However, hate to be a Debbie Downer, but I’m still betting over the next two months, Cain/Gingrich won’t be tied as those voters coalesce around one or the other. Anti-Romney conservatives know better than to let Paul or Romney get anywhere close to the nomination.

      1. If Paul wins Iowa, the headlines will be “Romney has Strong Showing in Iowa”. Or “Cain Looks Forard to New Hampshire”. Or “Gingrich Garners Suprising 3rd Place in Iowa”.

        1. “You know, Jesse Jackson won Iowa.”

    6. NEWSLETTERS!!!!!

  2. It looks like Cain’s run as flavor of the month is over, and it’s now fully Gingrich’s turn. At this rate, he should crap out, and Paul should finally get his chance just in time for the Iowa caucuses. Everything is going as I have foreseen. *evil chuckle*

    1. Well, thank God that someone is in control of this stupidity. I was becoming concern that this was really just the canidates and the voting public themselves.

      1. The GOP voting public seems to be quite rational and easy to explain. A large percentage aren’t sold on Romney, but are not really satisfied with any of the alternatives in the race.

        Ron Paul appears to be mostly unable to break out of his solid base, though.

        1. But the solid base does appear to be growing…so long as it styas solid, this is a good thing.

      2. Wait, the idea that someone is orchestrating this stupidity makes you feel better? Incompetent conspiratorial overlords gives you a warm fuzzy?

        Of course, my experience with the TX GOP convinced those people couldn’t conspire their way out of a wet paper sack. If they had to organize a conspiracy to escape from said sack, they’d suffocate in there.

        1. This. Either local party in my area could fuck up boiling water, given a kettle-full of water and a stove burner set to its highest setting.

        2. Sarcasm is our friend.

    2. Looks like the Dems fear him the most, that is why Reason is attacking him.

      1. That must be it. It has nothing to do with him being a weak candidate with poorly thought out sound-bite ideas and a tendency to resort to the same technocratic committee tardism that helped so much to get us in our current mess.

    3. Nope. Santorum hasn’t shown yet.

      1. Let’s hope we never seen Santorum.

  3. The House of Representatives will consider a bill on Tuesday allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry handguns across state lines.

    A slippery slope to people gay marrying their handguns.

    1. Aren’t guns hermaphodites?

      1. Yours might be, you homo. Mine’s a woman since our first bang.

    2. My SIG and I are happy together and we demand equal rights for our loving, gay relationship.

      1. P238 with “rainbow titanium” finish?

        1. Hah! That little twink of a gun wouldn’t fit my hand. I need a manly, bear-like gun.

          1. So, S&W .500 for you?

          2. .69 caliber Pennsylvania rifle?

          3. Carl Gustav recoilless rifle?

        2. Haha, my four-year old liked that one the best when I took her to the gun shop.

          I admit it is awfully pretty.

      2. My Stainless Officer Special is high maintenance and picky about what she eats but I love her anyways. Of course my .40 Glock is realible and takes anything I give her. So I guess I marry the OS and keep the Glock on the side.

    3. Colbert did it first.

      1. Fine. Alternate joke:

        But gun control advocates such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Mayors Against Illegal Guns say the legislation will erode the laws of states with stricter gun controls.

        The Brady Campaign said the bill should be called the “packing heat on your street bill,” and Mayors Against Illegal Guns called it “a race to the bottom.”

        Everyone, look out! The 2nd Amendment has a gun in the Commerce Clause’s ribs!

        Also, “packing heat on your street bill”? Lame.

        1. We totally respect the law, and do not carry concealed fire arms on the streets due to not having the proper permits. For realz, yo.

          1. since many illegal guns are stolen fm owners who FAILED to properly secure them.

              1. legal owners are also at fault for illegal weapons in criminals hands.

                1. So if somebody steals my shit, I’m at fault for not securing it according to some arbitrary idea of properly?

                  Jesus, the stupid is strong with this one.

                  1. T – so it’s ok to leave a loaded weapon unsecured on your front porch?
                    >talk about stupid

                    1. You blame rape victims for dressing ‘slutty’, don’t you?

                    2. slutty dress dont kill…even if one wants to pluck one’s eyes out.

            1. If they are in my house how I decide to store them is “properly secured”.

              1. secured w trigger guard locks is proper…even by NRA standards

                1. Fuck you and fuck trigger locks. I’m an American, my guns are stored however I fucking please.

                  1. lets hope ur kids dont discover that

                    1. When I have kids, they won’t have my fingerprints so my biometric gun safe won’t open for them.

                      Then as soon as they are old enough, they’re going to learn how to shoot.

                    2. Alternately, Britt, you can take them to the range so often, and make them do all of the handloading and cleaning tasks associated, that they will do anything rather than touch your firearms.

                      Not that I know anything about that.

                    3. Eat shit and die in a fire, you delusional dipstick. You know why there exist kids that get injured/die accidentally playing with guns? No? Because their parents either didn’t teach them to respect the weapon (lack of instruction), or outright tried to exclude guns from their kid’s childhood for fear of TEA-BAGGER CONTAMINATION. It’s called ignorance, and it’s because of people like you that place your trust in inanimate fucking objects like useless, piece-of-shit gun locks that cause the problems.

                      My neighbor’s 10-year-old can take down an AR15 and is already a range guy, and shoots better than half the fucking cops in the country. It might have something to do with the fact that his dad actually took a few days of time out of his life to explain to his kid what a gun is, and how you’ve got to handle them with care.

                      For people like us, a gun is a fun and useful, often essential, companion in entertainment, protection, and constitution. And that’s why our kids don’t shoot ourselves in the fucking face — because they know how to unload a weapon and disable it mechanically. People that leave their guns on the coffee table without ever having so much as talked about the thing with their shouldn’t be surprised if it ends in catastrophe.

                2. Trigger locks are useless. If you don’t believe me, grab a pistol, slap the trigger lock on it. Load a snap cap into the chamber (trigger lock won’t prevent that) and pull on the trigger lock as hard as you can. If it was a live round you would hear a “bang” at this point in time.

                  This won’t work if you have a gun that can accept the post of the trigger lock behind the trigger, but many pistols can’t do that.

        2. Mayors Against Illegal Guns? They ought to be happy, since the bill will make the guns legal.

        3. I thought the whole gay marriage thing was a race to the bottom……..

        4. I literally laughed when I read “packing heat on your street bill”. It’s like these morons can’t be bothered to pick up a newspaper in any of the states that have open carry, let alone concealed carry, to figure out that they indeed did not revert back to 1881 Tombstone

          1. How much do you want to bet Tombstone was much safer then than these mayors’ domains are today?

            1. Well up till the time that Earp decided he could make everyone give up their guns inside city limits.

              1. “No one’s saying you can’t own a gun. Hell, no one’s even saying you can’t carry a gun. You just can’t carry a gun in town! That’s not so bad, is it?”

    4. Over my dead campaign!

    5. I’m all for RTKBA but if this bill passes, states like NY and MD are going to go from may-issue to no-issue.

      Plus, states like OH that are shall-issue but have safety training requirements are going to have to respect permits from PA which require no safety training. That’s BS.

      Frankly I don’t like the idea that there are people walking around the streets of Pittsburgh with loaded 357 Magnum revolvers in their pants who have never seen the rules of firearm safety and have never shot a firearm.

      1. You DO know how shitty government-mandated safety classes are, right? I’ve attended three, in two different states, and it’s either really shitty, or the same crap I could have learned from the last episode of ‘The Walking Dead’ — in 2 minutes of dialog time. Let’s not dive into this retarded shit again, Tulpa — you’re better than that. Don’t let Paul Helmke fuck with your head.

        1. you’re better than that
          Citation needed.

      2. How is this different from drivers licenses? Standards vary from stste to state, but all states honor them.

  4. Is “Forever Lazy” the Future of Adult Americans?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S2p7AiNX9g

    Who among our esteemed commentators is the most likely to wear such a thing?

    1. What? And give up our snuggies?

      1. Embrace the evolution.

    2. If they come in black, I will own one.

      Why wear sweats and a hoodie when the takes care of both?

      1. ’cause women gotta pee?

        1. Someone didn’t WTFV, they come w/ a shit flap out back.

        2. Someone didn’t WTFV, they come w/ a shit flap out back.

    3. That is horrifying. What makes it worse is imagining the person that it isn’t baggy on. *shudders*

      1. I thought of that too and I’m surprised that they seem to only go up to XXL.

        I’m guessing a Forever Lazy Big or something is on the horizon.

        1. I thought that was a SNL skit. I kept waiting for the lame punchline.

      2. Has anyone seen a person wearing this on an airplane yet? Because it will happen, repeatedly. I can see the airport full of these things already . . .

    4. my wife busted a gut when she first saw that commercial – seeing a bunch of adults in rompers… I’m trying to get one of the local punk rock singers to wear one on stage, but he’s not biting. C’mon, it’s alt-art! Making a statement about capitalism!

    5. My former boss’ dream of having all her clothes made out of fleece inches towards fruition.

      1. I hate the feel of ‘fleece’ – it feels like a million aspirin cotton balls. *shudder*

        1. I don’t mind it as an outer layer, but I don’t like it up against my skin either.

          1. The thought of you naked under one of those?

            Great! Just the way I wanted to start the day.

            1. Hit & Run: nightmare fuel.

              1. SugarFree: Nightmare fuel octane boost.

            2. I’m naked under the clothes I’m wearing right now.

              1. It’s not my job on here, but: baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrffffffffffffffffff.

                1. Hey you took barfman’s jerb!

    6. Superior to a snuggie because it comes with a trap door in the back, so you don’t even have to take it off to take a shit.

      I really like the name, refreshing how they just cut right to the chase.

      1. prime feature, right there! Easy access. Does it come pre-Frito grease stained?

      2. I’ll take a dozen in small boys size.

        1. Good for horsing around, right Jerry?

    7. The answer to your question is sloppy.

      The booties were the clincher. I can’t wait to look super-cool at the 49ers-Steelers game in a few weeks!

