Reason Morning Links: Republicans Who Opposed Net Neutrality Support Net-Killing Piracy Bill, Newt Gingrich Leads Romney Among Conservatives, Feds Take Asset Forfeiture to New Level


 New at "Judge Napolitano: Why Taxation is Theft, Abortion is Murder, & Gov't is Dangerous"

NEXT: Passing the Purse

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

  1. Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague
    …The Washington Post said the BEST study had ‘settled the climate change debate’ and showed that anyone who remained a sceptic was committing a ‘cynical fraud’.

    But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.

    Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

    Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers….

    …In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties ? a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

    ‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’…

    …However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was ? a statement which left other scientists mystified….

    1. …She said it was unfortunate that although the Journal of Geophysical Research had allowed Prof Muller to issue the papers, the reviewers were, under the journal’s policy, forbidden from public comment.

      Prof McKittrick added: ‘The fact is that many of the people who are in a position to provide informed criticism of this work are currently bound by confidentiality agreements.

      ‘For the Berkeley team to have chosen this particular moment to launch a major international publicity blitz is a highly unethical sabotage of the peer review process.’…

      1. This is what you get when you politicize science.

      2. You are 3 weeks late with this link!

        1. globe warning is a scintific FACKT just bicktrads fomianing

          1. P:zfjihy m.liiw3hvt!!!

            1. derp

              1. stOOOpid’s hovercraft is full of eels.

    2. just a becktard meme to foam the wingnutz

      1. MIAMI (AP) ? Forecasters say Hurricane Kenneth has strengthened even more into a Category 4 storm in the eastern Pacific, although there is no current threat to land.
        >It is the strongest late-season hurricane in that area on record.…..51331834/1


        not just weather, but RECORD weather.

        1. but but record weather is a notable part of climate.

        2. cuz records never happened bfore teh glowball warmening made records for the fist time evar derp

          1. ol d mox spoffo

          2. this RECORD-late season hurricane never happened before. duh

            1. and teh previous record nevar happend befor either derp thats why there called records herp

            2. Ever? So you have been tracking weather accurately for the last 4.5 billion years and not just the last couple decades? Please share that technology with the rest of us instead of keeping it in your evil mole lair.

            3. Just how far do those records go back, dumbass?

              1. There has only been reliable hurricane tracking since the 1970s with the advent of weather satelites that could send real time data.

                Before that storms that blew themselves out at sea without making landfall could only be reported by ships at sea (many of which made the report in a mayday as they sank).

                Interestingly enough the seventies and eighties were also a low point historically in hurricane activity.

                There has not been a season nor an individual storm that was historically exceptional since that time in spite of what Al Gore thinks.

  2. gov perry seemed to have lost track of what he was saying several times last night. repeated memory lapses aint good

    1. He trying to bank on Reagan nostalgia in his own way.

    2. He must have got his Viagra confused with his Rohypnol.

  3. “I will march till my feet bleed to make this point,” Mike Gibb, 21, of Bel Air, Md., told several dozen reporters and well-wishers at the park. “You may ask why I went on this march. I ask you, ‘Why didn’t you?’?”

    Because I’m not a fucking idiot.

    1. And if you were, you’d still wear shoes. Unlike the other total fucking muppet in that story who did it all barefoot.

      1. He’s hoping Obama will reward him for his penance.

        It’s really sad that OWS is still chock full of believers in Hope and Change?. And I don’t mean sad in a way that makes me sympathize, but in a way that makes me pity them for being so incredibly stupid.

        1. oops – OWS’ers heckled obama in NH. do try to keep up

          1. Who will they vote for in 12?

            1. Well, if Nader runs again, they could vote for him… or maybe that insane little Jew and white hater Cynthia McKinney… or maybe the Communist Party USA will run a candidate…

              Occutards have more than one option, though probably not from Democrats, who likely won’t oppose Barry in the primary.

          2. I’m not sure why I’m even bothering, but . . .

            But if we have the cunning to come up with a deceptively simple Trojan Horse demand ? something profound, yet so specific and doable that it is impossible for President Obama to ignore ? something that spotlights Wall Street’s financial capture of the US political system and confronts it with a pragmatic solution ? like the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act ? or a 1% tax on financial transactions ? or an independent investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice into the corporate corruption of our representatives in Washington ? or another equally creative but downright practical demand that will emerge from the people’s assemblies held during the occupation ? and if we then put our asses on the line, screw up our courage and hang in there day after day, week after week, until a large swath of Americans start rooting for us and President Obama is forced to respond ? then we just might have a crack at creating a decisive moment of truth for America, a first concrete step towards achieving the radical changes we all dream about unencumbered by commitments to existing power structures.

