European Union

Reason Morning Links: Newt Continues to Sit Pretty Atop Polls, David Frum Gets Prime Print Real Estate to Moan About "Ultralibertarianism," U.S. Steps Up Efforts to Paint Iran Into a Corner

|

  • New Gallup poll has Newt Gingrich at 22 percent, Mitt Romney at 21 percent, and everybody else staring up at the formers' cushy, corporatist rumps.
  • Where does the modern police state get its surveillance tools? The Wall Street Journal has put together a catalog
  • "The Bush years cannot be repudiated, but the memory of them can be discarded to make way for a new and more radical ideology, assembled from bits of the old GOP platform that were once sublimated by the party elites but now roam the land freely: ultralibertarianism, crank monetary theories, populist fury, and paranoid visions of a Democratic Party controlled by ACORN and the New Black Panthers." David Frum, ladies and gentlemen
  • Can a technocrat save Italy? Probably not
  • Reuters: "The Treasury Department plans to designate Iran as an area of 'primary money laundering concern' on Monday, a U.S. official said, a move allowing it to take steps to further isolate the Iranian financial sector."
  • Imitation Ecstasy makes its way onto the legal high market, prudes overreact.

New at Reason.tv: "#OWS #LA Clashes With LAPD (11/17/11)"

Advertisement

NEXT: Stop and Trick

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. JAMES HANSEN AND THE CORRUPTION OF SCIENCE
    It recently came out that James Hansen, one of the two or three most prominent global warming alarmists on whose work the IPCC reports rest, “forgot” to report $1.6 million in outside income, as required by his government contracts. Is that significant? Well, yes: A handful of scientists, including Hansen, have gotten wealthy on climate alarmism. They have an enormous financial interest in the faux science they have done so much to perpetrate. It is more likely that the Pope would renounce Christianity than that Hansen, Michael Mann, etc., would change their minds about global warming, regardless of the evidence. (I say that because the Pope has far more intellectual integrity than the climate alarmists.)…

    Dr. James Hansen’s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income
    NASA records released to resolve litigation filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal that Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately $1.6 million in outside, direct cash income in the past five years for work related to ? and, according to his benefactors, often expressly for ? his public service as a global warming activist within NASA.

    1. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news…..6197176697

      Hope you don’t live in Oz saying such things. It could be illegal to talk about.

      1. It’s unfortunate that the Aussies are slaves.

        They seem so nice on TV.

        1. As an Aussie who has lived in the States for 9 years, it sickens me to read this shit. The sad thing is, evryone is so pleased with their life-style, nice weather and sandy beaches, that no-one realizes that they are living in a police state.

          1. I dunno, despite this kind of stuff, Aussies are the most freewheeling, open culture I’ve met as far as naked generalizations go.

            1. I don’t know about all that. They’re extremely censorious with regard to video game content.

              1. Just my impression as an American who grew up in the Southwest and has been living quite a while in Europe. Of course ex-pats aren’t necessarily typical of their culture, but I found Aussies to have the least fascist impulses in general, despite the fact they can also be hicks, IOW they sort of remind me of home. Again, a naked generalization.

    2. “They have an enormous financial interest in the faux science they have done so much to perpetrate.”
      _

      Professor Muller, reformed denier, laughs at your flat-earth, know-nothingism.

      1. He actually fell for it! He bought the ‘I was a denier line’! AHAHAHAHA

        1. Muller: “…Global Warming….Why you Should not be a Skeptic”
          Author: Paul Kiser
          Published: November 01, 2011 at 5:23

          On October 21, Dr. Richard Muller published an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) presenting the results of a two-year exhaustive study of the world temperature records using multiple methods to verify the data. The verdict, global warming is real and the skeptics are wrong.

          This was news because Dr. Muller, a physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, has been one of the ‘legitimate scientists’ that skeptics have relied on to support their position that global warming is a myth.
          Read more: http://technorati.com/politics…..z1eMCClWtT

          1. Before relying on that you may wish to consider the effective rebuttal by Judith Curry.
            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci…..z1cIFa5qrh

            1. Nice.

              But again–“almost a degree”. Almost a degree? We’re talking about less than one degree? And the world’s gonna collapse?

              Please.

    3. Definition of a scientist: a political activist that also wants to take credit for advances actually developed by engineers, entrepreneurs and lay inventors.

      1. damn those peer-reviewed climate studies which muller verified! damnnnnnnn….

    4. “forgot” to report $1.6 million in outside income, as required by his government contracts.

      Don’t know about the kinds of contracts he has, but in my world, government contracts, grant applications, etc. generally contain an attestation which essentially means that whoever signs them does so under oath, and is subject to civil and criminal penalties for this kind of thing.

      1. Oaths, promises, etc. only apply to little people.

        1. Or CLIMAT DENIERZ!

  2. BAD LINK ALERT: David Frum link is bad. (My guess is it will still be bad once you fix it.)

    1. The link may be bad to save peoples mental and physical health, direct contact with Frum thought has been known to cause seizers or damage to fists as they are driven through computer monitors.

    2. Obvious, it has David Frum in it.

  3. Suspicion in Iran that Stuxnet caused Revolutionary Guards base explosions
    DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
    November 18, 2011, 2:29 PM (GMT+02:00)

    Exhaustive investigations into the deadly explosion of the Sejil-2 ballistic missile at the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) Alghadir base last Saturday, Nov. 12 point increasingly to a technical fault caused by the computer system controlling the missile and not the missile itself.

    The head of Iran’s ballistic missile program Maj. Gen. Hassan Moghaddam was among the 36 officers killed in the blast. debkafile: The IRGC is investigating the possible Stuxnet virus infection of this computer system as the cause of the explosion.
    http://www.debka.com/
    _

    skynet is dead. long live stuxnet !

    1. There are more ways to stop Iran from getting nukes than bombing them. We have no idea what is really going on. And 95% of what is reported in the media is disinformation.

      1. “”There are more ways to stop Iran from getting nukes than bombing them.””

        There are more ways to try, but they will learn and counter. What country have we ever stopped from getting nukes?

        Diplomacy seems to work when the other side is willing. I say seems because you never really know.

        1. well vic, taiwan, south korea, & japan all COULD develop nukes except for US insistence they do not.

          1. Yep. Diplomacy seems to work when the other side is willing.

            1. And it seems to work better when we don’t have an openly hostile stance against the “other side”.

        2. We can delay it until their government finally falls. I am not that optimistic either. But I am willing to admit that neither I nor anyone else without the security clearance and need to know have any idea what is actually going on.

          1. “”We can delay it until their government finally falls. “”

            Do you have an example?

            N. Korea or Pakistan would be examples that we can’t when they are hell bent on doing so.

            1. We can try to delay as much as we can. But how much money and blood do we want to spend for deference?

              We can play under the table stuff at little expense, but it will only get us so far. Perhaps that’s the best we can do.

        3. I’ll take Libya and Syria for $100 Alex.

        4. Not quite stopping them before they got them, but South Africa voluntarily gave theirs up.

          The link notes that Brazil, Argentina, Taiwan and South Korea also had nuclear weapon development programs, but cancelled them before actually deploying weapons. I would take news that Taiwan abandoned their program with a large grain of salt.

          A significant difference between those countries and Iran is that all of them with the exception of South Africa could rely on the U.S. to step in if another nuclear armed country tried to invade them. (The Falkland Islands war is a notable exception. However, the Brits never conducted strikes on the Argentine mainland, and I think they were explicitly told by the U.S. not to do so.) Of that list, South Africa actually built theirs and gave them up only after they abandoned apartheid and relations with the U.S. improved. Maybe there’s a lesson there?

  4. “Generic” ecstasy pills, which have a minor stimulative effect but which do not necessarily contain an active dose of MDMA, sell for about ?3 each

    ** laughs up sleeve **

    1. That’s the least worrying scenario.

      There are too many psychoactive drugs that can be put in tablets to mimic mdma. Maybe I’m old-fashioned but I like knowing exactly what drugs I choose to take.

      1. Yet another argument for legalizing drugs.

        1. “People chop up lines and do it together. It’s become a shared experience.”

          Here’s another – sharing paraphernalia to snort drugs puts users at risk of transmission of blood-borne diseases through damaged mucous membranes. A comparatively small risk compared to mainlining, but still a risk. Pills are preferable in this regard, to snorting and shooting.

      2. Surprise, you now have enough estrogen to lacate!!

        1. Fuck. I just bought this shirt.

      3. That’s why it pays to conduct reagent tests. I just had a friend claiming pure MDMA when in fact it’s probably methylone. The reagent tests don’t tell you conclusively what the white powder is but it can sure tell you what it isn’t.

        1. Dancesafe does this at raves. they provide a valuable service

          1. You can also send pills/powder into them with some money for testing and they will run a chromatography test on it, iirc. the results then get posted to the website for reference.

            As far as I’m concerned, any halfways decent dealer should carry a Marquis reagent with them on a buy. It will at least roughly narrow it down to mdxx, meth, opiates, or 2c-b/methylone.

  5. Ecstacy? You mean St. Joseph’s children’s acid?

    These are serious times, and serious times call for serious depressants. I suggest Nyquil mixed with vodka and watch the presidential primary debates.

  6. The powder is also popular on the post-club scene. The Lancaster survey found that 21% of respondents reported that their favourite drug, or combination of drugs, to take at “chill out” parties after clubbing included MDMA powder, compared with 15% who preferred ecstasy pills.

    My mud flaps are Calvin pissing on an ecstacy pill. MDMA powder rules!

    1. If its MDMA it doesn’t really matter. IMO.

      1. That’s like the minor leagues of cage fighting, right?

  7. So David Frum thinks the GOP is rife with ‘ultralibertarianism’?
    What. An. Idiot.

    1. If only. If only. Frum is just concern trolling. He can’t have a career doing anything else.

      1. Concerned MSM troll is concerned?

      2. Frum’s job is to tell TEAM BLUE partisans what they want to hear about TEAM RED. Apparently this is what they want to hear, which is slightly worrisome.

        1. That is exactly right. Liberals want to hear how radical and Libertarian the Republicans are and Frum obliges. What a whore.

          1. nah, teh lub-rahls already know the gop must kneel before the theocrats

            1. Use words not molespeak. I have no idea what any of that means.

              1. Pace yourself, John. It’s a long day.

                1. …and MNG hasn’t even showed up yet.

              2. what evah grampz.

                1. No one wants you here.

                  1. like i care jeesch

      3. I came to the same conclusion some time ago John. I read an article in the National Post where Frum talks about ‘lessons learned from Canada’s successful battle against the Canadian deficit.’ Except he doesn’t talk about the spending-cut driven deficit elimination in the ’90s. He’s talking about a how a bump in revenue has somewhat REDUCED not eliminated today’s Canadian deficit but that doesn’t stop him from talking about it as if the battle’s won. I have to respect him now I thought he was just retarded now I see he’s the greatest concern troll of the righty punditocracy.

    2. David Frum is worried about his defense contract lobbying position. He doesn’t care a whit about anything else government does.

    3. And he doesn’t even mention Ron Paul in his article!

    4. Yes. Libertarians with their vast political power are the root of all of the worlds current problems.

      1. “Who controls the British crown?
        Who keeps the metric system down?
        We do! We do!”

  8. Newt’s “great” poll results in Iowa merely confirm my belief that those people are all parasitic morons.

    1. I think the question in the poll was “Who would you not NOT vote for?”

    2. Or it could be that Iowans are so tired of being polled this early in the election that they are just giving out random names. Next they will be picking Ronald McDonald as the next leader in the race.