      1. Sloppy=sloopy. I’m already too lazy to correct my posts. I leave it to Apple.

      2. Having second thoughts now. Those trap doors may send the wrong signal in San Fran.

          1. ::hits redial to cancel order::

    8. Nice onesie, douche.

      It’s not a onesie, it’s a speed suit!

      1. The Lawn Wranglers. Best job I ever had…

        1. Wow! A “Bottle Rocket” reference. Nicely played, sir.

    9. ROFL! I saw those at Walmart yesterday.

    10. My pajamas have feet on them, goddammit. Feetless footie pajamas is downright unAmerican.

      1. Feetless footie pajamas…

        Does not compute. Error. Error.

        1. That’s basically what that Lazy Whatevah is – footie jammies with no feet. It’s like they’ve built a worse mouse trap.

          Plus, my footie jammies have sock monkeys on ’em.

          I iz teh seksay.

  5. David Brooks: Let’s All Feel Superior
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11…..ef=opinion

    First came the atrocity, then came the vanity. The atrocity is what Jerry Sandusky has been accused of doing at Penn State. The vanity is the outraged reaction of a zillion commentators over the past week, whose indignation is based on the assumption that if they had been in Joe Paterno’s shoes, or assistant coach Mike McQueary’s shoes, they would have behaved better. They would have taken action and stopped any sexual assaults.

    Unfortunately, none of us can safely make that assumption. Over the course of history ? during the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide or the street beatings that happen in American neighborhoods ? the same pattern has emerged. Many people do not intervene. Very often they see but they don’t see.

    1. They’ve shown that in situations where there are lots of people witnessing something, everyone tends to hang back, waiting for someone else to do something about whatever it is. However, when alone, people tend to behave better. So his comparison doesn’t work.

      1. Also, murderous crazed goverment with all the guns vs. 28 year old catching a man in the shower with a boy. Yea, don’t think the graduate assistant has much of an excuse.

      2. Brooks has been on a tear recently espousing sociological studies that show that it is impossible for individuals to accomplish anything outside of a group dynamic, and people behave badly when they don’t put the organization (the state especially first) first.

    2. Unfortunately, none of us can safely make that assumption.

      Not even those that aspire to national greatness, dear leader David?

    3. For that matter, what was up with Gillespie’s lame alt-text on the Paterno article last night?

      1. He wrote it late and was tired?

        But, I do agree, you have a picture like that and you don’t use the alt-text for all its worth.

        1. He must not have been wearing the Jacket when he wrote it.

      2. It was a bit retarded, wasn’t it?

        1. Not this again…

      3. It was a bit retarded, wasn’t it?

        1. Not this again again

    4. I heard Spencer Tillman say something about people either having firm morals and knowing what they’ll do in situations like that and people who have to figure it out on the fly. Most people do the latter, which is why they freeze into inaction. Not a bad observation for a sports reporter.

      1. And people with firm morals also seem to be perceived as difficult, judgmental, opinionated, and unwilling or unable to play well with others. IOW, they don’t care to play the game when it comes to understanding multiculturalism and moral relativism.

        Hey, what if Sandusky was raised by a tribe of natives who believed that anally inseminating boys was a necessary right of passage in order to make those boys become men? http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520080966

        How could anything ever be wrong, when our constant noble quest for knowledge and understand of other cultures continually teaches us how wrong and backwards we are in our way of living and thinking?

        1. so has any “moral relativist” or “multiculturalist” risen to sandusky’s defense?…or is this just moar radio entertainment?

          1. I did see something somewhere that, while not excusing it, made some reference to such things being acceptable back in Ancient Greece. So was slavery and plenty of other things we don’t like today.

            1. Please don’t think my tone has anything to do in the way of excuse for Sandusky. I’m trying to point out that people are not often believed or taken seriously when they bring accusations of horrible crimes, partly because of this need to accept and tolerate all manners of behavior from people due to differences (not that anyone is really making that case here – I’m using hyperbole for effect).

              The thrust of the argument is that moral people often don’t act on their morals because they don’t want to be perceived as persnickety, uppity, holier-than-thou, aggressive, agitative, or mistaken. Because all of those things will turn on you if you are wrong; and what if McQueary was judged as wrong? He’d be the one who tarnished a good man’s rep rather than the one who brought a bad man down.

              I am not certain that I would have done anything different, if in his place. I’d like to think in my own rose-colored hero fantasies that I would have, but I’m not sure what the reality of my surroundings would dictate.

        2. Madbiker, he need not even have been raised by the tribe, merely gone native. See Dr. Daniel Gajdusek (important prion researcher; convicted of pederasty with multiple New Guinea boys he’d brought back to the States.)

    5. Funny that the McQueary camp in putting on a full court press to rewrite the narrative of that night. After allowing the media to report for over a week that he did nothing, he’s now saying he stopped the encounter.

      Who’s the favorite in the book deal sweepstakes? My money is he signs with Pendant within a month of getting fired (which is coming by Thanksgiving).

    6. Yeah, no one has done a damn thing about the Holocaust. Is that still going on?

    7. Bah. If the guy had taken action, these collectivist fucks would be whining about “vigilantism” and such.

  6. I have it on good authority that the Americans hate history is an untruth;  could it be they just can’t watch a jacketless video?

    1. Tits or GTFO

      1. Is that the new H&R policy?

          1. IIRC, up to now, It was a moob policy

            1. Ummm….no, that doesn’t work for me.

  7. Reading over the first three stories, i actually think sandusky has the least baggage of any GOP candidate.

    1. They should make him a write-in candidate for the PA primary.

      1. I don’t think he’d get the crayon vote

  8. Americans like big business
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/….._blog.html

    The “Occupy Wall Street” movement has generated a lot of talk about whether it’s touched a national nerve of anti-corporate sentiment. Here’s a data point to the contrary: Americans tend to like big business. They certainly like business better than they like government. And?”Occupy Wall Street” demographics notwithstanding?younger people have a more favorable view of *big business than do older Americans.

    *note, excludes banks, insurance companies and pharmco.

    1. Yep. Those three sectors are more in bed with the government than anyone except military contractors.

    2. No one is ever going to like insurance companies. When they’re not refusing your perfectly valid claims, they’re raising your premiums because they had to pay out on somebody else’s bogus claims or defensive medicine.

      1. My only experience making a claim with State Farm was very positive. After Ike, they gave me credits for removing the tree that fell on my house and repairing my fence, which covered the deductible. The balance they gave me was enough to pay completely for replacing my damaged roof.

        1. Two deer strikes and two vehicles damaged by hail over the years. State Farm has been extremely easy to work with.

          1. Friggin’ deer union.

            1. They’re just trying to make some more doe.

              Okay, that was bad.

              1. Yeah, it’s all about the bucks with deer.

              2. That’s the bucks job, making more doe.

                1. Enough. The buck stops here.

              3. They’re just trying to make some more doe.

                No BP, that was actually hilarious! You keep punning, you brilliant bastard.

        2. They’ve been decent for car insurance for me.

          1. I’ve been with State Farm ever since I got my driver’s license, and they’ve never given me problems. of course, I’ve only been in a few minor accidents, all in my first car.

            1. But did you get a falcon?

            2. no accidents, no moving violations ever and they dropped me b/c i paid late. i only cashed the refund check b/c they told me i double paid the bill (state insurance commissioner’s office said they are allowed to tell me that)… so FUCK State Farm and DOUBLE FUCK the Virginia state insurance office.

              i’ve been with All State ever since- still no accidents and no moving violations. took my whole extended family with me too. probably 200 years of cumulative customer history wiped out in one fell swoop. FUCK YOURSELF, State Farm.

              1. Hey, if they screwed you, i don’t blame you for moving to another company. Until they do something similar to me, I’m sticking with them.

                At least you went to Allstate and not Progressive.

      2. insurance companies! Don’t get me started.

    3. If the “Occupy” folks want to see how much support they have from regular middle-class Americans, they should call for a boycott on all big retailers for a day…let’s say next Friday, and see how many people follow their lead.

      1. If they did that, I’d go shopping on Black Friday–something I normally don’t do.

      2. I think “Anonymous” had already called for a Black Friday consumer strike. I expect it will be about as successful as the one on 5 November was, that is to say, a complete and utter failure.

        1. Ahh, it was actually a general strike call that OccupyOakland called for, apparently.

          http://www.market-ticker.org/a…..st=2763306

      3. CUNA reports that new account volumne increased 2 to 3 times normal on the bank boycott day (11/5/11). >that’s waay moar than OWS’ers

        1. I wonder what would happen if you tell these people that credit unions are nothing but savings banks that dont pay taxes.

          1. That would cause their heads to assplode.

  9. “Make any cuts to programs like Medicare and Social Security part of a trigger that would only be pulled if and when Congress passes hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenue.”

    A statesmanlike solution. Yay!

    Take that, you obstructopublitards!

    1. Automatic triggers can never be reversed by future Congresses. Gullible Dems.

    2. I’m sorry, but we and our children have already been screwed. Now it’s the government’s turn. Spending cuts. Massive spending cuts. No new revenue!

    3. If the Republicans are bad obstructionists because they won’t consider any tax increases, aren’t them Dems just as bad in their insistence that in any plan there must be tax increases?

      Also, what is the deal with calling tax increases “revenue”?

        1. Is there a safe word to get them to stop?

          1. Antidisestablishmentarianism

      1. They spend far more than they can ever hope to raise in taxes, so the problem won’t be solved by more taxes. Only massive spending cuts can save us now.

        Do we want to remain an economic superpower or not? It’s a yes or no question, and “yes” means drastic spending cuts, deregulation, and a serious exit by government from market intervention.

    4. Didn’t the republicans put up a plan last week that included like 300B in “revenue”? And didn’t the dems slap it down?

  10. Obama not the man America voted for
    Historian says the 2008 Barack Obama went on to squander voters’ goodwill
    http://www.nydailynews.com/opi…..e-1.976962

    Presidents have a great ability to recover politically. And luck may turn Obama’s way. The economy may begin a more robust recovery. The Republicans may nominate another weak candidate. The Supreme Court may uphold Obamacare (or avoid making a decision before the election).