            Do try and keep up. They’re begging Obama to do something. Their heckling of him is nothing more than the “shaming” practices they’ve tried to get dissenters in their ranks to comply with the will of the consensus. They’re trying to shame him in to acting, not for being an idiot.

              1. Even more disturbing the second time around, MLG. Thanks for the reminder.

          3. Serious question: have the OWS crowd identified even one crony-capitalist supporting Democrat that they have marked for challenge in the next primary? As we all know, the Tea Party – mocked as being an arm of the GOP – actually went out and took down some incumbents they perceived as being
            insufficiently frugal.

            1. No.

              Because their problem with crony capitalism has nothing to do with crony part.

              It’s the capitalism they don’t like.

    2. Why would we need to ask Mike Gibb that when this guy so cogently explains why:

      Annussek, 36, said while walking near the Bloomingdale neighborhood. “You have to keep fighting for things, and I feel personally this movement speaks to something.”

      1. A Patrick Henry for our time.

        1. Needs an “and, you know, like, stuff?” in there for good measure.

          1. The PH quote was originally “Give me Liberty, or, you know, like, Death!” before the copy editors got hold of it.

            1. That’s after the first round of editing. The original version was “Give me lolz, or, you know, whatever.”

            2. This could be a fun game.

              1. Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought something.

                1. When in the course of human events shit happens and one people have to unfriend another, and do their own shit and stuff, they should, like, have reasons so they don’t look totally lame.

                  1. In the councils of government, we need to, like, keep this like, military-industrial thingie, from, you know, having too much say. There’s too much like…potential…for bad stuff to um, happen.

                2. The dudes who’d, like, trade, like, uh, liberty, for, like, what’s that thing, oh yeah, security, you know, like with those one guys at the place, like deserve, wait, what was I saying? Oh, just fuck it.

                  1. Ask not what your country can do for you, OK? Don’t even ask!

                    1. Fail. Definitely not something an OWS protestor would say.

                    2. Just testing šŸ™‚

                    3. Ask not…this one’s already bindun.
                      (starts about 29 seconds in)

                3. Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought something.

                  The noise and/or the funk.

            3. “I will march till my feet bleed to make this point,” Mike Gibb, 21, of Bel Air, Md., told several dozen reporters and well-wishers at the park. “You may ask why I went on this march. I ask you, ‘Why didn’t you?’?”

              Answering a question with a question! Now that’s stirring rhetoric. Gibb is a modern-day Cicero!

              1. The Rael Genesis Chapter 1:
                1. In the beginning, God got the earth started and stuff.
                2. But it was like all, meh, so he looked at it like.
                3. And He said, hey, how about a little sun, please? and it like happened.
                4. And God did see it and say, “sweet.”
                5. And he made it night cause he was beat and stuff from making daytime.
                6. Then God was all like, it would be cool if this wasn’t all water,
                7. then he split it up with firmament and what-not.
                8. Firmament is heaven, duh. Anyway, God was beat, so he called it a day.
                9. So God got a cool idea to put some dirt on the earth since it was all watery-like.
                10. He decided to call the water “seas” since it sounded catchy and then looked back and said, “Sweet.”
                11. Then He said, “How about some grass and wheat and trees and shit. And you know what happened?
                12. Yup!
                13. And so the Lord took a rest cause it was getting late, even for Him.
                14. Then God said, “It’d be, like, really badass if I could see light in the sky when I’m chillin’ on earth,
                15. So, like someone throwing a switch, shit was all like lit up by little stars.
                16. Then God made a big yellow one for mega light and named it after his son, but misspelled it Sun for the irony.
                17. Then he made the moon, which he named after his own ass when he pulled his pants down to show it to earth.
                18. God thought this was LULZY,
                19. and took a nap.
                20. And He thought, lets do some hunting and fishing, maybe even with birds.
                21. So He made whales, which weren’t very tasty, and animals on the earth and some of the flying-kind too, just like he promised.
                22. Then he told them to fuck and have a ball, but didn’t word it that way since some animals have tiny wieners and sex is no treat.
                23. But God ran out of time to get the geometry right for the fish to fuck, but figured out another way and went to bed a bit early.
                24. Then God made domesticated animals because he had heard White Indian was gonna be a dick later on and he wanted a biblical record that He was a winner and White Indian was a loser.
                25. And He even had the cows gettin’ it on, even though it was gross to see, but He thought he owed it to them. And He said to himself, “Meh, that was cool.”
                26. Then He decided to create man, because he was tired of gamboling by himself, and He said man would rule this place because he’ll look a lot like me.
                27. So God made a dude that looked similar, but not so alike as to be creepy. Then he made a chick as well, since he had said something earlier about fucking.
                28. And God was giddy because this was his best yet. Then He explained the old in-out to them and told them to have fun with that. And he told them they were in charge.
                29. And He told them to take care of crops as well, because only a lazy dick would try to live off the land without developing it in some way.
                30. And then God repeated himself for no known reason, and man and woman just stool there thinking, “whatever.”
                31. And God was wiped out since he had worked His ass off that day and decided to wrap it up and then zoomed off back to home to catch a bit of shuteye.