      1. No one would ever vote for an Irishman is Iowa!!

        1. Plus he’s killing teh children with the Happy Mealz!

  9. Fabulous rant against limosine liberals in the Daily Beast by another liberal.

    You see, Mom and Dad, they (the Republicans) don’t lie about his (the average wage earner’s) prospects. They tell him that he has to sink or swim. They don’t disrespect his willpower by promising that government will make life easier for him. They tell him that they respect his individuality. They tell him straight out what you, the liberal elite, know to be true but will never say. They tell him that life in America is winner-take-all, and that they are the people who will let him keep what he has. They tell him that his religion, his wife’s capacity to reproduce, his children?whether they are “successful” or not?are his treasure. They tell him that they don’t care if he is a person of modest ambition, little sophistication, and humble means. What they value is his capacity to change his own life.

    What you tell him is that he should put his life in your hands. Yet you scorn his religion. You mock his faith in the sacredness of conception. You deride his belief in family. You tell him that his love for hunting makes him a murderer, and that his terror at being economically displaced makes him a xenophobe and a racist. Then you emasculate his hope for the future by telling him that if his ship comes in?that dream of a ship that makes the grinding disappointment of daily life worth living through?you’ll help yourself to a big slice of it. And you expect him to believe your rhetoric about fairness and equality when, all the while, you are accusing him of gullibility in his politics and bad faith toward the least fortunate of his fellow citizens. When, all the while, you are living untouched by your own policies. When you are cushioned against life’s hardness, not by government, but by simply knowing other people in your class. You expect him to buy your talk about equitable distribution of wealth when you are sailing through tax loopholes off into the sunset. For this man, his emotions make all the rational sense in the world.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..iving.html

    1. Wow that is good. Will be sharing on Huffington Post.

    2. his terror at being economically displaced makes him a xenophobe and a racist.

      What the fuck? Republicans tell people to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps but to simultaneously be a giant vagina about “the Mexican hordes”? What a load of bullshit. If little Johnny America cannot compete against his harder-working Hispanic brethren, then he can bum a quarter and call someone who gives a shit.

    3. It’s interesting that in these economic times, liberals are suddenly concerned about economic displacement too. And veterans. My liberal friends are all talking “buy American” and universal draft because it does one good to serve. They’re going all Bob Dylan on our asses. “Cause you gotta serve somebody. Yeah, you gotta serve somebody.” Does anyone know if Bob Dylan is still saved?

      1. “economic displacement” is just a nice way of saying “I am an uncompetitive, lazy lout who is resentful of brown people who are competitive and hardworking.”

        Immigrant-hate is the OWS/victimization attitude of the right.

        1. They’re not competitive. They are forced to work for crap wages at hard, menial jobs. This keeps prices low and mechanization out.

          They can’t complain. They get no benefits. They are exploited.

          All to keep lettuce cheap.

          And American workers can’t compete whether they want to or not–because they have to be hired at legal wages. They have to be given benefits, breaks and vacation. The hurdles employers must leap to hire American workers put them out of competition for those jobs–and the steady stream of exploitable illegals keeps many of those jobs from being mechanized so no one ever has to do them again.

    4. Reminds me of a similar speech by a kid with a similar disposition in John Gardner’s Sunlight Dialogs. Really worth looking up.

      1. If just to see how little has changed in the generational struggle amongst the elite that denounces the very concept of ‘getting ahead’ and ‘making it’, all the while shielded from losing in life.

  10. It was unclear what exact steps the Treasury planned for Iran but it seemed unlikely it would seek to cut off the Iranian financial sector entirely, a move that could disrupt the global energy markets and harm the U.S. economic recovery.

    Plus, no one wants to see Iran start issuing Mefo bills to finance its nuclear program.

  11. I’m surprised no other ideological group has thought to use the left’s strategy of setting up people within another ideological group whose only job is to bitch about what distinguishes that group from democrats, e.g. David Frum (conservative), Bill Maher (libertarian), etc. Maybe I will start calling myself a democrat and then whine that democrats are taking over the democrat party. Nah, that level of intellectual dishonesty is too exhausting.

    1. That might actually work (or at least be fun) in areas of the country with a weak Democratic party where GOP incumbents are rarely even challenged.
      Can you imagine winning the Democrat primary and then running as a Democrat libertarian against some so-con neo-con Republican?

    2. Where do you think Joe Lieberman came from?

  12. http://www.watertowndailytimes…../311199985

    NY: Owens Votes For House Gun Bill

    Rep. William L. Owens voted Wednesday night in favor of a bill that would require New York to honor concealed weapon permits from other states, some of which may have weaker gun control laws. In turn, New Yorkers would be able to carry concealed weapons in states that currently don’t recognize its permit laws.

    —-

    That’s TOTALLY gonna pass the legislature — TOTALLY1

    1. evidently the evangelicals have NOT been told by radio entertainers that this also effects [TEH GAYZ] marrage licenses.

    2. Barry would never sign it, even if it somehow made it’s way through the Senate.

      1. Who the hell is Barry?

    3. NY is a fairly gun friendly state. NYC on the other hand is a polar opposite.

      1. I don’t see how New York is a fairly gun friendly state. Although NYC is way worse.

        1. No shall-issue CCW? No gun-friendly.

        2. “”I don’t see how New York is a fairly gun friendly state.””

          A friend of mine in Long Island owns a M-1, AR-15, and a couple of .22s. He and his wife shoots at a range in Riverhead often.

          1. With limited magazines, no doubt. Or a permit to cover standard AR 15 magazines.

            You want a gun-friendly state? Look at KY or TX.

  13. http://www.ammoland.com/2011/1…..ban-plans/

    Little Noticed Provision Kills ATF Shotgun Ban Plans

    “Saiga 12’s, Benelli M4’s and virtually any other tactical/military shotgun can no longer be banned from import by the ATF.

    A little noticed provision tucked into a large appropriations bill obviously flew under the radar of the “Brady Bunch” and the “Illegal Mayors.”

    The new law effectively kills ATF’s plan to stop tactical/military shotgun imports by way of abusing the “sporting purpose” requirement and their agency rulemaking powers.

    The “Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture, Commerce/Justice/Science (CJS) and Transportation/Housing/Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations bills”, also known as the “Mini-Bus”, was passed by Congress, and signed into law by President Obama on November 18, 2011.”

    Balls — the ATF is sucking them.

    1. They only ever want to ban the guns that look cool. If bans were about destructive power or any real danger then surely I shouldn’t be allowed my hunting rifle. After all, my rifle is the same as the one the bad guy uses in the first dirty harry movie.

      1. So true. This country is jammed to the rafters with rifles that laugh at body armor, unlike most assault rifles (.223? Pah! Eat .300 Win. Mag., kevlar!)

        1. .338 Lapua, baby. The vest ain’t doing shit.

          1. Bah! When I wants to kill some pigs I sneaks up behind and puts me knife in their brains.

                1. +2 me infinity!

            1. When the pigs show up, as they inevitably do, I rape them with a psionic fist up their asses.

          2. An old lever rifle, or any of the gazillion 30-caliber rounds, can do the same thing.

        2. Depends on the body armor you are wearing. But unless you have a balistic plate, most high powered rounds will go right through it. And don’t discount the .223 M16 round. It has an incredibly high muzzel velocity and was designed to kill Russians wearing a lot of body armor.

          1. Over. Rated.

            Ask guys who’ve come back from Afghanistan whether the .223 is an effective round. Taliban there have competitions showing off each others .223 wounds.

            6.5 Grendel FTW! It can do anything a 7.62 can do, and fits in to an AR 15 magazine.

            1. The thing I miss most about Kim du Toit shutting down his blog a couple years ago is all the gun posts he did. I bought my first firearms based solely on his reviews.

      2. Since when do prohibitionist shitheads give a crap about destructive power? It’s all about control, and if a gun looks black and big, and curvy, IT’S A KILLER!

        1. The need their excuses in an attempt to look legit. Some people they just can’t fool.

      3. Right, and somehow safety features like flash hiders and heat shields make the same round more dangerous.

        On a good note, the NRA now supports silencers.

        1. Except they are not called silencers by anyone but people who know nothing of firearms and only seek to misrepresent what they actually do (as opposed to turning a gun in to a SILENT KILLER!!)

          They’re rightfully called suppressors.

    2. I never understood this “sporting purpose” nonsense. Liberals are against .50 BMG which pretty much only has a sporting purpose, where almost every owner is involved with XLR competitions.

      1. Yeah, but the dozens of aircraft that are shot down every year by radical libertarian militias in the hills of Missouri with .50 BMG rounds should be enough to counter your argument, you tea-bagging gun-lubber!

        1. Seriously, though, wtf is a “sporting purpose”?

          1. The ATF reviews guns for import on how they’d satisfy a series of criteria as sporting guns. Yes, they really do have that much discretion.

            1. Yes, I know, but it’s a ridiculously arbitrary criteria.

              1. That’s the point, I suspect.

          2. You inbred, flannel-wearing, RedMan chewing, mutant, redneck, hillbilly hick!

            Everyone knows the Second Amendment was meant to preserve your right to go duck hunting. That is the “sporting purpose.”

            1. I thought it was to preserve my right to plunk holes in the Chevy Nova I’ve got in up in blocks in my back yard.

      2. Sporting purposes like putting holes in the engine blocks of feral cars?

  14. http://mineola.patch.com/artic…..leadership

    NY: Passing Concealed Handgun Bill a Failure of House Leadership

    As one of Congress’s most vocal advocates for reducing gun violence, I wish to express my disappointment with the House leadership and many of my colleagues after the passage of H.R. 822, the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act. The bill forces states to recognize the concealed handgun permits issued by other states even if their safety standards are much lower. It’s the wrong bill to pass when it would hurt public safety and does nothing to help the country’s top priority, jobs and the economy.

    ————

    NY statist: */wrists*

    1. I knew before I clicked it would be that cunt.

      The one bright spot on the political horizon is gun rights. Things just get better and better on that front, which is good because I feel like we’re all going to need NFA weapons sometime in the next decade.

      1. If you have any European friends, and especially if you’re a gamer (makes access to this sort of shit easier), do a webcam meet-up and do shit with your gun on-camera. I got an orgasmic concerto of OMG WOWs and WTF YANK VIOLENCE the last time I tried. Fun as sin.

        1. Oh yeah. Was talking with a British guy once and he was all “If your guns make you free why Patriot Act herp derp?” and I said “If you’re free without guns why are there cameras on every street corner?”

          Never mind that the only crime we have more of is homicides. Rapes, assaults, robberies are all much higher in the UK then in the US.

          Honestly, if we ended the Drug War violent crime in this country would essentially disappear.

          1. And the Patriot Act is minor league compared to the powers British security people have. For a Brit to be calling out an American on the Patriot Act is hypocrsy at its height.

            1. “Minor league”? It’s fucking PEANUTS in comparison — just don’t tell them that, or your negro-hating, gun-loving self might get schooled by the smart, civilized Limey!

            2. “”And the Patriot Act is minor league compared to the powers British security people have.””

              I want to say no kidding, but I live in NYC. We have much of what they have execpt for nannys yelling at you via a loudspeaker. But I think that has been proposed.

              “”For a Brit to be calling out an American on the Patriot Act is hypocrsy at its height.””

              I’m not so sure being we have a Bill of Rights. They don’t.

          2. I recall the 2009-2010 violent crime rates being approximately 2,000 per 100,000 in Britain, and about 400 per 100,000 for the United States. Canada’s also much better, with around 600, if I remember correctly.

            We’re not all that bad. We’re certainly fucking rockstars compared to our pallies across the pond.

          3. a brit complaining about the patriot act is laughable.

            they already live in a surveillance state, and their search and seizure laws are much more pro state, anti privacy, than ours are

            especially true when you consider that many states have much more restrictive search and seizure than the federal standard

            1. “”they already live in a surveillance state,””

              In some parts. We have a live surveillance state in NYC.