    But, as in personal life, the faster one falls in love politically, the faster one is likely to fall out of love. And once gone, sudden love is rarely rekindled. Candidate Obama was like a handsome, attentive suitor. President Obama is like a husband who insists on having his way.

    That is Barack Obama’s biggest problem as he seeks re-election.

    1. President Obama is like a husband who insists on having his way.

      So he is saying that Obama is committing marital rape on the public that elected him? Sounds about right.

    2. I would say his biggest problem is that he is a moron who has fucked up nearly everything he has touched. People will forgive a lot of things if they think a President is competant.

      1. That’s pretty accurate…

  11. Is their a whiff of videos yet? I don’t want to read the GJT but if he was pimping them, it is probable

  12. and some daily eye-candy, er… *enter at your own risk*

    Famous beach bods we never wanted to see
    http://www.nydailynews.com/lif…..ry-1.78106

    1. thanks! er, I guess. On a related note, Courtney Love is in those pics. I actually met Love while I was in college. I went to see a show of Hole’s before she & Kobain were an item. Friend I was with at the show really wanted to go backstage, so we did. That’s about the whole story.

      1. I am freakin’ green with envy.

        1. I wish I could tell something better about the story. It was a tiny room behind the stage, it had a crummy sofa in it, where Love was sitting. Someone had dropped a beer bottle, band members were a little pissy about it, and someone was cleaning it up. My friend was very star-struck, I think she had a crush or something.

          1. My friend was very star-struck, I think she had a crush or something.

            That’s pretty amazing considering that before she started banging Cobain, Love was primarily known for getting kicked out of Babes in Toyland.

            1. well, but it was a mostly-girl band; my friend was a feminist; you get the gist of it.
              I think they opened up for God Bullies, who played a lot at that venue at the time. Hole was not the headliner, in other words.

    2. Heidi Montag is still hot. That is all.

  13. European Debt Crisis: You Haven’t Seen Anything Yet
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/45288956

    Indeed, expectations for a prolonged crisis are heightened not merely by Europe’s inability to cope with its own problems, but also the likelihood of ineffective policy response from Washington.

    “The world’s largest central banks and governments are headed by people who believe their central planning can lead to better outcomes than the free actions of people in markets,” said TrimTabs’ Biderman, who recommends clients hold hard assets to brace against the wild market. “In our opinion, their interventions will be very harmful.”

  14. Herman Cain’s 404 page is like his campaign: amusing, but you wonder how it got this far and what the damage will be at the end.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5c1T…..ain404.jpg

  15. Zuccotti Park cleaned up.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/l…..lqsxsWjO/0

    1. and there was much rejoicing…

      1. Huzzah!

    2. Perfect. Rather than slinking away when it got too cold to aimlessly protest something or other, Bloomburg rousts them just in time to get them home for Thanksgiving and give them an “oppressed by the man” narrative.

      1. The whole thing has fizzled. Give it a month and liberals will never admit to it ever happening.

        1. No, they’ll admit it happened. They’ll just whitewash the rapes, thefts, “central committee,” and disappearing money parts. And the “message” will be massaged into something coherent and the fact that they didn’t know what they were actually arguing for at the time will go down the memory hole.

          They will be re-imagined into Soviet hero iconography: Bandannas and tractors and sheaves of wheat and the rays of a benevolent communist sun streaking across an uncomplicated narrative sky.

          1. And all of the money will go to various hard left organizations. I think the whole thing was nothing but a giant scam to raise money for organizations that are too loathsome to raise it openly.

            1. That’s a very cynical comment, John. Where’s your trust? Your faith in young people and ideals?

              I, for one, believe it will be embezzled instead.

              1. When these dicks are 60 they’ll reminisce about the time they went to the barricades together.

            2. I think the whole thing was nothing but a giant scam to raise money for organizations that are too loathsome to raise it openly.

              One word, John:

              ACORN.

          2. Let’s all agree that Sug’s last sentence is the best thing we’ll read all day and just go back to bed.

          3. “They’ll just whitewash the rapes, thefts, “central committee,” and disappearing money parts.”

            Or, they’ll just do what most logical people do right now: they will not commit massive fallacies of overgeneralization and paint a movement of thousands with the acts of a few dozen.

            1. Just because there were sexual assaults in nearly every city and just because there is about to be 750K missing from New York alone doesn’t mean we can generalize. Generalizing is for analyzing the Tea Party as racist.

              1. Except if you recall there were some people, like me, who defended the Tea Party against stupid generalizations and do so for OSW as well.

                I’ve long said OSW pushes a lot of gibberish and that disruptive protests are silly and immoral. Given that it is clear from the memes and who they are coming from on this board that most of the OWS hate out there is simply Hannity talking points.

                Yawn.

                1. So you agree that the Tea Party movement is not racist?

                  1. old n fat aint necessarily racist just like young & broke aint necessarily commies

                  2. Yes, very, very few of the Tea Party are racists. That meme that they were largely motivated by that was both stupid and immoral.

                2. I think you are right. It is unfair to tar the whole gathering with the more outrageous actions of a few, and with the crime that will always be there in such a large and chaotic gathering.
                  But the best I am going to say about the whole thing is that it has been extremely silly in most cases and dangerous, counterproductive and misguided in a few cases (such as the blocking of access to the Oakland port). I don’t see anything good coming out of it, which is sort of sad since some of them seem to be really close to actually getting what the real problems are (IMHO).

                  1. Zeb,

                    It’s not about smearing the whole movement; I was addressing how the narrative will be shaped after it’s over. The rapes happened. The thefts happened. The silly quasi-soviet bureaucracy happened. The violence happened. But it a few years time they will be quietly dropped from the narrative, and then dismissed out right as a “right-wing meme” by all the usual suspects.

                    You can already see this happening. If you notice, the OhioOrrin sockpuppet already dismisses every thing negative that happens as being the fault of “the homeless,” a manufactured Faceless Other that always gets the blame when people want no one to be to blame.

                    The same forces that made the TEA Party protests all guns, racism, Medicare-grousing and nutsack-gargling will polish the OWS turd until it gleams.

                3. But the Tea Party was all racist, yes.

                  1. It’s not polite to spoof.

                    1. Pussies gotta do what pussies gotta do, that explains spoofers.

        2. In terms of controlling the narrative, it’s a complete failure at this point. The main problem is that most of these kids are essentially aimless hobos now with nothing else to do with their time except attend their silly committee meetings, so they really have no incentive to actually go anywhere now.

          I believe AdBusters was trying to get them to essentially declare “victory” and come back in the spring, but too many of these kids are considering this a “life experience” now, so they’re going to hang around so more people get raped or killed, more people catch infectious illnesses, more resources are taken from the homeless, and their gathering places turn into broiling disease vectors.

          1. I think it is wonderful how many people here suddenly realize the sanctity of public spaces all of a sudden. It just took a liberal protest movement to occupy them to convince them.

            It’s like that Strangers With Candy episode: “I do like black people. It just took a white one to prove it to me.”

            1. Zucotti is privately owned. Also, these protesters in NYC are prohibiting the use of vendors in the surrounding area, screwing the owners from using their property as well.

              As far as the ones on public property, I fully support the protesters use as long as they are not preventing others from using it for it’s intended purpose as well.

              Of course, smashing windows of a Wells Fargo falls outside the scope of using a public space, doesn’t it?

              1. Exactly. It’s not a public park they were occupying. There were there are the pleasure of the private owners, who were remarkably tolerant.

                1. There is a big difference between protesting and taking up residence.

                2. I think that the owners of the park were required to treat it as a public park as part of some zoning agreement and they don’t really have any legal standing to require the campers to leave. This is all the police and city government, I think.

                  1. At least they don’t like tractor pulls.

                  2. “I think that the owners of the park were required to treat it as a public park as part of some zoning agreement and they don’t really have any legal standing to require the campers to leave”

                    Looks like at least someone here gets their news from sources other than Drudge…

              2. New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said on September 28, 2011, that the NYPD could not bar protesters from Zuccotti Park since it is a public plaza that is required to stay open 24 hours a day. “In building this plaza, there was an agreement it be open 24 hours a day,”

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuccotti_Park

                It appears Zuccotti Park is essentially one of those “private-public” beasts.

                1. “In building this plaza, there was an agreement it be open 24 hours a day,”

                  I did not know this. Thank you for sharing it.

                  Naturally I wouldn’t concede that NYC possesses the legitimate power to impose such an agreement upon a property owner.

                  But if it exists, that explains the injunction.

          2. I think it is wonderful how many people here suddenly realize the sanctity of public spaces all of a sudden. It just took a liberal protest movement to occupy them to convince them.

            Where in my post did I expound on some Jane Jacobs-style nostalgia trip for “public spaces”? Pointing out that a bunch of disease-infested, self-entitled Phaggot Striver Poors weren’t really able to change anyone’s mind about their cause and actually did more harm than good in many cases has nothing to do with what you’re bloo-bloo-blooing about.

        3. Perhaps there will be a movie!

          *voiceover* Imagine a world…

          A generation came together to protest the excess greed of Wall Street. They banded together, living in peace and harmony, while fighting the evil machinations of the system. It was a moment of triumph, a moment of loss, but they prevailed, forever changing the political landscape of America.

          1. Oliver Stone is trying to work out how to be frozen so they can revive him to make the movie when the nostalgia wave hits.

            1. +1.

          2. OWS: The Movie Cast
            Mayor Bloomberg: James Woods
            NYPD Chief Esposito: James Gandolfini
            Cornel West: Chris Rock
            Filthy Hippie #1: Jake Gyllenhaal
            Filthy Hippie #2: Scott Caan
            Girl Hippie: Scarlett Johansson
            Campsite Rapist: Nicolas Cage
            Women’s Safe Area Coordinator: Demi Moore
            President Obama: Jaleel White

            Any other characters or substitutes would be appreciated!

  16. U.S. Navy Ship Set for Alt Fuel Demo
    By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS 10Nov11

    Having powered jet fighters, helicopters and small craft with alternative fuels, the U.S. Navy will conduct its largest-yet demonstration next week when a former destroyer takes to sea with a mixture of algal oil and diesel fuel.