                1. God ran out of time to get the geometry right for the fish to fuck

                  Can you imagine how different our physics would be if God had figured out a solution to that problem?

                2. Well done, sloopy

          2. “Give me some kind of stuff or like give me death or something.”

          3. “Give me some kind of stuff or like give me death or something.”

      2. They’re out there, fighting for things, and speaking to something, in some of America’s toughest neighhborhoods.

        1. And bleeding. Don’t forget bleeding. Self-inflicted, and utterly pointless and stupid, but it’s still bleeding.

          1. The commitment doesn’t really count till you’re (allegedly) pregnant and pepper-sprayed and have an (alleged) miscarriage.

            1. I’m (allegedly) dead!

    3. It is kind of a shame that they marched 230 miles in the rain and still can’t find a point.

      1. They do have a point, it’s just that they know they can’t let that point be known lest their entire movement be shunned with the quickness.

        1. My wife just reminded me of a college reunion party we were at in the 90’s where a drama grad was walking around with a necklace made out of his student loan papers. He was giving the same lament about never being able to pay back his loans, but good-naturedly. Now he is, among other more serious Hollywood pursuits, the caveman in the Geico commercials. I’m sure he has been more than able to pay off his school debts.

          What the helicopter-parented, trophy-for-attending millenials don’t seem to realize is they will most likely work their way up in the system over time because they have a degree, and once they hit 40 the loans will be either be paid off or a minor part of their budget. It might seem like a lot now, but will be solved by just taking time and following the same staircase that everyone else does. It is a microscopic number that are very successful in their twenties, and you don’t get a loan cancellation just because you aren’t one of them.

    4. In all seriousness, If you’re willing to walk from NYC to DC, why not just get up every morning at 8am and walk/ride the bus/drive to the nearest business and then apply for a job, if that doesn’t work, repeat until it does. Is bathing really that horrid?

      1. Because doing that would interfere with drugs. And raping.

      2. Is bathing really that horrid?

        Editor Lucy said that we shouldn’t be making “dirty hippie” jokes ’cause, like, this is a serious movement. I’m telling on you!

      3. Or walk down to the day labor place and go to work that day. Then, work hard. Somebody will ask you to show up again. Get with a crew of bricklayers, window installers, or whoever, and work hard and they’ll provide free OJT.

        1. Shit worked in Cinderella Man.

          1. But then you have to fight Max Baer.

            1. That’s not nearly as bad as having to fuck Renee Zellweger as she puts on a Joizey accent.

        2. “He said we get free orange juice.”

          “Are you sure? That doesn’t sound right.”

  4. Jennifer Fox, the allegedly pregnant Seattle Occupier who claimed to have miscarried after getting pepper-sprayed, may not have been pregnant and/or miscarried.

    Rent-seeking redistributionists… lying?!?

    Oh. Help. Stop. My heart.

    1. Sounds like a hummer to me.

    2. It’s too bad she was lying. If Michelle Bachman wins, i was going to make a mint performing back-alley abortions with bear mace.

    3. Ha Ha to everyone who got mad at me yesterday for being indifferent and skeptical of her story.

      looking at Brooks – fucking retard.