              “” their search and seizure laws are much more pro state, anti privacy, than ours are””

              That true but the use of Sneak and Peak warrants in the US is closing the gap a little.

              We don’t compare much, but we are slowly closing the gap.

      2. It seems Rep. SingleIssue (D, NY) has suddenly become concerned about states’ rights as well.

        1. Seriously. Watching some of my idiot Facebook friends discovering the sanctity of state’s rights and local autonomy was funny.

          I posted a status update that was basically “HR822 passed!” and got the comment “I thought you were in favor federalism?” to which I replied “I am. Since when are you a fan of federalism?”

          1. It’s always hilarious when central-power-adoring liberals suddenly stand in defense of federalism when Congress does something decent. If they’re your friends, just find a nice way to say “fuck off”.

      3. I didn’t feel like clicking the link. Is it McCarthy?

        1. And of course it is.

        2. Chuck U. Schumer said essentially the same thing.

          I hate that ugly prick.

  15. http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..ing-scheme

    Gingrich follows FDR with court-packing scheme

    “President Obama and congressional Democrats could also oust John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito by eliminating their Supreme Court seats.

    This would leave the Supreme Court with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. They would be the Supreme Court. How do you think Obamacare would fare before that Court?

    Or abortion, Second Amendment gun ownership rights, cap-and-trade, religious liberty or campaign finance? Suddenly, this doesn’t look like a bright idea for conservatives.”

    ——– Roosevelt-style usurpation — a fantastic idea for the 21st century1

    1. this is what passes for wingnutz news? be sure to send ur patriotic $$$ now, now, now…

      what maroons

      1. You’re making less sense with every numerical increase — are you going to be sticking pencils up your ass and reciting the Kama Sutra in support of economic policies once your name switches to o4?

        1. That’d get some youtube hits.

  16. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f…..eId=369765

    The other ‘gunwalking’ scandals

    “Gunwalking” is one of the mysteries of the Obama years. The notorious Phoenix-based Fast and Furious “gunwalking” program made public by courageous whistleblowing federal agents and CBS News was apparently not the only one.

    First we learned about guns “walking” across the Mexican border and into the waiting hands of Mexican drug cartel killers, then guns “walking” into Central American countries and into the waiting hands of gang killers, then guns even “walking” out of gun stores in the Midwest into the waiting hands of domestic gangs ? all of this “gunwalking” in violation of federal law and with the full knowledge, and sometimes the participation, of Obama’s federal agents.

    1. maor winngust newz from tock rodio . only LOEs ned a salt weponrie

      1. That is epic.

        1. it’s epic alright, epic foolz

          1. har fglargle mumphsz hraw moar moar moar eyez blooble glump @# 409{

          2. No one wants you here.

            1. ur posting to a spoofer moron

  17. How about the SEC West: 1, 2, and 3, in the BCS?

    Also, don’t sleep on Arkansas at LSU. Hogs match up well with them.

    1. Fuck the SEC

      1. Jealous much?

        1. only in regards to their recruiting, which apparently is limited to asking large neanderthals whether they can sign their own name.

    2. The problem is that the league hasn’t played many people out of conference. Alabama played Penn State (at best a top 20 team). The only real quality nonconference win was LSU over Oregon. Arkansas needed a huge second half comeback to beat aTm, a team that is going to finish fifth or sixth in the Big 12. Meanwhile, Georgia, who has been cleaning up since they got to the conference schedule, couldn’t beat Boise in Atlanta. The whole conference stinks outside of those three teams and maybe Georgia.

      A rematch is idiotic. Lets make the winner of the SEC play the best of the rest of the country and see if the SEC is that good or just really good at playing each other.

      1. How many championship games does the SEC have to win before y’all figure out they’re a cut above all of the other conferences? I’d love for Bama to get to play OSU instead of LSU again.

        1. Every year is different. In the 1990s the SEC couldn’t win shit. There is nothign to say that because they have won in the last five years that they would win this year. This is college football where the teams change over every year not the pros.

          So the answer to your question is infinity. You never just assume one conference is better than another because of what happened last year.

          1. More than 1/3 of every roster in the NFL changes every year.

        2. And Bama lost. they shouldn’t be playing anyone. And sorry but that LSU Bama game was sorry. That wasn’t great defense. That was bad offense and horrible execution in the red zone. I would not be shocked if neither of those teams are even in the top two.

    3. Okie St is being screwed by the voters. They have same record as Bama and Arkansas and have a much tougher SoS. Which is why they are #2 in the computers.

      The problem is the humans have them 6th. I think they will end up 2nd if they beat Oklahoma.

      1. The coaches are totally fucking OSU. I don’t know what Gundy did to them. But they really seem to hate him. To have them rated below teams like VaTech and Standford is rediculous.

        1. Not just the coaches, the Harris has them 6th also, the coaches are in line with “consensus”, which is “they lost this week”.

        2. Also, Gundy is a man, he is 40.

          /now 42 or 43, I think

        3. I agree that OSU is underrated by voters. But they lost at possibly the worst time, and they lost to a bad team. OSU needs to hope for LSU beating Ark and losing to UGA in the SEC champ game. That would probably get them in.

          1. OSU should fall further. They blew it.

            I wouldn’t be surprised if they additionally lose to Oklahoma.

            And I say this as someone who hates with a passion the SEC and does
            NOT want an all SEC title game.

          2. Kansas is a bad team. Kentucky is a bad team.

            Iowa State isnt anything special, but they are not bad.

            1. Agreed, but Bama/LSU > ISU

          3. Even better would be for GA to lose to GaTech and then beat LSU.

            But we’re talking about reality aren’t we? *sob*

            1. We win. Book it.

              I have never cheered for ugag in anything, but after we beat them, I would like to see them beat LSU.

      2. Are you kidding? OSU lost to Iowa State, Bama and lost to LSU. There’s no comparison.

        I wanted OSU to be in the title game more than most, but look, they blew it.

        1. Alabama lost at home to LSU. And it would be completely unfair to expect LSU to beat the same team twice in the same year to win a national title. Is Alabama the second best team the country? Maybe. But they are not the best after losing to LSU. So there is no point in giving them a rematch. Send them to some other bowl to prove they are the best and put LSU up against the best remaining team to determine the national title.

          1. I’d love to see someone other than Bama in the title game John, but I don’t think you can disqualify them because “hey, you lost to these guys earlier.” They lost only to the currently number one team in the nation, what other contenders can say that? They are number two.

            1. Because that is how it has always worked in the past and should work. So what if they lost to the number one team in the nation? The point is that they lost. And because there are so few intersectional games, it is impossible to tell who is the best teams until the bowls. Everyone thinks Alabama and LSU are the best. But they don’t know until you see all of the bowl games and see how the SEC actually matches up with other conferences.

              If you matchup LSU with Oklahoma State or Standford or some other one loss team in the title game, if LSU wins there is no doubt they are the best. But suppose LSU loses to Arkansas this weekend and you end up with three one loss SEC teams. So you rematch LSU and Alabama. What if they play another dog of a game and OSU runs all over Arkansas in the Fiesta Bowl. People are going to feel pretty stupid about rematching LSU and Alabama.

              1. Even WITHIN their respective conferences everyone admits that an SEC team losing to LSU is not as bad as a Big Twelve team losing to Iowa State.

                Alabama can’t help that they play in the SEC, that is actually to their credit. They lost only to the current number one. OSU and Arkansas can’t say that. They are the second best team and one should play two.

                1. Who you lost to is only 1/11th of what matters (1/12th after next week).

                  In that Bama has the advantage over OSU. But who you beat also matters, and OSU more than makes up for who they lost to with who they beat.

                  Both are 11-1, OSU has the tougher overall schedule, thus OSU has had a tougher road to 11-1. They deserve to be ranked #2.

                  For anyone who gives a damn, the robc computer ranking top 10:

                  1. LSU
                  2. Okie St
                  3. Alabama
                  4. Kansas St (yes, really)
                  5. Oklahoma (Oklahoma would move past KSU is they win out)
                  6. Arkansas
                  7. Baylor (yes, with 3 losses)
                  8. Virginia Tech
                  9. Stanford
                  10. Boise St

                  (Oregon is 12th if anyone cares)

                  1. I’m curious what your case is for OSU having a tougher schedule than Bama?

                    1. Bama beat Penn State and Arkansas, two highly ranked teams (the latter very highly ranked). The best you can say for OSU is the beat K. State, Baylor and Texas.

                    2. I will show it using two different computer systems.

                      First Sagarin, who says OSU’s average opponent is a 79.69. Bama’s average opponent is a 74.04.

                      Sagarin’s system can be used for score prediction, so that means OSU’s opponents were 5.65 pts per game better than Alabama’s. Note, Sagarin has Alabama higher than OSU anyway, but his system is weird.

                      My system’s “score” has no inherent meaning, cant convert to points. Its not a predictive system at all.

                      In my system, OSU is rates 4.419 and Alabama 4.281. The ratings of their opponents:

                      4.169 4.491
                      4.001 4.025
                      3.661 3.584
                      3.616 3.219
                      3.601 3.118
                      3.570 3.042
                      3.368 2.847
                      3.268 2.643
                      2.695 2.250
                      2.684 2.176
                      2.316 2.160

                      Alabama played a couple of tougher teams at the top, but a lot of crap (they have played 3 teams WORSE than Georgia Southern). OSU played a lot of teams that could pull an upset on a good day, which is what happened. Alabama had two get up for 2 games, and they did for 1.

                      Basically, the argument against Alabama is the argument normally used against Boise, because despite their being 3 damn good teams, the SEC has no depth this year (and Alabama didnt play uga or USCe).

                    3. And it gets worse next week, as Oklahoma is a 4.098 and Auburn a 3.493, so OSU is going to have a bigger SOS advantage.

                    4. I can see your point that Bama’s SEC schedule was relatively weak, but it’s absurd to claim the SEC had no depth. How many bowl eligible teams does the SEC have this year? Like all but three, right?

                    5. Not yet. Vandy, Tennessee, Miss St, Kentucky and Ole Miss arent yet eligible. Kentucky and Ole Miss wont be. Vandy has to beat Wake, so probably not.

                      And the “SEC has no depth” comment is relative to the Big 12. And the SEC in past years. This is possibly the weakest SEC since the early years of the 00s.

                      Mississippi St will beat Ole Miss and Tennessee should beat Kentucky, but I think the streak ends here (I think this for no good reason whatsoever).

                  2. You guys are all correct; this is crazy.

                    To figure it out, it’s almost as if they need some sort of, you know, TOURNAMENT! *gasp*

                    1. Every year, the BCS makes the case for a playoff. Ask anybody who follows the FBS and they can devise a decent playoff system that includes all the current bowls.

                      But somehow, Division IA football is special and can’t have playoffs like EVERY OTHER SPORT.

                    2. Why would we want to include the bowls? Fuck the bowls. Just go to a playoff. Playoffs will need to be on home sites anyway for the first 2 rounds (fans cant travel in numbers 4 times).

                    3. I like a six team playoff, with one and two earning byes. Three hosts six and four hosts five. The semifinals would rotate around the four major bowls and the championship is played a week later.

                    4. A playoff is a terrible idea. First, the current bowl system allows many teams to end their seasons on a big win. That’s a good thing and consistent with the whole idea of amateur sports as growing young persons. Second, if we had a playoff we would just shift the debate over who should be in the BCS title game to who should have made the eight team playoff cutoff.

                    5. A playoff is a terrible idea. First, the current bowl system allows many teams to end their seasons on a big win…Second, if we had a playoff we would just shift the debate over who should be in the BCS title game to who should have made the eight team playoff cutoff.

                      This might make sense if the other football divisions didn’t do playoffs, either. But if they can manage to pull it off, so can Div 1.