    The former destroyer Paul F. Foster will be the largest ship yet to operate with so-called alternative fuels. (U.S. Navy) The Paul F. Foster, a Spruance-class destroyer now used for experimental purposes, will sail from Point Loma in San Diego to her base at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Port Hueneme, CA…

    …powered by a 50-50 blend of hydro-processed algal oil and F-76 petroleum, the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) said Nov. 10.

    The short, overnight transit is part of a commitment by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus to demonstrate…

    …a Green Strike Group in 2012 and deploy a strike group composed completely of alternatively powered ships, “the Great Green Fleet,” by 2016, NAVSEA said in a press release.

    In October, the Navy demonstrated the algal oil-F-76 fuel aboard a landing craft utility at Little Creek, Va., where a riverine combat craft also operated with the fuel mix. Yard Patrol training vessels at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., have also used the alt fuel.

    Several different aircraft types have flown with alternative fuels, including F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-15 Eagle jet fighters, a T-45C Goshawk training jet, an EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft, an MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor, an MH-60S Seahawk helicopter and an MQ-8B Fire Scout unmanned helicopter.

    Another alt fuel test of a Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) vehicle is to take place in December at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Panama City, Fla.
    http://www.defensenews.com/sto…..=SEA&s=TOP

    1. Why on earth is the Navy putzing around with non-petroleum fuels when they already have a perfectly acceptable fuel that they are already using?

      1. DoD’s goal is 50% renewable/green fuels by 2020 since DoD is the single largest consumer of POL in the US.

      2. I can see a non-petroleum-dependent military being vital to national defense sometime in the future.

        They should cover air-craft carriers with wind-farms. Just give it a push out the harbor, and it would power itself!

        1. Maybe someone should invent big sheets of cloth that catch the wind and drag the big boats around the globe?

          1. Except, in order to provide on-demand propulsion they’d have to install gigantic fans on the deck. I guess the fans could be powered by solar panels, installed on a 2nd vessel towed by the 1st.

            I say skip sails and step right back to rowing teams.

            1. I say skip sails and step right back to rowing teams.

              There is a good supply of liberal arts student loan defaulters who could woman the oars.

        2. There is already a US patent for something similar. Instead of wind turbines it has a water turbine driving a generator which then drives an electric motor which turns the propeller.

          1. you can actually get a patent for a perpetual motion machine?

            1. It has already been issued. I think it was from around the 1920’s but I lost the link to it and I have forgotten the details. If I ever find it again I will post it as an example of the fine work the US patent office does.

          2. Tom Clancy did it.

      3. Why on earth is the Navy putzing around with non-petroleum fuels when they already have a perfectly acceptable fuel that they are already using?

        My guess is that it just might have something to do with the Navy’s Commander in Chief.

        1. on-going R&D for a long time

    2. The Paul F. Foster, a Spruance-class destroyer now used for experimental purposes, will sail from Point Loma in San Diego to her base at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Port Hueneme, CA…
      San Diego to Oxnard? Big fucking deal.

      and I thought we already had an alternate fuel called nuclear power. It’s cheap, quiet as fuck and safe since we have about the only first-class Navy in the world anymore.

    3. Seems like options for fuel is a good thing for the military to have experience with. It’s not as if they can’t still use petroleum as necessary.

  17. Does this actually save money? Is it more efficient? Does it have a military advantage? Or is it just another wasteful gift to the “green” energy lobby by a corrupt government-for-sale? Genuinely asking.

    1. Meant for double anus.

      1. With the name change, we need to start calling him triple-anus.

        Just pretend he’s got a stoma or something.

    2. Not yet. Navy paid $35/gal for algal ship fuel last year. Some of this is scaling (they paid a premium to get a bunch of it fast), but the current best estimate I heard at a conference in late September was $7/gal after scale up.

      1. Awesome – so they’ve found yet another way to waste our money.

      2. $7/gal isn’t too bad. If the US ever has to pay the same for oil as other countries, it’ll start looking pretty good.

        1. The US does pay the same for oil as other countries. The reason why US gasoline and diesel prices are lower is because the US has lower taxes on it compared to many other countries.

          1. Yes, and it’s a safe bet that no taxes are paid on any of the fuel oil that any of the world’s navies consume.

        2. Isn’t the price for Bunker B or C—what a Spruance normally burns to keep the boilers lit—around $4/gallon?

          Hard to see algal fuel being competitive with that now, even after scale-up.

          1. Yeah, that was the conclusion. Bunker fuel price has to double or algae fuel has to halve from current production methods to be competitive. Now if you could make rocket fuel at $7/gal, you’d be instantly competitve.

    3. My take:
      The whole “National Greatness” movement (beloved by both parties) is predicated on projecting military power anywhere on the planet. Right now, we can’t do that without oil. Consider how much US foreign policy over the past 70 years has been aimed at ensuring oil flow from the Gulf states.

      If we had an alt-powered military, US foreign policy calculus would get drastically easier.

      1. My point was that we do have alternative powered Navy. If they’re trying to save on fuel costs and reduce their logistic’s tail, then they should probably use the engines that are already powering their aircraft carriers and subs.

        I’m all for there being a greater variety of go-juices, but I’d think that the logical option would be to install the robust, long-lasting, and already known option instead of trying to build a “Green Fleet” for PR.

  18. “Forty nine states currently allow some form of concealed carry”

    Which state doesn’t?

    1. Illinois.

      1. Thanks, I thought it was just Chicago.

    2. Used to be 2, Illinois and Wisconsin, but the GOP takeover of Wisconsin changed that this year.

    3. DC doesn’t have concealed either, I think.

      Also note that some of the “may-issue” states in practice don’t really issue them, like Hawaii and Maryland.

      1. Lots of people in DC go to VA for an out-of-state CCP.

        1. Just like how people in DC (and Montgomery County, MD) got to DC for cheap and plentiful booze. It’s the circle of life.

          1. The triangle is completed by Virginians selling slaves to MoCo.

      2. And California.

        1. It’s very county-dependent in California since carry permit issue is at the discretion of the local authorities. Not happening if you are in San Francisco or Los Angeles, but it’s pretty easy in some of the rural counties.

          1. Tulare County, where I live, and Kern County (Bako) have the highest CCW rates in the state.

            Large parts of the central valley are rather pro-gun.

            1. Many people in Long Beach are “pro gun” too.

    4. I object to NJ being one of those 49 states that ‘allow’ some form of concealed carry because if you’re not a LEO, former LEO, or a politician, you are not getting a permit.

      1. Exactly – NJ is technically a ‘may issue’ state, but if you’re not connected it is a de facto ‘no carry’ state.

        1. you could also in theory get one if you’re a battered wymyn with crazy ex because of the ‘immediate threat’ rule. But honestly I don’t know of anyone but the well-connected who have CC permits here.

          1. NJ is virulently anti-gun. they (at least tried, i don’t recall the outcome) to prosecute an off-duty NYC police officer who got in a self-defense shooting off-duty for carrying in their state

            they also have banned hollowpoints (not sure if still banned).

    5. When I was of a more liberal bent and concealed carry passed in Michigan, I was expecting ZOMG – Shooting in the streets! Old West shootouts! Won’t be safe in public!

      And that was part of my political change when none of those dire predictions came to pass.

      1. My in-laws retired to MI (I don’t know why, but I’m not gonna complain) and one of the biggest deciding factor was the CCW and Frankenmuth.

        1. Still better than a timeshare in Muncie.

          1. When I was a kid, I would go to punk shows @ the No Bar in Muncie. Campus parties and general screwing around. I took my wife there over Xmas last year. The place has actually gotten worse over the last 20 years. Muncie! Yeah!

      2. Here in maine we are a shall-issue state. We issue more permits than most states, and have lower crime rates than most states. Loaded open carry is legal as well.

        1. Same for KY.

          Open carry is state constitutionally guaranteed in the opening bill of rights.

          Concealed is shall-issue, and requires wasting one saturday to get.

        2. Your neighbor two states over to the west doesn’t have permits for any kind of carry. No waiting periods, no background checks, no licenses.

          Of course, there’s the pesky restriction of not being able to carry in schools or courthouses and such.

          1. …and admittedly I am jealous.

        3. WA is the same.

    6. That leaves eight states unaccounted for.

    7. Good luck with that in Hawaii.

  19. And nothing about Community Take Out the Trash Day at Zuccotti Park; Riggs, I am disappoint.

  20. “Sandusky’s attorney, Joseph Amendola, verified Sandusky’s voice and asserted his client’s innocence.
    “I believe in Jerry’s innocence. Quite honestly, Bob, that’s why I’m involved in the case,” Amendola said.”

    Well geez, if Sandusky’s lawyer quite honestly believes in his innocence why the hell are we wasting all this time with an investigation ‘n stuff?

    1. “Didn’t you think to ask these people if they were innocent?

    2. I’m a little more skeptical. I need an affidavit from Sandusky’s mom saying “I know my baby, and my baby would never do something like this!”

      1. I think we should ask his neighbors, just to be sure.

    3. This cretin Sandusky might be the worst liar I’ve ever heard in my entire life. Listening to him almost made me physically ill.

      This piece of crap deserves a bullet in the head.

      1. give him a fair trial first…then a bullet.

        1. and charge him for the bullet. works for the chinese!

  21. Bloomberg:

    “The protestors are marching through lower Manhattan.”

    Wandering aimlessly would probably be a more accurate description.

    The cops came in and tore down all the tents, even the Womyn’s Nurturing Environment and Empowerment tent. Mayor Bloomberg is obviously pro-rape.

  22. “The House of Representatives will consider a bill on Tuesday allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry handguns across state lines.”

    The better solution is eliminating the licensing of rights.

  23. Just butt chugged a gallon of coffee. Feelin’ good.

    1. It’s so rare to see a non sequitur win the thread.

  24. …Herman Cain visits the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorial board and talks nonsense on Libya for a solid five minutes.

    Bullshit. Once again, Cain is no friend of liberty, but thanks for continuing to prop up the idea that only George Clooney is “polished” enough to be president.

    Cain didn’t have a talking point ready, and ended up giving a typical political non-answer. BFD.