      1. Don’t be disingenuous, OM. It’s not that you were skeptical of the story. Would you really have reacted differently if the story were true?

        1. I mean OS. Geez. All you old guys look alike to me.

          1. FUCKING AGEIST!

        2. If a cop really punched or kicked a pregnant woman in the gut? Sure I would be outraged.

          Her story stunk and definitely set off the BS detector.

          1. Does it really matter if she was pregnant or not?

            1. It matters because, like i saaid earlier, the reasonoid bigots believed everything she said, even when it clearly didn’t pass the smell test, e.g. Her claim about a doctor saying that the kicks and pepper spray were the cause of her miscarriage. This is where the bigots constantly look like fools. Because they always assume shit that is anticop, is true no matter how fucking ridiculous it sounds on its face. They are like the leftwing bigots who ignored all evidence that the LAX players at duke were being railroaded. … Because they were allegedly rich white jocks so they MUST be guilty.

              That’s why you constantly look like a fool. You will believe anything that fits your metanarrative and ignore everything, no matter how compelling… That doesn’t

                1. This, squared.

          2. Even SHE didn’t claim the kick was intentional. If she was on her knees and everybody was runng around, whic they were, … Do the fucking math

            The gullibility of reasonoid bigots never ceases to amaze

            As long as it fits the anticop metanarrative, it is ALWAYS assumed to be true.

        3. I was skeptical. Because, among other things…her claim about a doctor concluding the miscarriage was caused by an alleged kick a WEEK ago and beng peppersprayed DOES not pass the smell test

          Reasonoi anticop bigots will assume anything is true if it can be seen as anticop, and will belive anybody who makes an anticop claim and disbelieve anything or anybody who makes a procop claim. That is the definitionof bigotry. PREjudgment

          1. I was skeptical that anyone would have sex with a smelly homeless occupy woman.

            1. In an interview Tuesday at the Occupy Seattle encampment on Capitol Hill, Fox said she had three ultrasound pictures of her fetus in her tent, but declined to show them to reporters.

              She also said she did not plan to pick up medical records at Harborview Medical Center that could document the miscarriage until after a planned memorial service Saturday, and she declined to sign a waiver allowing reporters to obtain the documents independently. She said the baby was a girl, to be named Miracle.

              “I have some stuff to do today,” said Fox, who described herself as a homeless former foster child. “I have to get some stuff done.”

              “Miracle”…? “MIRACLE” — ?!?


              1. Link for above.

                1. “I Am 99% Bullshit!”

                2. *still can’t stop laughing over dear, departed Baby “Miracle”…*

    4. Why would a pregnant woman be at a protest? Poor exercise of judgement. Although I suppose, if these Occutards got the government they wanted, they wouldn’t need to make decisions because the state would do it for them.

    5. And the reasonoid bigots jumping over backwards to believe ANYTHING at face value if it can be seen to reflect negatively on cops?


      Bigotry and prejudice …. How do they work?

      1. Hmm, seem to be a lot less replies about this story today. I wonder why.

        1. The phrase “confirmation bias” gets thown around a lot in other threads.

          1. “Oh, won’t you light a candle, please,
            He’s imaginary, yet we love him,

            [Insert Weepy, Clapton-ish Guitar Solo Here]

  5. Study confirms that movie audiences like hot chicks to look hot, guys to do all the guy stuff.…..5239.story

    Jezebel, feministing hardest hit.

    1. They are only saying that because of the patriarchy.

    2. Maybe a 108 lb chick can’t clothesline a 220 lb goon in real life, but sometimes the laws of cartoon physics have to be bent for the sake of gender equality.

      1. What you mean Demi Moore really couldn’t make it through BUDs training? My faith in the movies is now destroyed.

      2. I thought the scientific rationale for Waif-Fu was that anyone with the willpower to go through life eating nothing but a saltine cracker twice a day might also have the willpower to whup ass on a guy 3 times her size.

        1. But but but…women are powerful!

        2. Anyone remember that Gatorade commercial from a few years ago in which Mia Hamm flipped Michael Jordan, judo-style? Never mind that he’s a foot taller and 150 pounds heavier, and could kill her barehanded in seconds if he felt like it, because, you know, girl power and stuff.