                      The bowl system in place right now is about money and nothing else. Money from various corporations putting their name on bowl games, money from television rights, and money that’s supposedly spent in the local economy by visiting fans. That’s why we have silly shit like the New Mexico Bowl.

                      Secondly, putting together a playoff would not be that difficult, and wouldn’t even require a ranking system under a 16-team playoff. Take the champions from every conference, with five wildcards based on NFL-style tiebreakers (overall record, inter-conference record, etc.), reduce the regular season to 9 or 10 games, and run the playoffs during December with the championship on New Year’s.

                      This would even have the potential benefit of breaking up the super-conference trend and creating a conference map that makes sense from a regional perspective, as long as the NCAA would limit the conferences to no more than 16. It would also force the independents to shit or get off the pot, since being in the playoff would depend on their membership in a conference.

                      This way, the super-conference trend gets stopped in its tracks, the smaller number of games and focus on conference play makes them more meaningful, and you get an actual, fairly determined champion at the end.

                  3. One of the problems I’ve found with computer rankings for college football is that you tend to have a bunch of teams whose “true” win% against a “neutral” schedule are packed to the point where it’s very difficult for a dozen or so games to ferret it out with any accuracy.

                    You really have to go into things like points and probably yardage and, truth be told, probably results from the previous season. All of which result in BIG problems when trying to reward teams for their performances rather than just dispassionately trying to decide who is best.

                    The problem is that the polls are under none of those restrictions and the computer systems are. This gives the polls some advantages over a computer system, which probably balances the more objective way the computers process data.

                    I’d like to see just conference champions play in the title game anyway. That seems only fair.

                    1. I would be fine with a playoff of the conference champs. But, since 11 is a weird number, might as well fill it in to the power of 2. 5 at larges is fine, and gets some obvious power teams.

                      Using BCS standings to determine at-large and using them for seeding (my rankings used for the last 4 teams, who are outside the BCS top 25):

                      16 Louisiana Tech @ 1 LSU
                      9 Oklahoma* @ 8 Houston
                      13 Arkansas St @ 4 Oklahoma St
                      12 TCU @ 5 Virginia Tech
                      15 N Illinois @ 2 Alabama*
                      10 Oregon @ 7 Boise St*
                      14 W Virginia @ 3 Arkansas*
                      11 Michigan St @ 6 Stanford*

                      *at-large

                      That is an awesome bracket. The worst at-large team is a 2-loss Oklahoma. I would play the first two rounds at home sites, semis on NYD and finals a week later.

                    2. Lo. Tech would get in but not Wisconsin? WTF?

                      See, this is the problem with a playoff, it just shifts the argument to the playoff cutoff.

                    3. The benefit of the playoff is that it lets the winner be decided by the game play. Getting through the playoffs is what makes the champion the champion.

                      It gives schools like Boise and TCU the chance to finally prove their boosters right and their detractors wrong. No one can complain about their team being ranked 4th instead of 2nd because they get a playoff berth too.

                      No more situations with multiple undefeated teams. If a team has a perfect season, it’s because they won every regular season game and every playoff game.

                      I’d also shorten the season to ten games, with no more then two FCS opponents allowed for playoff eligibility. That leaves you a creampuff on Homecoming and Senior Day, and you play football the other eight against people who have a chance to beat you.

                    4. Only 1 FCS opponent counts now, why expand it to 2?

                    5. Louisiana Tech is the WAC champion (probably). Its like the basketball tourney, the 16 seeds are champions, but not as good as some teams left out.

                      See, this is the problem with a playoff, it just shifts the argument to the playoff cutoff.

                      We have a playoff now, it is two team and one round.

                      Their is arguments at the cutoff point.
                      Moving the argument down is better, becuase if you get left out, its your own damn fault and you probably werent winning it all any way. Not the case with the #3 or #4 or #5 this year, or most years.

                  4. Good thing your rankings are meaningless. Just this weekend, Houston beat SMU, who beat TCU, who beat Boise State. At minimum, Houston should be ranked ahead of Boise State.

                    Again, Houston is the Ron Paul of College Football…11-0…suck it bitches.

                    1. And still no one cares about Houston.

      3. As an Oklahoma State fan, I have to agree that we got a little shafted.
        But we’re used to getting no respect. We don’t get it from the local paper in Oklahoma City. Hell, the OU stadium is named after the family who owned the Daily Oklahoman. They shit on OSU every opportunity, so much that Mike Gundy had to call out Jenny Carlson during the famous press conference a few years ago.

        Our loss was on the road on a Friday night, and the day a major tragedy struck our school. Emotions were really low. There is no excuse for our loss, but it was not as bad as some of the other losses big teams suffered this year.

        We should not have lost to ISU. But every now and then, the stars align just right for the underdogs, and they beat the big boys. It doesn’t happen often for each school, but it does happen almost every year. So this is no different.

        Congrats to ISU for the win. Now they are bowl eligible.

  18. http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/497147

    MA: Massachusetts High Court Issues Second Amendment Weapons Charges Opinion

    The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has issued a major decision involving weapons charges and a defendant’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. In Commonwealth v. Loadholt, the court rejected for a second time a defendant’s challenge of a conviction for possession of a firearm and ammunition without a firearms identification (FID) card. The defendant specifically challenged the requirement of “prior approval by a government officer” before one may possess ammunition or a firearm as a violation of the Second Amendment.

    ———–

    Massachusetts — never liked it, never will.

    1. How that isn’t a lay-down win for the defendant is a complete mystery to me.

      1. Massachusetts? 😛

      2. So it would seem, but Heller left the door open for this kind of crap.

        Me thinks the “new professionalism” would allow one to challage the the government denying his FID. Wait, I had to get off the floor from laughing.

        I’ve said it many times. Until SCOTUS learns the definition of “infringe” I expect near bans, and licensing schemes.

        1. Infringe, v., to tuck-in a fringe

    2. They have to have permission to have ammunition? WTF?

      1. Sure! Becasue really, it isn’t the guns that kill people, it’s the bullets.

        1. Massholes hear a Chris Rock bit and think “Awesome idea!”

    1. Yeah, great. Also, for the pun fan, one of the cleverest album titles ever.

  19. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US…..321812632/

    TX: Report: Feds in Texas failed to nab guns

    Newly released documents indicate federal agents may have lost track of weapons sold to Mexican drug operatives in Texas.

    Documents obtained by the Houston Chronicle noted that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had evidence implicating the alleged purchaser of a high-powered pistol but did not act in time to prevent its use in the shootings of two U.S. Customs agents in Mexico.

    ———

    I hope no ATF agents’ pensions are at risk as a result!!1111111111111

  20. http://img2.ranker.com/user_no…..oto-u1.jpg

    Best use of this fat fuck’s image I’ve seen so far.

    1. That is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Pepper spray is nasty shit. Only a real sociopath could just walk down a line and spray it in people’s faces.

      1. Seriously. I couldn’t even believe it was real at first. I thought, “Why is he spray painting those kids?” I guess they just put him through the first aerobic exercise he’s had in 20 years and he’s plenty pissed about it.

      2. I agree here. That cop should be brought up on charges if the local DA had any decency.

        1. Don’t hold your breath.

      3. “” Only a real sociopath could just walk down a line and spray it in people’s faces.””

        Or a lazy cop. I would expect a couple of cops would walk over, pick them up and phyically move them one by one. But that would take work.

        1. For people who believe in the possibility of just government, it should be more disappointing that a couple of other cops didn’t walk over, pick him up, physically remove him, and then deal with the students. Not that I’m one of those people, though…so par for the course, imo.

      4. Apparently what appears to be sociopathic behavior to ordinary folk is standard police procedure according to dunphy. I think he actually believes that justifies the behavior rather than condemns the policy.

        1. for your loose definition of “ordinary folks”

          although i am not sure which “sociopathic behavior” you are referring to

          1. oh, and if you are referring to the UC davis pepper spraying i said about 2 dozen times, that it appeared clearly unjustified.

            that’s under case law, common sense, and common decency

  21. The more I read articles by establishmentarians like Frum, the more I’m convinced a vote for Romney is a vote to kill libertarianism in the GOP. As much as the Republican Establishment hates libertarians, they still realize they have to deal with the balanced budget, fiscal restraint crowd and try to win their votes. However, if Romney can accept the libertarian vote as a given, it would give the GOP license to do whatever they want with no consequences. They would completely ignore fiscal conservatism and become more authoritarian than Bush and Cheney could ever dream of. The GOP cannot be allowed to assume they have the fiscal conservative vote by default. Everything Paul and others have worked for for 10 years would be instantly destroyed the instant Romney or even Gingrich gets the libertarian vote.

    1. They certainly act like they have the libertarian conservative vote in their pocket. However, RP supporters I know are fed up with the way RP is being treated (or mis-treated) by the likes of Fox News. A local conservative radio jock called RP supporters “nutbags” on his show last week, and others similarly drip with distain. RP supporters, if continued to be treated like scum, are certainly going to not vote for the GOP candidate and, if that takes only 1 or 2% away in a close election, then Obama wins. The GOP should be kissing RPs ass and making nice with his supporters.

  22. Frum’s job is to tell TEAM BLUE partisans what they want to hear about TEAM RED. Apparently this is what they want to hear, which is slightly worrisome.

    I don’t know if it’s worrisome, but it’s unsurprising. Basically, it just reinforces the TEAMBLUE base’s inevitable resignation to vote for Obama again, no matter how disappointed they might be.

    I’m already hearing it; “I voted for him last time, and he didn’t do any of the stuff I voted for him to do, but I’ll vote for him again because what other option do I have?”

    1. Gee, that doesn’t encapsulate Tony at all.

      “TEH END UV DA WURLD WILL HAPPEN IF I DON’T VOTE FUR OBAMA!!!!!”

  23. There’s no question that Monti’s austerity measures will be unpopular. He’s vowing to find and tax the estimated 20 percent of Italian workers who are paid under the table. He wants to cut public-service jobs, and he’s hinted he would restore the property tax that Berlusconi abolished.

    As long as Mario Monti’s austerity measures don’t include a drastic decrease in the number of Brazilian models at Palazzo Chigi.

    1. Twenty percent of Italians are paid under the table? Wow.

      It seems to me that there are some cultural hurdles in the Greek and Italian crises that won’t be jumped easily.

      1. Yeah, 80% not in the Mafia? How the mighty have fallen.

      2. I wouldn’t mind if America had some cultural hurdles that prevented the successful implementation of the welfare state…

    2. I expect Italy to return to its pre Berlusconi days – get a new government every 6 months or so.

      1. See which one can get the trains to run most on time.

  24. Maybe I’m just paranoid, but I can’t help thinking this CCW reciprocity initiative on the federal level is step one in “rationalizing” (i.e., FEDERALIZING) the ownership laws.

    Interstate Commerce FTW!

    1. It’s certainly interesting to see states righters and those pushing for a narrow federal commerce power pushing a federal bill that tells states what concealed carry permits they must respect and grounds it in the “commerce” of carrying a gun in a particular manner while traveling.

      It’s like that GOP tort reform which finds state courts to be engaged in interstate commerce.

      1. They don’t need the commerce clause.

        Article. IV.

        Section. 1.

        Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

        This was used as justification for the USG decided to give states immunity from not accepting marriage licenses for same sex couples when issued by another state.

    2. Paranoia aside, it is absolutely the wrong thing to do to federalize the ccw laws. One size fits all regulation has generally worked out horribly for many constitutional rights.

  25. And- I’ll stick with the laws here, and if people in New Jersey and similar places are willing to let their overlords fuck them, that’s their problem.

    1. Yes, but people should be free to move around without having to get permission on a state by state basis.

  26. Anybody got the real Frum link?

    1. That was the second page. When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality?

      When they started taking David Frum seriously?