    1. dude shoulda known something about the recent libya campaign. jeesch

    2. At least he didn’t put his hand up anyone’s skirt.

      1. Seriously! God only knows how bad things could get with a philanderer in the White House!

        Who would be our Moral Compass and Chief Inspirer?! WHO??!?

        1. I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.

        2. i’ll take a BJ in the WH over invading the wrong country anyday

          1. Who are you arguing with? MNG seems to be the only one with the vapors over Cain as a sexual predator.

    3. The very problem was that Cain and Perry are puking up the talking points their campaign feeds them, instead of saying what they believe, if they believe anything at all. It’s what killed Palin too. The facade is now completely laid bare. Either they’re trying to remember lines they forgot from a script, or they are really that stupid/uninformed/confused.

      It’s one thing to catch your tongue to avoid saying something stupid, but complete inability to come up with a coherent answer on extremely important issues you will inherit or on the centerpieces of your own campaign is truly pathetic.

      Vague platitudes are a failsafe. Hell, Obama got elected on well-rehearsed platitudes alone, and Romney is considered the most competent candidate because of his acceptance of this principle. If you can’t come up with a proper or satisfying stance, at least pull a time-honored platitude out of your pocket.

      1. The very problem was that Cain and Perry are puking up the talking points…

        …at least pull a time-honored platitude out of your pocket.

        So platitudes are the problem, but you’d better be able to offer platitudes, or we’ll all point and laugh at you?

        Jesus, I think Cain’s an idiot too, but it’s because of the ideas he does articulate, not because he made for awkward teevee.

        1. “So platitudes are the problem, but you’d better be able to offer platitudes, or we’ll all point and laugh at you?”

          I was mentioning the vague platitudes part as a suggestion with tongue in cheek, although sadly it works politically. Still as a rational voter, I want to hear what they really believe, not what the campaign thinks is politically correct/told them to say or vague platitudes to obscure what they believe. If you can’t defend your policies and demonstrate a competent understanding of the issues, you have no place running for president and will never get my vote. Likewise, if you can and your policies suck, you won’t get my vote either. I’m picky like that.

  25. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar…..ly-amazing

    Kagen openly cheered the passage of Obamacare. But it is Thomas who is conflicted because his wife has a job or something.

    1. Cheered? The woman was actively involved in the strategy to defend Obamacare from the very beginning.

      See:
      http://www.judicialwatch.org/n…..-defense-s
      and:
      http://www.judicialwatch.org/n…..gislation-

  26. And a single tear would flow down Orwell’s cheek

    “Campaigners have called Oxford City Council’s decision to record all conversations in taxis ‘a staggering invasion of privacy’.

    By April 2015 it will be mandatory for all of the city’s 600 plus cabs to have cameras fitted to record passengers. The council said the cameras would run continuously, but only view footage relating to police matters would be reviewed.”

    1. you SF’d that link

    2. Sounds like an Orwell moment.

    3. Shit. I’m so uncouth.
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e…..e-15720998

      1. A panic button must also be fitted.

        What?

  27. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11……html?_r=3

    Yutes no longer enthusiastic about Obama. But still plan to vote for him. They just won’t work for him. They know Obama only beats them because he is under a lot of pressure and really loves them.

    1. To be fair, if there’s a second Obama administration, hardly anyone will be working.

      1. And I doubt the Obama campaign is too worried about losing a bunch of annoying douches handing out flyers and putting up Shepherd Fairy posters.

    2. Who else are they supposed to vote for, Michelle Bachman? Nothing says hip with the youngsters like the GOP…

      1. Yeah because voting on who is hip as opposed to who is running up trillions of dollars of debt in your name is the thing to do. And they could run a primary candidate against Obama or (gasp) not vote or vote third party.

        You are right, they are generation retard. And Obama knows it and that is why he doesn’t give a shit what they think and screws them at every opportunity.

        1. John, both parties have nice, healthy track records of running up debt, so it’s not exactly retarded (shame on you for using that word, what would Palin think of you!) for young people to not use that to decide their vote. Young people are not sold on the gay and immigrant hating, black helicopter watching event that the current GOP is becoming.

          1. The GOP hates immigrants but Obama has deported more immigrants that Bush did. The GOP is bad about debt but Obama has run up more debt in three years than Bush did in 8. The GOP hates gays but Obama is openly against gay marriage and didn’t repeal DADT until after the 2010 elections even though he had huge majorities in both houses of Congress.

            It is generation retard MNG. Voting Democrat is just a way for stupid people who are scared and confused about the world to feel smart and not apart of the other. This is what the party of FDR has become.

            1. John, would you like to argue that the current GOP field is friendlier on immigrant and gay issues than the Dems?

              Is this supposed to be your evidence, that Obama has deported more of them? And the GOP has opposed that I guess? What, no, they are calling for even more deporting and more stringent measures? And the same with gay issues. Well, lookee there!

              Jesus you are a hack.

              1. If you look at the GOP field of eleven candidates, even though the bottom three are being marginalized, you see that four of them are better on gay rights than Obama: Paul, Johnson, Huntsman, and Karger.

                1. How is Paul better on gay rights than Obama?

                  1. Paul is certainly no worse. He voted to repeal DADT, he thinks civil unions should be legal, and he believes in equal rights.

                    1. “he believes in equal rights”

                      Not at the state level from what I’ve read.

              2. The evidence is what it is. Obama in practice is no friendlier to immigrants or gays than the GOP is. And Obama has certainly been a lot worse about running up debt. You said above that if both parties are the same you can’t blame people for not voting on the issue. Okay, then how can you expect people to vote on immigrant and gay isssues given Obama’s abysmal record in office.

                I am sorry the ugly truth of the Obama administration makes you uncomfortable. But when it comes down to it, Obama needs union votes and money more than he needs to worry about deporting people.

                1. Obama supports the Dream Act, most GOPers don’t. Obama has been fighting the GOPer states with the “toughest immigration laws in the nation.”

                  Now, name one, one area where Obama is worse. Same with gays. Don’t contrast Obama with Perfection USA for gays and immigrants, but where he is actually worse.

                  1. Number of deportations and the policies of CBP and ICE. All you can give is his lip service to bills he knows won’t pass. I can give you actual policies in the exectutive that he controls. His draconian use of ICE and CBP shows that he doesn’t mean a word of his support for immigrants and is just giving people like you talking points.

                    1. “All you can give is his lip service to bills he knows won’t pass.”

                      Because of GOP opposition? Nice game you got there John.

                      “Number of deportations”

                      http://articles.cnn.com/2011-1…..M:POLITICS

                    2. So the GOP is just as bad. So what? You said they were worse. That is clearly not the case. You just forgive the Dems and not the GOP because the Dems are your brand and your way of feeling smart and making sense of the world you increasingly don’t understand.

                    3. Not just as bad, I said worse. Proof offered above and below dude.

                      What’s funny about all this is that this is not something your GOP brethern would debate or be interested in debating, they often call attention to the fact that they are more opposed to immigration and gay rights as a POINT OF PRIDE. Your absurd charging up this hill leaves you alone and embarassed in your partisan revisionism.

                    4. false. not one major repub candidate i am aware of is opposed to IMMIGRATION

                      they are opposed to ILLEGAL immigration, as is every major dem candidate i am aware of

                      the constant conflation of immigrant/immigration and illegal immigrant/illegal immigration is typical

                    5. So let’s be clear where we are now. You’ve tried to come up with one area, and that area, as demonstrated by my link is 1. debatable and 2. not something opposed by the GOP (remember, I aksed for where he was worse than the GOP).

                      Now, I can start to link to the roll call votes where the Dream Act was filibustered and note all the R’s voting nay, I could link the states bragging about their “toughest immigration laws” and note the party composition of the legislatures and how they voted, and I could note the administration taking them to court and all the GOPers who decried them for doing so, but why should we go there? Just admit that it’s reasonable for someone who cares about immigrant rights to see Obama as the lesser of two evils here.

                      Though I grant even you didn’t have the partisan balls to try to argue he was actually worse on gay rights.

                    6. You lie so much it is hard to know where to begin. Obama runs the exectutive branch. He has used that branch to deport people at an unprecidented rate. That is a real action that had real effects on people’s lives. And Obama took that action when he didnt’ have to.

                      Sure a lot of Democrats voted for the Dream Act. That is because they knew it would never pass and the vote was meaningless. They were just giving people like you talking points. And they had a filibuster proof majority for a few months in 09 and dind’t use it to pass the dream act.

                      MNG you are so transparently a sophist. Do you really think people on here are so dumb they can’t see through what you are saying?

                    7. Backed against a corner John does this: a long post with no new news.

                      Since you didn’t address anything I posted, I’ll just re-post:

                      You’ve tried to come up with one area, and that area, as demonstrated by my link is 1. debatable and 2. not something opposed by the GOP (remember, I aksed for where he was worse than the GOP).

                      Now, I can start to link to the roll call votes where the Dream Act was filibustered and note all the R’s voting nay, I could link the states bragging about their “toughest immigration laws” and note the party composition of the legislatures and how they voted, and I could note the administration taking them to court and all the GOPers who decried them for doing so, but why should we go there? Just admit that it’s reasonable for someone who cares about immigrant rights to see Obama as the lesser of two evils here.

                      Try again.

                    8. Let’s break it down into actual points so it’s easier to see where John has no answers. Try to put your attempted refutations back numbered as well John.

                      1. The deportation numbers are debatable and are actually supported by the GOP (actually, criticized as “not doing enough”).
                      2. The majority of Dems voted for the Dream Act and the majority of GOPers voted against it (several times, and don’t give me your tired line that “the Dems had a filibuster proof majority and didn’t pass it” because how would that prove they are WORSE than the GOP?, besides, since some Dems (though a much smaller % than the GOPers) opposed it, this is a meaningless statement).
                      3. GOP dominated state legislatures have passed some of the toughest anti-immigrant bills in the nation and the Obama administration is currently fighting these in court, GOPers are actually criticizing this move

                      So, try to dispute all three John.