          1. Bruce Lee’s film weight was around 135 lbs. He was 5’7″. He fluctuated up to 150-160 lbs when not filming. I’d take him over Jordan. Anyday. Just saying. Size is not everything. (sorry guys)

            1. Speed and power also count, which Lee had in spades, unlike a similarly-sized woman.

              1. Not to mention greater muscle density.

              2. Speed definately counts. Women are usually faster than men (with arm movements). Many times speed and size are inversely proportional (big and slow vs. small and fast). Women don’t have nearly as much power though.

                My point is that Asians, who aren’t nealy as big and strong as whites (or blacks) invented mny forms of martial arts because these styles fit their smaller, faster, more lthe and flexible bodies. These martial arts are well-suited towards women, and not so much big men. I’m Asian and bigness isn’t everyhing.

                1. I’m Asian and bigness isn’t everyhing.

                  She’s just saying that to be nice and not damage your self-esteem.

                2. Bruce Lee was a, uhm, film star. Doing a three-fingered pushup was very impressive, and so is a lot of gymnastics, but Jordan would easily crush him.

                3. Um, the sport of olympic style weightlifting is dependant on speed strength. The highest POWER outputs ever seen in athletics are made by these athletes (in the jerk). The fastest full body movement in ANY sport is the squat under in the snatch.

                  The chinese btw are dominant in weightlifting.

                  Women are NOT usually faster than men with arm movements. Show me ANY data to support that claim.

                  Speed and size are NOT inversely proportional. Look at sprinters, or olympic weightlifters, You HAVE no idea what you are talking about

                  We can talk about rate coding, etc. but explosive strength and speed is primarily dependant on a host of factors to include type IIA. IIB AND IIX fast twitch fibers, training, etc. but not what you claim

                  1. I never said that size and speed are as a RULE inversely proportional. I say that in many people they are–hence small and fast vs, big and slow. And that more importantly, these people should choose the fighting style that complements their bodies. And in general, Asians have invented fighting styles that complement small, flexible bodies (as oppossed to bigger, stronger Western bodies) and that women’s bodies would probably complement Asian fighting styles.

                    In my experience in boxing and martial arts, women, on average have faster arm movement and are able to learn arm routines and footwork much faster than men. However, I would say that the fastest man’s arm movements are probably faster than the fastest women’s. These are the extremes. In general, however, I find the average woman to have quicker movements and faster arm reflexes than the average man. Note that most factory work like cuttng up chickens, etc. is done by women who are quicker than men in this area.

                    And you are right, all skill levels equal, a bigger, stronger person will beat out a smaller person. My contention was that one should choose a martial art that fits his/her strentgths and weakneses. For example, the Japanese created judo for small, short legged bodies who have better balance than taller people. A woman can train and choose martial arts that exploit her relative quickness and flexibility and do not rely on strength. This is why I brought up Asians who devloped martial arts for smaller, flexible body types. If she becomes skilled enough, she can defeat men, unlike what some posters were asserting. But she needs to train ad become skilled in the appropriate martial art.

                4. My point is that Asians, who aren’t nealy as big and strong as whites


            2. Lee trained and could beat Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

              1. Because he had far more skill. GIVEN equal skill, the stronger, bigger athlete (also reach and leverage are a plus) will win.

                That’s why MMA has WEIGHT CLASSES. ” a jab from a heavyweight feels like a …”

                Same thing in weightlifting. And in a sport like javelin, where acclerating an object is key, you see the best athletes al ost always have relatively long lever lengths.

                Sorry, but i have been a coach/trAiner for speed strength athletes for many years and am nationallyz ranked, you have no idea what you are talking about. Read some medveyev, roman, siff, vershosansky etc

                1. Because he had far more skill. GIVEN equal skill, the stronger, bigger athlete (also reach and leverage are a plus) will win.

                  The claim was that he could beat Michael Jordan…who is less skilled and trained than Jabbar even. The point was that skill mattered.

                2. That’s why MMA has WEIGHT CLASSES

                  Who punches harder – Junior Dos Santos or Anderson Silva?

                  No one above claimed that size DIDN’T matter. The claim was that size wasn’t EVERYTHING.

                3. BTW, Wing Chun, Bruce Lee’s fighting style, is named after a woman (Wing Chun) Legend has it ( and of course Chines Shaolin legends are as reliable as Arthurian legend) that she was taught by her parents a fighting tyle and she defeated many challengers. He father then made the offer that any man who could defeat her could marry her. She remained undefeated until she met a man that she wanted to marry and she lost to him on purpose. After they were married he kept teasing her about how he had defeated her, and she got sick of it so she challenged him to a rematch. She then beat him, and he decided to train and teach her style. The couple then trained others in the Wing Chun style. Of course, these are just oral history legends.