  27. The nuetrino faster than light experiment appears to be repeatable. Wow.

    http://www.newscientist.com/ar…..light.html

    1. I caught that in the Times the other day, it’s really an amazing find.

    2. Einstein was wrong. As was Newton before him.

      Thats science.

      1. not “wrong” (actually incorrect) since quantum mechanics already obsoleted einstein

      2. THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!

    3. I agree with the scientists statement, “it’s not too appealing”.

      Is there a theoretical basis that can wrap around faster-than-light particles? Perhaps the universe is not so elegant after all.

      1. Nature gives not one shit about our aesthetic preferences. Our job is to observe and predict. Welcome to science as it is supposed to be done. Either way this falls out I am glad to see that no one is being hung by their scrotum from the nearest bridge as has happened many times before.

    4. I said warp factor four, Mr. Sulu.

      1. Oh my!

    5. Faster than light, BITCHEZ! Me, FTW!!

    6. Not to be a denier, but until they have independent results from a different mechanism, I’m still labelling this as cool, but still possibly wrong.

  28. Newt was one of the five pols, along with Romney, that John listed in his “wouldn’t vote for dog catcher” list I’ve got bookmarked. From the frying pan to the fire with his rise…

    1. Newt will fall before Iowa, I guarantee it.

      1. Who is this Newt fella that you are referencing?

    2. Do you want to to invite you down to Betheda MNG and you can come into the booth with me? Your obsession with this has gotten creepy.

      And there are about a hundred posts where you claim thta Romney is the nominee no matter what. You mean you might actually not know a damned thing about what you are talking about? Really?

      1. Poor John, his partisan nature so wants to start urging support for Anybody But Obama but he knows he’s on record in his typically hyperbolic way to never support his party’s current frontrunners.

        1. Here is the thing MNG, you will never know who I will actually vote for. I could be (gasp) lying. And you will never be able to prove it. I could be out volunteering for Romney and sending him my full $1000 contribution. And you will never know it.

        2. Dude, I’ve seen nothing from John but Gingrich hate.

          How about waiting until after he flip-flops to bring out the bookmarks? (Since you’re so sure he will.)

          Right now you sound like a jealous girlfriend who keeps whining in a Debbie Downer voice about how her boyfriend will, eventually cheat on her.

          1. Now, now fluffy, you can hold on to your recent love-fest with John long enough to realize that even you’ve (in the past) well recognized John’s tendency to, shall we say, flip his positions when partisanship is a factor. John is driven by Obama hate more than anything, and it has caused many documentable egg-on-face flip flops before. Tony and I just are making sound bets we will see it again in the near future.

            1. Where have I ever flipped my positions about anything other than in your own head?

              1. Whether Shirley Sherrod should be fired or not (you flipped this one twice)? On wars (like ’em during Bush, hate ’em during Obama)? Etc.

                1. Did Sherod work for Bush? Did Bush not fire her and I expected Obama to fire her?

                  Sherod bragged about being racist to white people in a speech and everyone there cheered her. It is on video. The fact that she later in the speech said “I learned not to be racist” neither excuses her original racism that she admits resulted in real harm to people nor excuses the people who cheered when they heard what she did.

                  And it wasn’t me that fired her, it was Obama. You should be angry at Obama if you think she got a raw deal. But since you are incapable of ever admitting fault in your own side, you bizarrly obsesses about me in order to change the subject.

                  1. John, john, do you need me to re-post the snippet where one week you said she should be fired, then the next week you say she should never have been fired, then weeks later you denied every having said she shouldn’t be fired and say that she should have been, and then I caught you on all of them?

                    1. So what if I did. What does that have to do with Obama? Your charge is that I flip flop for partisan purposes. And I list out a long list of things that I supported under Bush and continue to support under Obama. And all you have is Shirley Sherrod? That is rediculous. And yeah, I don’t have a lot of use for people who use their official position to screw people because of their racism. The fact that she has since recanted really doesn’t say many good things for her. Should she have been fired? Who knows. That is Obama’s problem not mine.

                      But I fully expect you to put up as many posts as possible talking about Shirley Sherrod because you have been caught with your ass showing.

                      Even if you are right about Sherrod, which you are not, you have one flip flop about some low level official in the Obama administration. But someone how I have more flip flops than Old Navy? Really?

                      Just pretend this thread never happened. You are just embarassing yoruself. And it is only going to get worse.

                    2. John|7.21.10 @ 11:20AM|#
                      The USDA should have never fired her. But she was never the point of his story. The audience was.

                      reply to this
                      MNG|7.21.10 @ 11:22AM|#
                      John, you didn’t call for her firing?

                      reply to this
                      John|7.21.10 @ 11:26AM|#
                      Of course I did. But the fact that I took that from the story doesn’t mean it was the point of the story. I hadn’t seen the whole video. But seeing the whole video made feel better about this woman not the NAACP.

                      John|6.4.11 @ 12:24PM|#
                      She should have been fired.

                      Then John said:
                      John|7.21.10 @ 11:20AM|#
                      The USDA should have never fired her.

                    3. But I fully expect you to put up as many posts as possible talking about Shirley Sherrod because you have been caught with your ass showing.

                      Even if you are right about Sherrod, which you are not, you have one flip flop about some low level official in the Obama administration. But someone how I have more flip flops than Old Navy? Really?

                      You are nothing if not predictable. Wow even I thought you would not be stupid enough to do exactly what I said you would.

                    4. You are s shameless tool. You deny flip flopping, I remind you of it, you demand proof, I provide it (in fact there appear to be four flips and flops there!) and you just keep charging. Wow.

                    5. What you posted doesn’t even illustrate your point. I flip flopped in favor of Obama. If I were the partisan you claimed me to be, I would have never have admitted that Sherod shouldn’t have been fired no matter what the tape said. Instead, I looked at the tape and said “okay, it wasn’t as big of a deal as it first appeared”. That is not what partisans do MNG.

                      Seriously, have you not embarassed yourself enough on this thread? And for the fourth time, this is all you have? One example that doesn’t even illustrate your point? Yet somehow I have more flip flops than Old Navy?

                    6. reply to this
                      John|7.21.10 @ 11:26AM|#
                      Of course I did. But the fact that I took that from the story doesn’t mean it was the point of the story. I hadn’t seen the whole video. But seeing the whole video made feel better about this woman not the NAACP

                      Do you not see that this obliviates your whole point? He admitted to not having all the info–and then, upon aquiring that info, altered his stance. A logical approach.

                      It’s not ‘flip-flopping’ if information comes to light that alters the original stance, MNG.

                    7. Wow. I changed my opinion after watching the entire video. You really have me there MNG. I guess since you never change your opinion about anything no matter how much evidence presented to you, you probably do find such actions shocking.

                      And if I were such a partisan hack, wouldn’t I have kept claiming she was horrible no matter what? It seems that I admitted the obvious even though it went against my case.

                      You really have gone nuts MNG.

                    8. Is your argument you are more of a guillible tool than a flip-flopping hack?

                    9. My arguement is that if I flipped it was flipping in favor of Obama and Sherrod. So how does that prove I am a partisan hack? That would seem to prove the opposite that I will admit the truth even when it goes against my side.

                    10. I’d say your flip flopping on war and the WOT are better evidence of your flip flopping for partisan reasons, the Sherrod thing is the general flip flopping you have to do because of your partisan inspired carelessness.

                    11. I haven’t flip floped at all on the WOT. I support Obama in Afghanistan and think he is right to stay there. I support Obama for leaving Iraq as scheduled and think that it would have been a mistake to stay any longer. I support Obama for keeping GUITMO open.

                      The only thing I criticize Obama for is killing an American citizen. But that is something Bush never did, so I can’t be said to be flipping on that.

                      I objected to the war in Libya because Obama half assed it and created a government there we have no control or influence over. And he didn’t get Congressional authorization, something Bush always did.

                      I have always been willing to give Obama credit when he does the right thing. Your charge is just slander.

                    12. Yeah John, everyone knows your vocal support for Obama’s foriegn policy and WOT measures around here. Why, they are the same as your vocal support for Bush’s when he was in charge…

                      Dude you are shameless…

                    13. Yeah they do. That is why they (including you) call me a warmonger on here about every other day. You are not helping your case here MNG.

                    14. Jesus Christ!

                      MNG really is a deranged stalker.

                    15. Yawn. The archive search function, how does it work?

            2. I am nothing if not consistent on here, inlcuding my support of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq (I actually agree with Obama leaving even though he didn’t want to) despite it being very unpopular here. I have come down against Obama killing American citizens, but Bush never did that so there is no way I could be fliping. I have never said a word against Obama for keeping GUITMO open other than to make fun of his supporters who were so convinced it was so bad and that he was going to close it.

              Your claim is just a slander. It is totally not true and everyone who reads this board knows it. Do you really think people on here are that stupid and pay so little attention that you could get away with saying that?

              1. John, you got more flip-flops than Old Navy dude.

                1. That you can’t seem to name other than your strange obsession with Shirley Sherrod that was an entirely Democratic affair. Either list them outor shut the fuck up.

                  1. You really should try sandals instead John.

                    1. Shorter MNG, I don’t have any examples to list, so I will just say stupid shit and yell Shirley Sherrod because nothing is worse than being caught with my ass showing on something.

                    2. We get it minge you’re a douchebag liberal. You don’t have to repeat it over and over.

            3. Why should we *like* Obama, MNG?

            4. Dude, I’ve seen nothing from John but Gingrich hate.

              How about waiting until after he flip-flops to bring out the bookmarks? (Since you’re so sure he will.)

              John|11.21.11 @ 9:51AM|#

              Total idiocy. But who cars? AGW is a dying cult. I don’t care how much the Titties believes in it, he is never going to get anything through Congress as President. So it is really a meh.

              A subtle move from hate to indifference? We will need more evidence of the shift over time to be sure.

              (~_^)

              1. Read the next post NM. I say there are lots of reasons to dislike Gingrich, I just don’t think this is one of them.

                I said it was idiocy. I just don’t think it is particularly dangerous idiocy.

                You are as bad as MNG NM. Or getting just as dishonest. My post saying there were still lots of reasons to dislike Gingrich was right below the one you quote. You couldn’t have missed it.

                Can you be a more dishonest fuck? What happened to you?

                1. John,

                  This was mainly a dig at MNG.
                  When did you get such a thin skin?
                  Oh, wait, you’ve always had one.

                  As for the substance of your defense…you next point has the same gist. I don’t see how including it or not changes the “move from hate to indifference” charge.

        3. “Poor John, his partisan nature so wants to start urging support for Anybody But Obama but he knows he’s on record in his typically hyperbolic way to never support his party’s current frontrunners.”

          Jesus what a pathetic piece of shit.

    3. You can put me on that list also, MNG.

      1. Same here.

        Currently, I’m conflicted over which will do greater damage: 4 more years of Obama appointing judges, or 4 years of single-party big government Republican rule.

        Because I don’t see any differences between Obama, Romney, and Gingrich on much of anything else.

        1. Me neither. Obama isn’t even a social liberal.

      2. There are really only two Republicans I would vote for, and neither is gonna be allowed anywhere near the GOP nomination.
        I think this thing is gonna get very interesting. Even Cokie Roberts (shudder) agrees with me now about the probability of a Ron Paul third-party run.

        1. I don’t think he will run as an independent. If you think the 85% of GOPers that hate him now hate him, boy wait until he does that. It’ll be all about how he hates Israel and he wants to make your kid smoke pot and he would leave this nation helpless at the mercy of the Islam-fascists 24/7 on Rush, Hannity, etc.