                    9. The are fighting the immigration laws as a federal turf battle. They don’t care about the immigrants. They care about states usurping federal power. They are perfectly content to deport immigratns by the millions as long as they are doing it instead of the states. Again, they are just giving stupid people like you talking points.

                      And for the fifth time voting for a law you know will never pass doesn’t count. And sure the GOP is just as bad.

                      Look MNG, we got it. The dems are never wrong and even when they might be the GOP is always worse. We got it. It doesn’t matter what Obama does. You are going to get on here and claim the Republicans are worse regardless of the facts. We know who you are. Doesn’t it get tiresome being so dishonsest all of the time?

                    10. You’re hilarious. Faced with inconvenient facts you retreat into the murky world of guessing at people’s motivations and should-have-dones (voting for laws you know will never pass, all they care about is federal turf).

                      You can’t shake these facts John:

                      1. The Obama administration is fighting GOP dominated state laws touted as the toughest anti-immigrant laws in the nation.
                      2. The Obama administration and most Democrats have voted for the Dream act while most GOP candidates and pols voted against it.

                      It is these facts that a reasonable person can base their conclusion that Obama is the lesser of two evils on immigration rights. Again, every GOPer candidate will actually join me in saying they are “tougher” on immigration than Obama. Your partisanry has taken you into goofy land.

                    11. “The dems are never wrong and even when they might be the GOP is always worse.”

                      You’re hilarious given this entire debate is whether the GOP is worse on these two issues, and you’re not willing to even concede this when the GOP is pretty loud that they are tougher here than Obama. It’s YOU that cannot concede ANY ground concerning your beloved GOP.

          2. Well if none of the candidates are distinguishable based on their position on real issues, I guess I’ll pick the one with the best hair or the most oppressed skin color.

            1. What is retarded, and I mean Sarah Palin full-PC police mode retarded, is to argue that the GOP is currently better on gay or immigrant issues. It’s just pure hackery. The GOP predominately objected to repeal of DADT, they strongly oppose gay marriage and often civil unions, gay adoption, etc. The Dem position on all of them is better.

              On immigration it is GOP controlled states that have bragged about passing the “toughest anti-immigrant” laws and it is the Democratic administration fighting them in court while conservatives bitch about that.

              1. It’s not that they are better Mr Nice Guy. It’s that both parties are the fucking same. They all talk great game about things to get people like you or John to vote for their team and then turn around and skull fuck you. And the great thing is you all keep going back and asking for seconds. I guarandamntee you that if anyone other than Paul or Johnson get elected over Obama, 95% of all the shit they spew on the campaign trail will mean diddly squat. JUST. LIKE. OBAMA.

            2. So, you’re going with Cain?

              1. So, you’re going with Cain?

                eh, I’ve never been impressed by the bald-look.

                ….ohhhh

              2. I think Cain is refreshing at times, but no, I can’t support his simplistic approach to everything.

                I like Johnson and a lot about Paul (though some of Paul’s views on state’s rights concern me greatly). But the rest of the GOP field I do find to be a worse choice than Obama, and as you may or may not recall, I’ve been something less of a fan of Obama since he was a Dem candidate.

                1. I thought you said you’d vote fr Johnson, Huntsman and then Obama…in that order.

                  That Cain comment was at wylie.

                  1. I like Johnson better than Obama. Huntsman is pretty good. I’d have to know a bit more about him, but yes I could actually see taking him over Obama.

      2. I’m voting for Skeletor.

  28. Jerry Sandusky says he regrets showering with children; denies raping them/pimping them out blames Leslie Nielson.

    1. wait, wasnt that alec baldwin in the sleeping bag w the adam sandler boy-scout ?

      “what’s that scoutmaster?”
      “just my flashlight johnny!”

      1. “You know what I hate, Canteen Boy? Underpants.”

        “Well, gee, if you’re worried about mosquitos, I’d think underpants would be your last line of defense.”

    1. Dude, covered yesterday. You need to waste more of your life here visit more often.

    2. Pretty, but NSFW.

      1. Click for the articles man.

    1. hipsters aint hippies. duh

      1. facepalm.jpg

      2. Hipsters are the Pabst Blue Ribbon of hippies.

        1. It is time for them to go. We’ll miss them.

          But they did make their point – Hippies suck.

  29. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar…..nd-arugula

    Visiting an organic farm in Hawaii on Saturday, First Lady Michelle Obama said that “arugula and steak” was her “favorite” meal and expressed her view that American children need to “get their palates adjusted” so they will begin eating properly.

    My God that is one seriously unpleasent woman.

    1. And elitist, arugula and steak is expensive.

    2. The arugula is for show or what? Steak and arugula – WTF?

      1. What’s so strange about steak and salad? Admittedly she’s still an elitest bitch for saying “arugula”. “Arugula” is not a salad by itself, besides which, Mixed Baby Greens is where it’s at.

        1. Nothing, I guess, if you’ve never heard of baked potatoes and sauteed mushrooms.

          1. -5pts for not going straight to creamed spinach.

    3. Judging from all the vacation photographs and the size of her big fat ass, it seems to me like ice cream is her favorite meal.

    4. “Need to get their palates adjusted”? What, is she Gordon Fucking Ramsay, now?

      1. she can suck my flavor profile!

    5. That’s odd, because at one point she discussed ice cream and cake, or wings and fries or being her faves…but that we shouldn’t eat them. Then her husband commented to not get between Michelle and a tamale.

      The big scary gorilla confuses me.

      Anyone see Gloria Cain on last night? Comparing the composure of Mrs. Cain to Mrs. Obama is like comparing the Queen of England to Shirley Q. Liquor.

    1. This is why you don’t keep .22s for home defense.

    2. I think Mr and Mrs. Ryals need to invest in a shotgun and some higher caliber hand guns.

      1. Yes – a .40 cal or .45 cal would be much better. As well as a 12 ga. loaded with 00 buck.

      2. Yeah, and what’s the deal with “replica” hand grendades?

        Friggin’ wusses.

    3. ” …Connie Shaukat started laying into her with a garden hoe…”

      That is a beautifully written clause!

  30. They will be re-imagined into Soviet hero iconography: Bandannas and tractors and sheaves of wheat and the rays of a benevolent communist sun streaking across an uncomplicated narrative sky.

    *places hat over heart, sighs admiringly*

    “Randolph Scott!”

  31. “The House of Representatives will consider a bill on Tuesday allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry handguns across state lines.”

    Oh yes, this is going to be one of those wonderful “States, rights, great except when they are’nt” moments!

    1. oh well. consitency is the hobgoblin of little minds. People taking things across state lines and running afoul of various state regulatory schemes is why we have a federal government.

      States rights are great except when they are not. No shit. It is called making distinctions and decisions.

    2. Yeah. We covered that yesterday. States rights are racist unless the federal bill is less to progressives liking.

    3. If the state won’t protect your constitutional rights, isn’t it the federal government’s job to intervene?

      1. Yes, but you can’t think that and then call yourself a supporter of state’s rights. That’s having your cake and eating it too.

        Saying you are a supporter of state’s rights but wanting the feds to have vigorous oversight of the state’s enforcement of constitutional rights stretches that concept beyond all use.

        1. That is a pathetic falacy even for you. There are degress of things. By your definition if you support states rights at all you must support states rights in every case. And that is just nonsense. And you know it. You are just being a troll. If you think the bill is a bad idea, say why. If you can’t or don’t know shut up about it.

          1. Saying you are for “state’s rights” cannot mean “I am for state’s making decisions except when they shouldn’t” because that’s a meaningless statement. It takes you nowhere anyone was not before you even said it.

            1. “I am for state’s making decisions except when they shouldn’t” because that’s a meaningless statement.

              It is only meaningless because you are a troll and formulate it that way. You can formulate any policy decision that way. I am for people getting welfare except when they shouldn’t. See how it works.

              The proper way to formulate it is I am for states rights under … conditions and not under … conditions. The meat of the argument is filling in the dots. That is called debate.

              1. Then give me a better statement of what being for “State’s rights” is supposed to be, because so far you’ve only given me versions of “State’s should make decisions except when they shouldn’t.”

                1. How about “States should make decisions unless their decision usurps the federal power to regulate interstate commerce”?

                  What if the states didn’t ban guns, but made you pay a tariff to bring a gun across its border?

                  Would that be a clear enough constitutional violation for you to see it?

                  AFAIAC, if a state can’t impose tariffs to bring guns across the state line, they can’t outright ban you from bringing guns across a state line.

                  1. Nice try fluff, but you’ve hardly been some fan of the federal power to regulate interstate commerce. I seem to recall you having some hilarious idea that it only allows federal action at the point of exact crossing the border.

                    1. No. It means that the feds can resolve regulatory inconsistencies amongst the states for things traveling over state borders. It just doesn’t mean they can mandate people buy things.

                    2. It means that the feds can resolve regulatory inconsistencies amongst the states for things traveling over state borders.

                      So you’d be OK with a nationwide ban on concealed carry? To resolve regulatory inconsistency, of course.

                    3. It’s like you’re permanently stuck on “straw man.”

                    4. Nice try fluff, but you’ve hardly been some fan of the federal power to regulate interstate commerce. I seem to recall you having some hilarious idea that it only allows federal action at the point of exact crossing the border.

                      The fact that I think the feds have very limited powers doesn’t in any way undermine the position that the states have NO powers to regulate interstate commerce.

                      On the contrary, it supports that argument.

                      I think the Constitution clearly took away from the states any power to regulate interstate commerce whatsoever.

                      And that the record pretty clearly shows that the specific intention of this part of the Constitution was to prevent the states from erecting internal barriers to trade.

                      I consider a law preventing a citizen from carrying property across a state line to be an internal barrier to trade.

                    5. “I think the Constitution clearly took away from the states any power to regulate interstate commerce whatsoever.”

                      It’s always amusing to me that libertarians can take what is on its face an explicit grant of federal power over a subject and find most obvious the unstated, “dormant” inference of state power being subordinated.

                    6. “across a state line to be an internal barrier to trade.”

                      Absurd, people carry things ove state lines all the time with no intent to trade them.