                  1. When one has no form, one can be all forms; when one has no style, he can fit in with any style.

                    1. Ahhh, NM, went to the Bruce Lee cafe in HK a while back. Unfortunately, as a woman, I should have known better than to have wandered into a “my guy can beat up your guy” fight (aka my penis is bigger than yours) fight. I don’t have time to sidetracked byy this either; I have sweet potatoes and pies to cook today…

                4. In real life Kareem would’ve mopped the floor with Lee.

                  1. You realize that it was a fucking movie NM?

                  2. That’s not the way Kareem tells it.

                    1. Really? I didn’t know this.

                    2. Kareem on Bruce Lee: “He liked sparring with me because of my height and reach. That gave ,me enough of an advantage to make him work a little bit.”

                    3. ‘Twas a movie indeed. And much of the Bruce Lee image is hype, but I would need more for you to convince me he couldn’t beat his student.

                      This guy:

                      Also a student (& twice voted the greatest fighter in karate history)

                      says Bruce Lee would be a candidate for the greatest martial artist of all time.

                      Stories of kicking a 300 lbs heavy bag to the ceiling in the gym, etc…

                      Size matters, but skill ain’t nothing.

                    4. Stories of kicking a 300 lb bag to the ceiling are just that. The laws of physics don’t disappear from training. Repeatedly stressing bones can make them very strong, but only so strong.

                    5. The laws of physics don’t disappear from training.


                    6. Point is that the story is that he could get the 300 lb bag swinging with his kicks until it was hitting the ceiling. Not a claim that from a dead start one kick would get it to the ceiling. Even given the real claim, it is an impressive amount of force.

                    7. As a tall guy who’s been in a fair amount of fights with short guys who thought they were tough it’s pretty much a no-brainer. None of these guys were especially built and their punches, even when they connected, simply didn’t do much. Of course, alcohol was usually involved.

                    8. Not sure your experience with average Joe’s says much about trained fighters. So, for example, the much shorter Matt Sera knocked out the taller, larger, and stronger champion GSP. Now, in the end, GSP is also more skilled so he trounced Sera in the rematch, but Sera against a bigger stronger guy without GSP’s skills, I’ll go with the short skilled guy.

      3. I believe it’s called the River Tam corollary.

        1. I thought the point of that was that you should stay away from crazy chicks because they will fuck you up.

          1. See, hollywood isn’t all lies.

        2. She killed them with mathematics. What else could it have been?

    3. Hollywood persists in trying to make money by giving audiences what they want. Women, minorities, hardest hit.

      1. I know that’s a joke, but there are movies aimed at most demographic groups, unless you count the group which wants good movies.

  6. “Planting their flag in the District, they immediately held a meeting to try to figure out how best to take their frustrations to Capitol Hill”

    It’s kinda painful (but encouraging) to see them slowly, slowly, work out where the real problem is.

    1. Except that they are there pleading for politicians to do more. It’s the turd in the punchbowl about what could be encouraging concerning their evolutionary scale slowness in gaining insight to the problem.

  7. Half these morning links are ripped off from the previous thread. For shame.

    1. Riggs is already gearing up for a four-day holiday weekend, give him a break.

      1. I can hardly wait. Weekend threads on steroids.

  8. Feds claim he caught it illegally, confiscate the fish, sell it for close to half a million, and keep the money

    …is deliberately misleading. From your link:

    Proceeds of the sale from the fish will be held in an account until the case is resolved, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Law Enforcement.

    SLD, etc.

    1. And while we’re at it, why do the Feds “claim” he caught it illegally, but catching it “by accident” isn’t also a claim?

      I know you were bred for the Twitter generation, but this is tabloid writing.

      1. If I were a lion and you were a tuna, I would swim out in the middle of the ocean and freakin’ eat you.

        1. Yeah, but then the tuna figure out how to breathe air and move about on land, at which point they mount a coordinated attack on you and your lion friends.

          This didn’t go the way you thought it would, did it?

        2. That scene was the hardest I’d laughed watching a movie in a long time.

      2. Do you think he purposely caught a single tuna in a giant trawl net?

    2. …confiscate the fish, sell it for close to half a million, and keep the money.