          1. And you think he would care, why?

            1. Because it would tarnish Rand and he does have a chance of having much greater influence than Ron does.

              1. I love dynatic politicians.

        2. Well, that move would fit with the theme of the Tea Party candidate being an alternative to the mainstream Republican (most likely Romney). I can’t wait to see the gnashing of teeth.

          1. True. The Tea Party has long sold itself as a force for principle that is willing to hold the line even if it harms the Republican Party’s electoral chances. It’s opponents say it is a tool of the GOP. If they fielded a third party candidate we would certainly have to say the opponents claim is wrong.

            1. After all the Tea Party Republican primary challengers in the last congressional election, hasn’t that already been proven?

              1. I don’t think you prove your independence of a party by participating in their primaries. You might argue you prove your independence from some nebulous “establishment” of the party, but not the party.

                1. Whether anyone likes it or not, the two parties have a lock on our electoral system. If you want to have any real influence you have to take over or attempt to take over one of them. It worked for the socialists with the dems in the 60s-70s and the SoCons with the Reps in the 80s-90s.

                  Being above it all with ideological purity makes some people feel superior but doesn’t accomplish shit.

                  1. Maxx advocates GOP kowtowing.

                    In other surprises, sky is blue.

                    1. Taking over and changing GOP policies from within can only be a good thing, and is definitely not kowtowing. MNG, wouldn’t you rather have a more libertarian GOP?

                    2. I would. Wholeheartedly. I give John grief but if he’s sincere in his anti-WOD stance and got more of his fellow GOPers on board on just that issue then a major, major blow for liberty would be won.

                      But I’ve yet to see the Tea Party push for much social liberty to be honest. Having said that when they published their ten list the other day with the OWS ten list I actually supported more of the former than the latter. Overall I like the Tea Party, it’s a good thing imo. But yes, I think that supporting an independent is how you show your independence of a party…

                    3. So long as campaign finance rules are heavily rigged in favor of incumbents (what a surprise!!), 3rd parties can’t even get their foot in the door.

                      That’s not even to mention the ridiculous qualifications that need be met just to get on the ballot in many states.

                      The game is rigged in favor of the duopoly system. Any attempt at acting outside of it is futile.

                      I would wholeheartedly agree that a 3rd party is eXACTLY what is needed, but until the game changes, it’s a long shot that has virtually no chance of happening. And this isn’t by mistake or happenstance.

                    4. Yeah to MNG Kowtowing means defeating establishment candidates in primaries and mindlessly voting for those candidates is principled opposition.

  29. http://www.examiner.com/gun-ri…..-ownership

    No wonder these mayors are against gun ownership

    … “Founded in 2006 with 15 mayors at its core, including former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, Mayors Against Illegal Guns has become a powerful voice in the gun prohibition movement, while hardly uttering a squeak about some of its own members who have run afoul of the law.”

    “It might be argued that Nickels violated state law when he unsuccessfully imposed a ban on legally-carried firearms in Seattle city park facilities, after being advised by State Attorney General Rob McKenna that the ban was illegal. It took a court challenge led by the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation and [CCRKBA], and the [NRA], to make it official …”

    “But what Nickels did is insignificant compared to other members of the organization, …” …

    ———

    City councils really suck all over the country — maybe we should install supercomputers to govern in their stead?

    1. maybe we should install supercomputers to govern in their stead

      It would almost HAVE to be an improvement. Plus, think of all the jobs maintaining our new overlords.

    2. Less corruptible, at least.

  30. Speaking of guns, there is an article up on Business Week (now under the thumb of Bloomberg) about Gunwalker. I could only tolerate the first couple of pages.

    The REAL problem, in case you weren’t aware, is our pathetically lax gun laws; not the fact that the ATF specifically instructed multiple federally licensed firearms dealers to ignore the laws which are on the books.

    1. That was the purpose all along.

    2. Did you send Business Week an instruction manual on how to insert balls into one’s mouth? That’s about all those hacks are good for.

      1. Agreed, they combine watered down “business” reporting (usually just wasting column inches on some ridiculous new “app” company that won’t last 6 months) with politics that match that of their namesake. In other words, corporatist authoritarian technocracy FTW!

  31. http://blogs.wvgazette.com/joh…..tain-lion/

    NE: Self-defense: Teen hunter kills mountain lion

    “The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission says a 15-year-old deer hunter shot and killed a mountain lion that was only 10 feet from him.”

    “The boy, of Wayne, shot the cougar Saturday near Creighton in northeast Nebraska. Officials say he was hunting a shelterbelt in Knox County and spotted the mountain lion 10 feet away before shooting it.” …

    —-

    15-year-olds WITH GUNS? HUNTING? ANEURYSM!

    1. And balls of steel. Rifle in hand or not, if I saw a giant wild kitty close enough to cuddle with, I’d just shit myself and pass out and hope I smelled too spoiled to eat.

      1. he’ll change his mind about shooting cougars once he gets to college

  32. City councils really suck all over the country — maybe we should install supercomputers to govern in their stead?

    A headless chicken would probably be a sufficiently beneficial improvement.

  33. http://www.laht.com/article.as…..ryId=14091

    Mexico Asks U.S. to Extradite Alleged Gunrunners

    “”Mexico’s government has requested the extradition of six U.S. citizens for weapons trafficking, including three people linked to a botched federal gun-tracking operation, Attorney General Marisela Morales said.”

    “‘We’re going to get to the bottom of this and we’re going to punish … whomever is responsible for these (crimes),’ Morales told the lower house of Mexico’s Congress in reference to the ‘Fast and Furious’ program …”

    “She said two extradition proceedings are underway against U.S. citizens suspected of smuggling weapons to Mexico.”

    “One of the requests involves three people believed to have acquired ‘a large number of weapons’ under the Fast and Furious program …” …”

    1. The havent asked for Holder to be extradited yet?

    2. Is Eric Holder on the list?

      1. I wish.

    3. If only they’d asked for Holder.

  34. http://dailycaller.com/2011/11…..mediately/

    51 congressmen to Eric Holder: You must resign immediately

    “The surge in congressional calls for Attorney General Eric Holder’s immediate resignation has reached a new milestone: More than 50 members of Congress are now demanding Holder step down in the wake of Operation Fast and Furious.”

    “The number of congressmen calling for Holder’s immediate resignation is now 51. New additions to that list include Republican Reps. Todd Akin and Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri, Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, Steven Palazzo of Mississippi and Jeff Duncan of South Carolina.”

    “Rep. Westmoreland said Operation Fast and Furious was a disgrace to the American people and that Holder needs to resign immediately.” …

    He’ll resign the day pigs fly.

  35. http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dp…..ng-student

    TX: Dash-Cam Video Shows Sam Houston State Police Beating Student (video available)

    “Aman Abdulaziz had a goal at Sam Houston State University. The 19-year-old was majoring in history and planned to be a lawyer.”

    “But all of that changed when he had an encounter with SHSU Campus Police. …” …

    “Police accused him of having marijuana in his pocket.”

    “This was all caught on a police dashboard camera.”

    “‘The largest police officer who assaulted me the most,’ he said. ‘He came up to me and started kicking me in the face with his shoes.'”

    “After the dust settled, you hear an officer brag about physically assaulting the college freshman.” …

    “Abdulaziz says he’s angry because after this run-in, ‘he’ was charged with assaulting an officer.” …

    ———-

    To protect and serve!

    1. Fecking “new professionalism” my ass.

      Real new professionals know how to scrub their dash-cams after recreational activity.

      1. REAL professionals make sure the victim yells for his parents before the lights are put out, and REAL professionals sure as shit don’t let the victim of their recreational activity leave the encounter with any chance of ever regaining consciousness! These cops are amateurs!

    2. WTF?? Something’s missing here.

    3. The 19-year-old is expected back in court in January to face the rest of his charges.

      he’s since been asked to leave Sam Houston State.

      I was expecting to hear that he was awarded a settlement that will pay his way through law school (somewhere else of course), not this. Jeez.

    4. “””Abdulaziz says he’s angry because after this run-in, ‘he’ was charged with assaulting an officer.” …””

      Your honor, the kid wouldn’t stop putting his face in my shoe.

      1. I hate it when they just won’t stop resisting like that. Sometimes a good face-kicking is what it takes to get them to respect authoritai.

    5. Look at the bright side: at least he says he hates cops now.

  36. Don’t know about the kinds of contracts he has, but in my world, government contracts, grant applications, etc. generally contain an attestation which essentially means that whoever signs them does so under oath, and is subject to civil and criminal penalties for this kind of thing.

  37. Is Riggs gonna fix the Frum link? You just can’t get good help these days.

    1. Do you really want him to…REALLY???

  38. Don’t know about the kinds of contracts he has, but in my world, government contracts, grant applications, etc. generally contain an attestation which essentially means that whoever signs them does so under oath, and is subject to civil and criminal penalties for this kind of thing.

    Like Timmay?

  39. http://www.thepeterboroughexam…..?e=3374032

    Canada: Officer charged with assault after 16-year-old pepper sprayed

    “A city police officer faces a weapon and assault charge for allegedly pepper spraying a 16-year-old girl while investigating a domestic incident in early October.”

    “The officer responded to the dispute Oct. 7 in Lakefield when the girl was assaulted and sprayed, police said.”

    “As a result of an internal investigation into the incident, police arrested Const. Ivan Gordie Taylor, a 37-year-old, eight-year veteran of the force, Thursday and charged him with assault and assault with a weapon.” …

    1. He must have really pissed off the wrong people not to have received the standard punishment of two free weeks of paid vacation.

  40. http://wydaily.com/local-news/…..arges.html

    VA: Poquoson Officer Faces [Child] Rape Charges

    “Virginia State Police arrested a Poquoson police officer Thursday for the rape and sexual assault of a minor after they were contacted by Social Services last month to conduct an investigation.”

    “It was reported to the Department of Social Service Oct. 4 that 29-year-old Steven McGee, who has been employed by the City of Poquoson for three years as a police officer, raped a female juvenile, according to a press release from the Virginia State Police. The victim described the details of her abuse when she was interviewed by a nurse …”

    “According to the press release, the victim was able to describe in detail several occasions when and where the rapes had occurred. …” …”

    Dunphy wanted fair — here’s fair

    1. That hardly means it’s true. Anyone can say anything.

    2. I live in the area. The dude looks like a real winner.

    3. um sounds fair to me. assuming there is sufficient evidence to charge… charge him and let the “finder of fact” sort it out.

  41. http://www.cbs8.com/story/1606…..-dui-stops

    CA: Ex-cop convicted of 12 counts in women’s DUI stops (video available)

    “A former San Diego police officer accused of trying to elicit sex from seven women he pulled over in the Gaslamp District was convicted of eight felony counts and four misdemeanors Thursday.”

    “Jurors found Anthony Arevalos, 41, guilty of multiple counts of asking for a bribe, and assault and battery by a police officer.”

    “However, Arevalos was acquitted of other serious charges, including sexual battery by restraint charges, and while he was found guilty of false imprisonment, those counts were reduced to misdemeanors.” …

    1. Reminds me of Craig Peyer (San Diego again). He was pulling over female motorists and harassing them. One objected and threatened to report him so he clubbed her and threw her off the overpass.

      Next day he does a TV interview on how women can protect themselves.

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

    2. coupla beautiful girls, on your way back from the Kit Kat club?

  42. Last week, a federal judge in Mississippi sentenced a mother of two named Anita McLemore to three years in federal prison for lying on a government application in order to obtain food stamps.

    The total “cost” of her fraud was $4,367. She has paid the money back. But paying the money back was not enough for federal Judge Henry Wingate.

    Compare this court decision to the fraud settlements on Wall Street. Like McLemore, fraud defendants like Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Deutsche Bank have “been the beneficiary of government generosity.” Goldman got $12.9 billion just through the AIG bailout. Citigroup got $45 billion, plus hundreds of billions in government guarantees.