                      Again, it’s amazing how broad and loosey-goosey you guys can get when playing with the unstated, dormant part of the IC clause, yet how different you are on the actual explicit broad grant of power in the text.

                    7. Absurd, people carry things ove state lines all the time with no intent to trade them.

                      That is true, but it is impossible to craft a law saying that a person can’t carry their legal property from one state to another without impacting trade in that type of property.

                      It’s a completely subsumed set.

                      If you tried to craft a law that allowed trade in guns but not the private possession of a gun, I would simply loudly pronounce as I entered your state that I was there for the purpose of seeing if anyone wanted to pay eleventy billion dollars for my gun. Voila – instant commerce.

                    8. “That is true, but it is impossible to craft a law saying that a person can’t carry their legal property from one state to another without impacting trade in that type of property.”

                      Er, far from impossible, that is the law now.

                    9. Whether you intended trade or possession would be a matter of fact for the court, but the law draws that line now…

                    10. it is impossible to craft a law saying that a person can’t carry their legal property from one state to another without impacting trade in that type of property.

                      So NYS can’t ban fireworks either?

                      Hell, no state can ban anything under this interpretation.

                2. States don’t make lots of decisions. They dont’ decide interstate commerce. They dont’ decide foreign policy. States rights have never been absolute and no one claims them as such. The debate is always about where states rights end and begin not “either they can do everything or do nothing”

                  Again, you are just being a troll.

                  1. No one is saying states should make all decisions, but saying you are for states rights must mean something, some preference for states making decisions that could be made by the feds, or else it is as meaningless as you keep presenting it.

                    1. Sure it means something. If you want to debate the propriety of this law and the state rights to regulate guns, lets have that debate. But dont’ insult everyone’s intelligence by saying that anyone who supports the feds here is being a hypocrite.

                    2. No, no, you keep wanting to talk about this law. But when people say they are for “state’s rights” they are not saying “I am for state’s rights in this particular instance!!!” They are expressing some philosophy of general prefernce for state’s rights, or else it is meaningless. So, I ask yet again, you’ve certainly had time to think of something by now, what is meant when people say “I support state’s rights?”

                    3. Fluffy just explained the position to you above MNG. You just don’t like it.

                    4. So you’re position is that states should make decisions except where it involves interstate activity?

                      Welcome to the fold brother! I guess I was a state’s righter after all, because I believe that and everyone else I know does.

                      Of course in this particular instance it is absurd. We are talking about people who have liscened a firearm to carry concealed, not people who are trading firearms, so there is no interstate commerce to speak of.

                    5. So the feds would have no right to require states recognize each other’s driver’s licenses? Same thign here. The feds clearly have the power to tell states they have to recognize each other’s licenses when someone brings a gun to that state.

                    6. First question, where do the feds get that right?

                      Second, should they have they right?

                    7. u mean like marrage licenses?

                    8. The feds clearly have the power to tell states they have to recognize each other’s licenses when someone brings a gun to that state.

                      So if PA issues a “license to carry fireworks” to me, then NY has to allow me to carry fireworks around Manhattan despite the fact they’re banned in NY?

                    9. the 2nd amendment says that the right to keep and BEAR (which means carry) is a FEDERAL right. thus, states should not be violating it in the first place

                    10. Exactly!!!

        2. Actually, this is one of those situations where the Dred Scott decision was correct.

          People are rightly outraged that the justices in the Scott decision openly wrote that negroes possessed no rights that the state need respect – but that wasn’t really the essence of the decision.

          The essence of the decision is that a state can’t deny you your property because you cross a state line.

          A state saying you can’t bring legal property across its borders is CLEARLY usurping the federal prerogative to regulate interstate commerce.

          The problem with the Scott decision was that the Constitution allowed human beings to be considered property. That made the Scott decision inevitable, at some point down the line. If the case had revolved around legitimate property and not a slave, it would have been 100% right constitutionally, legally and morally.

          1. Where is that in the Constitution Fluff?

            1. Section 10 – Powers prohibited of States

              No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

              No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

              Section 9 – Limits on Congress

              No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

              1. Fluffy, you are hilarious. I like that you saved me the time by even noting that your section 9 quote falls under the heading “Limits on Congress!”

                1. No dude.

                  I included the Section 9 cite to show that in the context of the Dred Scott decision, the states couldn’t ban the transport of property across a state line, and the feds couldn’t either.

                  And if you can’t put an impost or duty on movement of a good, obviously you can’t entirely ban the movement of the good. The criminal penalty or confiscation imposed if you violated such a ban would clearly be both an impost and a duty.

                  An impost is anything that is imposed on the movement of the good. It doesn’t have to be monetary.

              2. So, you’re second provision is plainly a limitation on the federal Congress, not the states (my goodness you’ve gotten sloppy lately, must be correlated with your recent rightward tilt, so understandable).

                Your first provision seems to make no mention on state restrictions on movement of property. It mentions imports and duties, but of course that is not the same thing.

                Grasp much?

                1. Except, you ineffable cunt, the fact is that for the past century the federal government has incorporated the Bill of Rights using the 14th Amendment. See, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights cannot be violated by the states. If Ohio tried to abolish jury trials, the federal government would be obligated to stop them. Because a trial by jury is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

                  Now, we have a few states left in this country that bitterly clinging to a host of laws and regulations from a less enlightened time in American history. These laws and regulations deny the fundamental right to be armed to all Americans who live, work, or travel to them. Just as Alabama could not 50 years ago deny the right of assembly to blacks, Illinois today cannot deny the right to bear arms to everyone.

                  1. “the fact is that for the past century the federal government has incorporated the Bill of Rights using the 14th Amendment”

                    And let’s be clear about this, the American right screamed about this the entire way. They called nearly every incorporated right “judicial activism” that wrongly gutted “states rights.” Many prominent conservative legal theorists STILL HOLD THIS VIEW.

                    Do you like incorporation? Thank a liberal judge.

                    1. Either the Constitution is the supreme law of the land or it isn’t. If it is, then the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to the citizens under it may not be abridged by the states. Or, to quote:

                      No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

                      If it’s not, fuck it, we have no rules. Do what the fuck you like, just don’t pretend to give a damn about the rule of law.

                    2. Except the Constitution, at least the BoR that was incorporated, was not intended to apply to the states. It took some liberal justices to come up with the (at the time very controversial) idea that the 14th Amendment applied the BoR to the states.

                    3. Not true. The P&I clause of the 14th was specifically intended to apply to Bill of Rights.

                      Don’t believe me, try John Bingham:

                      The proposition pending before the House is simply a proposition to arm the Congress?with the power to enforce the bill of rights as it stands in the constitution today. It hath that extent?no more?. If the State laws do not interfere, those immunities follow under the Constitution.

                      I figure since he wrote it and all, he might know a bit better than you.

                    4. And let’s be clear about this, the American right screamed about this the entire way. They called nearly every incorporated right “judicial activism” that wrongly gutted “states rights.” Many prominent conservative legal theorists STILL HOLD THIS VIEW.
                      ________________

                      Translation: Even when I’m wrong, I’m right because TEAM RED sucks. GO TEAM BLUE!!!!!

          2. A state saying you can’t bring legal property across its borders is CLEARLY usurping the federal prerogative to regulate interstate commerce.

            Begging the question a bit there, eh?

            In NYS, mere possession of a handgun is illegal without a license. So a handgun brought from outside the state is ipso facto illegal.

        3. If I say that I am a supporter of human rights, I don’t mean that there should be no restrictions on any human activity, no matter what. If I said that I support states’ rights (which I don’t; governments have powers, individuals have rights), I imagine that I woudl mean something similar. I.e. states have the right to do certain things and those rights should be respected by the Federal gov’t. That in no way implies that the Feds have no legitimate power to regulate what the states do.

          1. But what in the world does that get you? Everyone believes that “states have the right to do certain things.”

            Saying you are for states rights must at the very least express a general preference or presumption that states should make decisions…

            1. “Saying you are for states rights must at the very least express a general preference or presumption that states should make decisions..”

              Except for the constitutionally defined cases where the Fed government has supremacy. Such as the right to bear arms which is protected byt eh second amendment and incorporated byt eh 14th.

    4. Actually, this is protection of an Individual Rights thing, MiNGe, as well as a supremacy clause.

      If 2A rights are federally protected, limitations by states should be federally outlawed.

      1. 1. Limitations aren’t outlawed. States that ban concealed carry aren’t affected.

        2. SCOTUS interpretation of the second amendment has said that states have the right to reasonably restrict RTKBA; the only definitely unreasonable restrictions are those which ban possession in the home or fixed place of business by those who aren’t felons, etc.

        3. Surely you don’t think requiring safety training is an unconstitutional restriction of 2A? But guess what, every state would have to honor PA permits which require absolutely no training whatsoever.

        1. i think requiring safety training IS an unconstitional restriction of the 2nd fwiw.

          since the right to keep AND BEAR arms is constitutionally protected, the standard should be strict scrutiny for any limitations

          training is clearly a limitation, that we can probably agree on.

          thus, under strict scrutiny, the burden is very high, and it’s on the burdeners to provide COMPELLING evidence that lack of safety training has created hazards and that safety training has worked to reduce those hazards

          since some states require strict safety training, and many don’t (such as mine)… *if* safety training really worked to reduce unintentional shooting injuries/deaths etc. in a statistically significant/substantial way, we would have seen the studies, ya think?

          i have yet to see ONE

          1. Who needs evidence when you’ve got disingenuous corkscrews like MNG and quasi-delusional enables like Tulpa? GUNS VRY DANGROUS HAV 2 MAKE SHUR STOOPID RUBE UNDERSTEND GUN USE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        2. 1) For now.

          2) SCOTUS can go fuck itself sideways.

          3) I do.

  32. “States rights are great except when they are not.”

    Now that’s a principle we can all live with!

    1. I doubt you could live with that MNG. That principle requires thought and analysis rather than mindless dedication to dogma. And the latter is definitely better suited to you.

      1. As usual, you’re missing the joke. It’s not a principle at all. It’s like a contract that says “Party X agrees to do Y and Z, unless he does’nt agree to do them.”

    2. “States rights Federal powers are great except when they are not.”