    All of these companies have been repeatedly dragged into court for fraud, and not one individual defendant has ever been forced to give back anything like a significant portion of his ill-gotten gains. The closest we’ve come is in a fraud case involving Citi, in which a pair of executives, Gary Crittenden and Arthur Tildesley, were fined the token amounts of $100,000 and $80,000, respectively, for lying to shareholders about the extent of Citi’s debt.

    Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/po…..z1eLz2Ms4Q

    1. Are you similarly upset about people who face criminal and civil penalties for 5-figure tax evasions?

      1. You don’t think its wrong for a thief of a few thousand dollars to get a stiffer sentence than a thief of millions?

        Boy your rightward tilt has become a careen.

        1. Disingenuous dunce is disingenuous.

          1. Again, you don’t find anything wrong with a system that sentences a thief of thousands to more than a thief of millions?

            Nice.

            1. Yes, with certain qualifications.

              In a great many cases, “fraud” by major banks involves somebody dreaming up an accounting trick no one ever used before, and it takes their regulator X years to decide they don’t like it. And/or there will be marketing practices and/or lead generation practices and/or compensation practices that have been around for decades, and a regulator will suddenly get a bug up their ass and decide they don’t like the practice and POOF! Decades of standard business practice become TEH FRAUD.

              So I take claims about these large-scale frauds with a grain of salt.

              But you don’t see me coming on here looking for mercy for Madoff, do you?

              The only reason I took a dig at you is because the criminal and civil court dockets of the tax courts are FULL of cases that began with 5-figure “frauds” by tax evaders and avoiders, and I’ve never seen you bat an eyelash at that. Aren’t those small time frauds just as pitiable as this food stamp fraud lady?

  43. This is like the worst chat room ever.

    1. may some skygod smite her fm this 5000yr old flat-earth

    2. I dunno…John & MNG are getting the hookup, so at least somebody’s getting some play.

  44. In the mid-sixties, when the party split spectacularly between Ripon Republicans, who embraced the civil-rights movement, and Goldwater Republicans, who opposed it, civil-rights Republicans like Michigan governor George Romney spoke forcefully for their point of view. Today, Republicans discomfited by political and media extremism bite their tongues. But if they don’t speak up, they’ll be whipsawed into a choice between an Obama administration that wants to build a permanently bigger government and a conservative movement content with permanently outraged opposition.

    Frum is such a douche.

    His little history of the GOP leaves out the 40 year gap between Goldwater and now, where “moderate” Republicans bridged the gap Frum describes above with the simple expedient of lying.

    They just lied. They claimed to be small government “radicals” but weren’t.

    Now they can’t lie any more. Because everyone knows, now, and everyone is standing by to stand up and Mitt them as soon as they try.

    The GOP figures “discomfited by extremism” have to hold their tongues, because if they don’t it will just expose their lies and hypocrisy even more.

    I would welcome honesty from “moderate” Republicans because after ten minutes of such honesty we could safely discard all those who outed themselves as career bullshit artists.

  45. Sorry, gents (and ladies), I’ve got nothing for you today. I’m on vacation – writing a crappy novel and spinning records. Have fun without me.

    Music so far:
    Neil Young – Everybody Knows This is Nowhere
    Detachments – s/t
    The Chameleons – Script of the Bridge
    Japan – Gentlemen take Polaroids

    1. I’m about to have another cup of coffee.
      Maybe fry an egg.
      Have to pay some bills later too.

    2. balck eye pees > niel young

      1. brainles pile of santorum > teh rael o3

        1. besides which he’s just plain wrong. Young’s cover of “Dick Ridin’ Obama” was breathtaking.

  46. As the nation gears up for the 2012 presidential election, Republican officials have launched an unprecedented, centrally coordinated campaign to suppress the elements of the Democratic vote that elected Barack Obama in 2008.

    Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/po…..z1eM4YpYvH

    1. Thank God for Republican “officials”, in that case.

      1. Sure, that whole “consent of the governed” stuff was so silly anyway.

        1. 1) I’m not a fan of democracy.

          2) Sarcasm, how the fuck does it work?

          When’s the last time you saw me praising the Republican Party on anything? No? Didn’t think so, because it doesn’t happen.

    2. OMG! Requiring people to demonstrate that they are actually registered to vote before letting them vote!

      Its like dogs, and firehouses, and shit, right outside the voting booth!

      Run for the hills!

      1. This is my favorite quote from MNG’s “smoking gun”:

        To hear Republicans tell it, they are waging a virtuous campaign to crack down on rampant voter fraud ? a curious position for a party that managed to seize control of the White House in 2000 despite having lost the popular vote.

        Wow – there is so much fail in that one sentence that it would be funny if it were not so very, very sad.

    3. I saw it said “Koch Brothers” and was from Rolling Stone and I stopped reading.

      Are these the kinds of rigorous standards academics like MNG live by?

      1. Wait, I thought you were against source-elitism?

        1. YOU MOVE ME!!!

    4. an unprecedented, centrally coordinated campaign to suppress the elements of the Democratic vote that elected Barack Obama in 2008.

      I wonder what makes them think that these sort of efforts are “unprecedented.” Concerns over voter fraud go all the way back to the “goo-goo” days of the Progressive Era, and the “dead voting Democrat” has become such conventional wisdom that even Dems joke about it.

      1. Yeah, yawn – not much to see here. The ex-felon thing is bullshit though (but I fail to see the Team Red/Team Blue connection).

  47. With Black Friday nearly upon us, what do you get the Libertarian who already has everything (due to exploitation of the poor)?

    A libertar-owl, that’s what!

    1. tar-owl sounds pretty racist.

      1. liber – anything is racist by definition.

  48. They claimed to be small government “radicals” but weren’t.

    Language is a fluid, ever-changing thing. Don’t get all hung up on rigid definitional meanings of words.

    Take “Fairness” for example. When John Kerry uses that word, it doesn’t mean anything close to what it means when I use it. But he is a Senator, so it means whatever he thinks it means.

    1. And his definition invalidates yours, because you’re a peasant, and he’s an anointed one. Got that?

  49. Those guys make a whole lot of sense dude.

    http://www.true-anon.au.tc

  50. Ok, enough football, guns and other crap. Have any of you nerds read the new Vernor Vinge novel?

    1. Yep. Very disappointing.

      1. Agreed. Really, really, really wanted to like it. It reads like the 2nd book in a longer series. That’s the best I can say for it.

      2. Damn. I’ve been hearing lots of that. Loved the 1st one. How is the 2nd one?

        1. Are you asking about Deepness in the Sky? It was pretty good. Isn’t Vinge writing a direct sequel to DitS as well?

  51. DJIA in the red for the year. Not good.

    1. i really hate stock market analysis like this (i’m a trader, as well as an investor)

      up or down either way it offers great opportunities.

  52. people should be free to move around without having to get permission on a state by state basis.

    That train has left the barn and sailed for parts unknown.

    1. Well, !0th arguments aside, this bill would help remedy that.

  53. Apparently the Meddler-in-Chief is about to sign into law another special interest tax break. Because he’s going to fix this economy, dammit!

    Yay.

  54. Got that?

    Yassah!

  55. This is unsurprising.

    Update 2: I wonder if the Morning Joe crew objected when the Zuccotti park folks denied a permit to the anti-ground zero mosque crowd (via lonely conservative)?

    Did you know that not so long ago opponents of the Ground Zero mosque were denied a permit for a protest there? [Emphasis added]

    The owner, Brookfield Properties, expressly prohibits tents, tarps and sleeping in the park?rules ignored by the protesters. It also has a history of denying use of the park for political activities, which is within its rights. Last year the city and Brookfield Properties denied a request by a group to use the park to protest against the planned new mosque near the World Trade Center. A content-neutral approach, the cornerstone of First Amendment jurisprudence, should also have kept Occupy Wall Street out. [Read More]

    Since when is the taking over of a public space an exercise of one’s First Amendment rights? And if the Occupiers could do it, why not the anti-Mosque people?

    I suspect if they anti-Mosque crew “occupied” the park way back when the Mika Brzezinski would not have been so supportive and the Mayor of NY would not have needed two months to eject them.

    http://datechguyblog.com/2011/…..i-and-hte/

    1. “Mika Brzezinski”

      Evil made flesh.

  56. Since there are so many dudes here, I thought I might be able to get some dude insight/advice.

    So, I have this “friend”. She’s been dating this guy for a good number of months (somewhat shy of a year), and he’s been a breath of fresh air after her last relationship. He’s cool and dorky, yet burly and bald, and they get along and have lots in common. His working hours are not 9-5 – they vary wildly from one day to the next, and often are overnight, so coordinating time together has been a challenge.

    So late last week he says Sunday is his day off (implying that there would be some hanging out time). It’s 4:30 pm and my “friend” gets a text from this dude that he’s just woken up and he’ll call “soon”.

    My “friend” is a little bit pissed off, but this guy isn’t a sports fan, and Sunday is football day, so watching the late game uninterrupted is alright.

    But ’round about 9:00pm and still no phone call, my “friend” shuts off her phone in an effort to not be tempted to answer any possible incoming calls from this guy.

    When she wakes up this morning, there’s a voice mail with all kinds of bullshit about a lost phone and not realizing how late it was and how he feels like such a dick, etc. And hey! How about hanging out Tuesday night before he heads out of town for Thxgiving? And how it’s just too bad my “friend” has to work Friday, otherwise he totally would have extended an invitation to join him for the holiday! Yay!

    Anyways, WTF is going on here? My “friend” is a very direct, no-nonsense gal, but something needs to be done here other than just saying “not cool, asshole” (I think he knows it’s not cool).

    “She”‘s reluctant to do a full-on dumping, but shit, man.

    Is there a way to nip this behavior in the bud? Or is a full-on dumping really the only option? Cause to be honest, the sex is pretty damn good, and the prospects for further sex once a dumping is accomplished are remote, at least foe the foreseeable future. And while single life has its perks, having a date for the office Xmas party is nice, too.

    1. Dump him and make him come crawling back. All of his excuses are bullshit. If a guy actually likes a woman and views her as something besides and occasional piece of ass, he will find a way to be there. Trust me. But if he just looks at her as a piece of ass and doesn’t enjoy being around her, he will take the first better offer that comes along and then try to lie his way out of it with the girl so as to hedge his bets on future sex.

      If she doesn’t dump him, he will have no respect for her and keep doing this. He is just not that into her or he wouldn’t have done it in the first place.

      1. John is right, he sees her as a fuck buddy, not as a serious long term relationship.

      2. ^^this sounds about right. my phone is pretty unreliable about being un-lost or charged, but I’ve got a computer equiped with 3 (or more) other methods of communication, most/all of which can interface with the typical phone, so yeah….

        “I lost my phone!”

        “Was your internet down? Skype broken? Laptop fell in the tub?”

      3. Ahh, come on; I bet your friend is really you.

      4. I agree with john. Wait for him to fall asleep and then take a dump on him.

    2. He didn’t say he’d hang out with you, I mean your friend, it was just implied, right? Most likely he just wanted some alone time on his day off.

      1. Then why didn’t he just say that? Why the bullshit excuses? He got a better offer.

        1. Then why didn’t he just say that?

          Because he’s flaky? Because it’s hard to say “I don’t want to hang out with you” to someone? Also, it’s possible that he could be pulling away from an emotional commitment to this woman without having found another one.

    3. My “friend” is a very direct, no-nonsense gal, but something needs to be done here other than just saying “not cool, asshole” (I think he knows it’s not cool).

      Simple. If your “friend” is as direct as you say she is, ask him directly the next time you’re together, but not over the phone. She wants the full body language with this explanation.

      The dude was doing something he didn’t want your friend to know about. It may be something as simple as something he knows she doesn’t like, because some woman are so high maintenance that lying about little things is easier than dealing with the bullshit that comes along with that sort of situation, or it could have been a last-minute hookup. Who knows?

      Trust, in relationships, is a royal bitch and have your friend keep in mind that it’s a 2-way street.

      1. See, my “friend” already directly told him that after dealing with an unreliable drunk for X number of years, that kind of behavior (i.e. standing up) isn’t gonna fly. She told him she understands that plans change, but if they change, she would like to be informed of said change in order to make alternative plans.

        Now she thinks it might be time to put teeth in that statement. What the hell good is it to say “Dude, don’t fucking stand me up” when there’s no consdequence?

        1. I will admit that his excuse sounds like bullshit and yeah, it’s a piss-poor way of handling of what he should know is a delicate situation. Were he and your friend planning to go away for Thanksgiving or was that out of the blue? (If that was out of the blue, um, DUDE. Stupid^3.) Still, I would reserve judgement until she gets a real explanation from him.

          Is standing her up once a reason to dump him? That seems overly harsh, but everyone has their issues and triggers and yes, he’s lying about *something,* based on what you’ve told us. Let’s hope it’s because he’s planning a totally awesome surprise for your ***cough*** friend.

        2. I’m also one of those people who, if they make plans with somebody, actually expects those plans to come to fruition. Amazingly, at least half the population does not have the same expectations.

    4. sheesh, lighten up. If you think he lied to you, then directly say that. But what if he really did lose his phone?

      Even if not, the express route to losing him permanently is to come off as totally possessive.

      Forgive me, but my misogyny has jumped up about 10 notches since I got married.

      1. It’s 4:30 pm and my “friend” gets a text from this dude that he’s just woken up and he’ll call “soon”.

        If you text someone, you have your phone in your hand. You don’t lose it “soon”, unless you drop it overboard while fishing.

        Its not the excuse, so much, as the total lameness of the excuse, that offends.

    5. He’s married.

      1. No, definitely not, in tha my “friend” has been to his house and his bed many times.

        1. Never heard of a few dudes sharing a place that looks lived in, like someone’s house, but is nothing but a fuck pad? Happens all the time.

      2. This was my thought exactly.

    6. Is there a way to nip this behavior in the bud?

      No. There is not a way to “nip this behavior in the bud”. The guy isn’t serious and doesn’t care all that much – if he did he wouldn’t behave that way.

      Also, why is that women think they can, indeed almost have a right to, change the behavior of men? Nip in the bud? Are you fucking serious? Like the behavior in question is an oddly growing branch from an otherwise perfectly acceptable form of plantlife? Maybe, just maybe, your friend, and women in general, should see these patterns of behavoir as little glimpses into the true personality and character of the man in question, and either accept them for what they are and live with it, or decide you can’t and move on. Would save a lot of trouble later on.

      1. Dude, reading comprehension fail. I don’t want to change him, I want him to treat me like he’d treat any of his friends/loved ones – with just an ounce of fucking respect for my time.

        1. Sorry, you’re the one suffering from reading comprehension fail.

    7. What the other guys said. He likes to bang you…your friend, but he’s not interested in being serious. And if you’re cool with that, have fun with him while it lasts, but don’t expect the relationship to become something it’s not.

      Or he’s just an unreliable flake. Ask him directly and see how he reacts.

      1. She’s cool with not having a “real” relationship (i.e. one that leads to marriage or commuittment or whatever), but the pattern established in the last several months is that there’s been a lot more than just sexy times. There’s been movie dates, dinner dates, she’s met a bunch of his friends, he’s met some of hers, yadda yadda.

        She’s totally cool with pure sex, and has had such relationships in the past, but this one is pretty clearly not a fuck buddy situation.

        1. Then there’s no excuse for blowing you off. Either dump him or make it very clear that you will dump him if he does something like this again. You don’t want to get in the trap of allowing him to treat you like garbage.

      2. “What the other guys said. He likes to bang you…your friend, but he’s not interested in being serious.”

        You should be an advice columnist. A no nonsense advice colunist.

        Dear Warty…

    8. I see three overlapping possibilities:

        1. he is sadistic.
        2. he is cheating.
        3. he got preoccupied.

      If she is honest with herself, your friend will know which, or which combination, is most likely.

      Consider his sending her the text, in the case that cheating was foreknown: that would be both cheating and sadistic. Does this match with his character? If it was not foreknown, though, then there is a bit of luck involved: some chick called him for a hookup after he’d already texted your friend. In this case, which has lower likelihood due to the time frames involved, he is cheating, but is more possibly just opportunistic than cruel.

      Outside of these, and given your description of his job, it may be more that he is just a very independent type of person. Unless there is a history of dishonesty with him, it is not unlikely that he is being honest now, and that possibility #3 is actually the case: he fell asleep, got engrossed in some video game or project, or went out for some beers and lost track of time. If so, your friend needs to deal with the question of whether she’s okay with being somewhat less of a priority for him than she might prefer.

      She needs to be honest with herself about her expectations, and then be honest with him, and find out what he is after.

      1. 3. he got preoccupied.

        The incident in question wasn’t the same weekend that Skyrim was released was it? If so, you were warned.

      2. With the erratic ‘work schedule’ and the like, I bet the guy is a superhero, or possibly a super villain. Either way, cut him some slack.

        On a less serious note, ask yourself, what kind of person he is; is he naturally sociable, if not, I doubt if it was a two timing kind of thing (yes, extroverts are two timing, introverts have other things going on). Is he creative? A lot of people of this type do not like to talk about their preoccupations, and will come up with painfully stretched excuses to avoid talking about their preoccupations. They want you to think of them as being a regular joe who loves normal things for instance, the company of others when they would rather be making their mashed potato mountain sculptures.

        Don’t assume any generic advice we have is applicable to your situation; ask yourself what this guy is about and then you go from there.

    9. Is this the first time he’s begun acting like this? If so, I think it’s a bit hasty to just dump him. Not following through isn’t acceptable, and he needs to be told that, even if it’s patently obvious. But if this isn’t a pattern, then just dropping the relationship and moving on seems like a really impetuous thing.

      But if it happens another two or three more times, then he’s clearly taking the girl for granted and then a choice needs to be made–spend a little more time trying to get him to see that he doesn’t appear to be fully committed, or just say, “Hey, we’re clearly growing apart,” and move on.

      Also, trust me when I say that no matter how good the sex is, it won’t make up for an overall lousy relationship. Chemistry will only take you so far.

    10. Cause to be honest, the sex is pretty damn good

      Stop expecting him to treat you well if all he has to do to get sex is by being good at it.

    11. Just cut him off for a couple of weeks. If the relationship means more than sex to him, maybe he will learn a valuable lesson. If not, well, no fucking loss.

      1. Also, if he was playing Skyrim all day, cut the man a fucking break. He’ll get over it in a week or two.

      2. *pfft* It might take longer than that. I’d give him until after the holidays.

    12. Do you live in Western Wisconsin and does your first name being with an “A”?

      I ask because this exact situation happened with me. I’ve been dating/sexy-timing a woman for the past few months. Friday I wasn’t feeling too good, it got worse Saturday, and Sunday I was basically bed-ridden. I sent a text Sunday afternoon explaining I was sick, felt like crap, and wasn’t going to be good company and asking if we could reschedule.

      This sounds a lot like poor communication between you(r friend) and the guy. The actual reason he stood you up could be anything from he really was just flakey and misplaced his phone, to he was busy with the xBox (MW3 and Skyrim were both released less than 2 weeks ago), to he was busy getting a piece from someone else.

  57. She’s been dating this guy for a good number of months (somewhat shy of a year), and he’s been a breath of fresh air after her last relationship.

    This is not part of an established pattern of behavior, right?

    Enhanced wariness.

    Double secret probation.

    1. ah got big money
      ah drive big caws
      err-bawdy know me
      its like ah’m a moovee star

    2. Yeah, he’s been pretty reliable up til now, given his job and hours. And I have given him a lot more latitude than I would give some office drone who had a regular schedule.

      1. Err…SHE. SHE’S given him a lot more latitude.

        1. ^^^I totally knew what you meant.

          I would say this, you, your friend, needs to determine your level of comfort with his level of respect. If they don’t match then your friend needs to say so to his face, politely, and put that decision on him. Dates to lame office parties are no reason for your friend to continue with something that she is uncomfortabl with. It could be nothing (not likely) but make the decision his. And seriously, if your friend is a libertarian chick then she has a plethora of short, balding, nerrdy guys she can explore. Seriously, i never understood why women think it is hard to get a date. Even fat chicks hold all the cards (exceptions include guys who look like Clooney or are rich).

      2. Only hold people to the standards you hold yourself. What if you were in his situation? Would you have handled it differently? If so, then expect the same of him.

        The bottom line is that if the guy wanted his alone time, then fine call up and say “hey I know we were supposed to go out today but I am totally beat and just want to hang out at my house on my one day off”. That is completely acceptable. Sending a text that I will call you and then never calling and giving a bunch of bullshit excuses is not.

        It is the excuses that make this objectionable. If he really had been tired and just didn’t want to do anything, why not just say that? Why all of the drama unless it is because he got a better offer and has something to hide?

        1. ^^^ The Banidt, I mean the Bandit’s friend, agrees.

      3. Honestly, I think he’s managing your expectations.

        When I was single I knew guys who would deliberately act this way to keep a girl at arm’s length.

        They’re usually serial cheaters. They want to be sure you understand that they aren’t accountable to you for their time, or for communication. That way if they need blocks of time in the future for Girl #2 they will always have them available.

        I am willing to bet his schedule isn’t as “oh gosh it’s so crazy” as he tells you, either. He just wants to always have the “Sorry, gotta work overnight tonight, babe,” excuse in his back pocket for when he needs it.

        Sorry to only see the bad side here, but all of my friends in college and after were huge dicks to women and I got to see how it was done at close hand.

        1. I wouldn’t have thought to come here for solid relationship advice, but once again H&R surprises.

          1. It’s like Ann Landers, but in addition to relationship advice you get advice on beer, dope and guns (in reverse order of importance).

            1. And other things too.

            2. But the chili advice is worthless.

              1. Start with New Mexico chile.
                Avoid cumin overdose.
                From there you’re on your own.

                1. Okay, it’s mostly worthless.

          2. Here’s my take…

          3. Tomorrow you guys get to do me. I mean, my friend. I will have to make sure to sign on early enough.

        2. Or he is just independent and does not like someone having huge claims on his time.

          Your “friend” says she’s “real cool”, but women wildly overestimate how “cool” they really are.

          1. And it’s that kind of attitude that explains why libertarian boards are such extravagant sausage fests.

          2. That’s just another way of saying the same thing.

          3. As soon as a woman says “Oh, I just want you to act around me like you act around you other friends!” I know she’s lying. It’s not like I’m some horrible mysognist in hiding. It’s that my friends don’t mind just sitting on the couch drinking a beer and watching football.

            Oh my fucking God we don’t need to be talking the entire time! I’m not thinking about anything “deeper” than “Man, I sure hope the Texans’ secondary can hold.” That really is all that I’m thinking about! I’m not ignoring you! I’m watching the TV!

            1. I’m not ignoring you! I’m watching the TV!

              You realize that is the same thing, right?

              1. No, but your vagina thinks it is, NM.

                1. Nah.
                  Man up and say –

                  “I’m ignoring you BECAUSE I am watching TV.”

  58. Absolute biggest whopper of a lie I’ve seen so far today

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ory_1.html

    This joint select committee was set up to succeed,” McConnell said to reporters Nov. 1. On Nov. 14, Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, reiterated that “failure is absolutely not an option.” He said “the American people expect us to get to work and do our job.”

    Why start now?

  59. I got to see how it was done at close hand

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.