      Now that’s a principle we can all live with!

      Why one and not the other?

  33. OT, but I thought I’d post this.

    The Washington Post editorial board needs to rethink their premises a wee bit.

    An unsigned op-ed from today’s op-ed page:

    “The problem with Republican support for waterboarding” http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    An unsigned op-ed from the October 7, 2011 op-ed page:

    “Administration should do more to defend the Awlaki strike” http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    1. I’m against both waterboarding and extrajudicial killings, but that said, do you think it impossible to have a principle position in favor of one but agains the other? Could you explain that.

      1. Sure, you could be infavor of nonlethal torture on the grounds that the person lives and can recover from it and that there is valuable information obtained. But against extrajudicial killing because that is much worse than being water boarded and perminant sanction. Same reason people can be for harsh prison conidtions and sentences but not be for the death penality.

        But I don’t see how you can say it is wrong to water board someone but okay to kill them outside of a combat zone without even trying to capture them.

        1. ” okay to kill them outside of a combat zone without even trying to capture them.”

          Because trying to capture them may involve risk to our troops? Jesus, you really don’t care one whit about American lives, do you?

          1. Arresting people involves risk to cops. Should we stop arresting people and just kill them? Don’t you care about cops.

            Troops get paid to take risks. That is their job. No “risk to the troops” does not justify killing an American citizen outside of a combat zone without any kind of trial or due process or attempt to capture him.

            Killing Al Awaki was worse than anything Bush did. It is a horrible precident and one that we are going to play hell undoing.

            1. I would agree, but I would specify that if a DoW was in place and Awlaki had voluntarily fled to territory held by the enemy, he would be fair game.

              If you had fled to Nazi Germany during WWII and were making propaganda radio broadcasts and a bomb happened to hit your radio station, I would consider you to be shit out of luck. Court ruling or no court ruling. If you voluntarily place yourself within the jurisdiction of the enemy during a declared war, you are a legitimate target just like any other element of the enemy’s war machine.

              I don’t think the Bush era Authorization stretches far enough in this case due to its vagueness.

              1. I agree with you fluffy. If Alwalki had been in Afghanistan hanging out with the Taliban, I would have no objection. But he wasn’t. He was in Yeman. We are not at war with Yemen. In fact we have an MLAT with Yemen and Yemen has delivered wanted people to us in the past. That is what makes this so problematice.

                He wasnt’ in the hands of the enemy. He was in a neutral country that had cooperated with the US in the past. And from what I can tell, we didn’t even try to capture him. We just put a missile into his house and killed him, an American citizen. That is a problem

                If he wasn’t a US citizen and Yemen was okay with us doing it, I would have less of a problem. Bush did that. But Bush never killed US citizens. We have to draw the line somewhere. And right now I dont’ see any limit to the President’s ability to unilaterally kill people.

              2. The difference is that in WW2, a war was declared and rules (Geneva) were in place that declared the person an enemy combatant.

                The problem is, Bush and Obama both use Geneva when they want to do something like this, yet say we are not in a declared war when they want to go against it’s tenets.

                It’s hypocrisy all the way around. Neither Team Douche or Team Turd is immune.

            2. Cheney and Bush pushed their authority to do just what Obama did, did you ever object to it then? Got any proof of you objecting to it back then? Didn’t think so.

              Does risk to troops justify an extrajudicial killing? Nope, as I said, I oppose it. But that’s not the point we were discussing, I said could one not have risk to troops as a factor supporting extrajudicial killings, a factor that does not apply with waterboarding.

              1. Once again, if risk to troops is a justification for extra judicial killing in a neutral country that has cooperated with the US in the past, then it is justified to save the lives of cops too. And that is where we are headed. How long before Obama drone strikes some Mexican drug lord?

                1. How long before Obama drone strikes some Mexican drug lord?

                  I feel another “Days, not Weeks” moment coming on just before the election.

                  1. Say “Hello” to my little friend!

            3. “Killing Al Awaki was worse than anything Bush did. It is a horrible precident and one that we are going to play hell undoing.”

              I am waiting to see what the WaPo writes when a president Romney uses this power.

              Ditto on violating the war powers act.

      2. Also, if I am captured I can avoid being water boarded by answering the questions asked of me and cooperating. No amount of cooperating will save me from a TOW missile.

        1. Yeah, that will keep you from being waterboarded because the torturers have a magical way of just knowing you told them the truth right away.

          [rolls eyes]

          1. They only water boarded like 8 people. Why would they go to the effort of doing that if you were telling them what you knew? They didn’t do it for fun. The folks they did it to were highly uncooperative.

    2. The Washington Post’s only real premise is “Red team bad, blue team good.” Had Bush done the Awlaki strike, they would have gone completely ape shit.

      1. pure conjector sold to wingnutz

  34. http://empire.wnyc.org/2011/11…..ainst-nyp/

    Apparently a judge has granted a restraining order telling the NYPD they can’t continue to remove protestors from Zuccoti.

    What possible basis could there be for telling the NYPD they can’t evict trespassers from private property?

    (Insert all sorts of statements about the acceptability of private political violence in such a situation here.)

    1. This is how it works. The rule of law doesn’t apply to thugs on one side.

    2. It’s privately owned but supposed to be run as a public space iirc. Different ballgame.

      1. Yes, a public space that doesn’t allow tents. It’s a plaza, not a campsite.

        1. Peddle, peddle.

          Interesting how you seemed to know it was not a private space (since you know about the tent rules), but didn’t feel the need to chime in when it was proclaimed such.

          Hack much?

          1. Fluffy said “private property”. Which it is.

          2. WTF??

            It is a privately owned space, but the owners have a contract with the city to make it available for public use. Everyone knows that. Since that isn’t the least bit difficult to understand, it demonstrates that you are either being dishonest or incredibly stupid. Either way, you don’t have point.

            1. He is being both.

              I usually try not to hate on you MNG, you’re no rectal or white indian, but damn you are being obtuse about stuff today.

        2. Plus, it’s Team Blue, so I approve.

          1. Actually, I’ve frequently DISAPROVED of OSWer’s message and tactics, but having principle I defend them from goofy charges. A principle-less spoofer would of course be unable to understand.

            1. Actually, I’ve frequently DISAPROVED of OSWer’s message

              I’d probably disapprove, but I never did figure out what the message was, exactly.

    3. Let’s give OWS credit. Rent in NYC is expensive. Squatting in someone else’s park is free. Assuming you have a job, access to a shower and a laundromat and it’s not the dead of winter, you could argue that those who actually pay $3000 a month for a 400 sq ft NYC apartment are the idiots, not the Occupiers.

      1. My take on this is, if the occupiers are on private property and the owners want them off, they need to be removed. If they are on public property and their presence is preventing anyone else from using the park for long periods, then they should be removed.

        But overall I think protests, especially when they are on public property and question the government, are good things that should be encouraged whether we like the message of the protestors or not.

        1. I have no problem with protests, just with the needless disruption and pollution, which costs taxpayers money. I’m ok with people squatting/camping peacefully and discreetly on public property and cleaning up after themselves. But shutting off public roads is totally unacceptable and also counterproductive, as is rioting. Everyone affected will be more likely to resent you, even if they agreed with whatever you’re saying.

        2. But overall I think protests, especially when they are on public property and question the government,

          I haven’t seen too much “questioning the government” from OWS.

          Oh, its such a nutjob smorgasbord that I’m there are a few, but on the whole, that doesn’t seem to be what they’re about.

        3. Camping != protests

          They don’t identify their activity as a protest, they identify it as an occupation. So let’s take them at their word.

          1. They shoulda occupied Gracie Mansion. I hear it’s quite nice and it’s public property.

    4. I didn’t study this in law school but i remember studying it for the bar exam and tennant/landlord law is far, far more fucked up than you would think.

      If a landlord doesn’t bounce a deadbeat tennant soon, the tennant gets all sorts of rights.

    5. Well, I think this is great. This means that now it is OK to camp out in any park or plaza, which should make travel and camping much easier. All you need to do is say you are protesting something and no one can make you move your tent. Sounds good. Who wants to pay for a camp site?

      1. All you need to do is say you are protesting something that liberals don’t like and no one can make you move your tent.

        ftfy

        1. yea, DU has simply been amazing on this.

          they were grumbling about tea partiers LEGALLY carrying gunz at protests.

          but almost complete unanimity that forbidding overnight CAMPING in oakland, etc. is somehow a violation of the 1st amendment.

          in any of these places, camping has always been prohibited.

      2. Heh, whadya know. As long as you are protesting banks and on public or public/private land you ARE free to gambol about the plains. Guess White Indian can shut up now.

  35. you can actually get a patent for a perpetual motion machine?

    Exactly my reaction.

  36. Apparently a judge has granted a restraining order telling the NYPD they can’t continue to remove protestors from Zuccoti.

    I thought Bloomberg said in his press conference they had been enjoined from allowing them to return.

    Injunction Warz!

  37. Those poor lost children, wandering forever through lower Manhattan. They should leave a trail of breadcrumbs.

    Or maybe they could take their war chest of donations and rent a loft.

  38. Let’s get something straight here, saying that one will get rid of agencies does not make one a candidate for dictator. Considering that presidents have gone the other way in operating unconstitutional agencies and not been impeached, all a president would have to do is fire everyone from an unconstitutional agency like the Dept. of Ed.and take his chances with impeachment.

    This is not support for the idiot Perry, BTW.

    1. According to the quote he said “branches of government”, which is a whole different issue from executive agencies.

  39. protests, especially when they are on public property and question the government

    Yes, because these people are vehemently opposed to the government’s refusal to give them *even more* free shit.

    And if this protest is in some way against the government, why aren’t the idiot hordes camped out across the street from the White House?

  40. Get a load of this: newly released Solyndra e-mails show that the Department of Energy was trying to pressure them to delay their layoffs until after the 2010 midterm election.

  41. Life has a screenwriter.

    And I just want to tell that screenwriter, that…

    …I know who you are.

    Now stop.

    Just stop.

    BTW, has anybody ever gone through the process of moving to Switzerland to start a business? I like the canton of Chur…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.