      I read an article that said the fish was sold for $5,000. Way to go Feds, destroying asset values like Godzilla destroying Tokyo.


    3. The guy got caught poaching an endangered species. He thought they would let it slide because he didn’t use a rod and reel. Fact is, if they let everyone do/think this it wouldn’t just be endangered, it would be extinct. The guy is a grade-a schmuck.

      1. Was it really poaching? The only reason they took it was that he didn’t catch it on a rod and reel. And then they let it deteriorate to the point that it was only worth about 2% of its original value before they sold it. This agency is a grade-a fuckup.

  9. All your tunas are belong to us.

    1. Give a man a fish, he eats for day.

      Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.

      Redistribute his fish, and everyone eats for a lifetime!

      1. “You know, we’ll all be better off, if we just spread the fish around.”

        1. Hey! That’s what it said underneath my high school year book photo!

      2. nah, teach a man to fish…& you can sell him bait n tackle !

      3. Give a man a seat beside your campfire, and he’ll be warm for the night.

        Set him on fire, and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life.

      4. Give a man a fish, he eats for day.

        Teach a man to fish, he’ll sit in a boat drinking beer all day.

        1. From the SubGenius:

          Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.

          Give a man a GUN, and OTHER people will bring him fish.

      5. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Don’t teach a man to fish, and you feed yourself. He’s a grown man. Fishing’s not that hard.

        1. There’s a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

  10. And while Rafael is denied the mother of all fish stories, the federal impoundment of his catch also means he’s probably losing out on a giant payday. A 754-pound tuna recently sold for nearly $396,000. NOAA regulators do not share any of the proceeds from the fish’s eventual sale with a fisherman found in violation of federal rules.

    NOAA regulators: Our labyrinthian permitting processes once caught a fish THIS big!

    1. That’s almost $200 per can of tuna. I must be missing something.

      1. high-end sushi

        1. Oh, right. Considering my stomach rejects any of that – high-end or not – it’s no wonder I didn’t think of it.

          1. I weep for you. True story.

            1. They can’t all be save CN.

    2. Why the fuck is the weather agency enforcing fishing rules?

      1. Because somebody has to own the ocean, and they’re it.

      2. NOAA has a fisheries service in addition to a weather service and whatever else they do involving oceans and atmosphere.

        I forgive Rick Perry for not remembering “NOAA” on his list of 3.

    1. Hey! That’s MY theme song, goddammit!

      1. Knife fight you for it, Cherokee style.

        C’mon. It’s go time, bitch!

    2. I really thought they’d go with Radiohead’s “Under-Experienced Social Conservative Who Hasn’t Polled Above 5% since June” but maybe that was too on the nose.

    3. He’s apparently apologized.…..43325.html

    4. I hope they play the same song when Fallon has Michelle Obama on.

      1. You kidding? For an on-stage manifestation of the First Klingon, they’d probably segue into Handel’s Messiah.

  11. Smoking-Gun Document Ties Policy To Housing Crisis
    …At President Clinton’s direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

    The threat was codified in a 20-page “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending” and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining….

    …”HUD is authorized to direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to undertake various remedial actions, including suspension, probation, reprimand or settlement, against lenders found to have engaged in discriminatory lending practices,” the official policy statement warned.

    The regulatory missive, which had the effect of law, advised lenders to bend “customary” underwriting standards for minority homebuyers with poor credit.

    “Applying different lending standards to applicants who are members of a protected class is permissible,” it said. “In addition, providing different treatment to applicants to address past discrimination would be permissible.”…

    1. You mean making banks lend money to people who can’t pay it back is a bad idea? Who knew!

      1. That’s racism, straight up.

    2. Lalalalalalala I can’t hear you lalalalalalalallallalalla greedy bankers lalalalallalalala wall street lalalalalalalalalallalla

    3. >false RW meme & damn poor radio entertainment

      NO federal reg or agency required [MALFEASENCE] & {MISREPRESENTATION] by lenders as CUNA & AIG state in suits vs BoA & JP morgan.

      1. Proprietist|11.1.11 @ 11:17AM|#

        Hate to say it, but Orrin’s right about this. I don’t know what some here expect to gain from denying the existence of malfeasance in the banks. There’s no question it existed and contributed to the crash, so sticking your fingers in your ears makes it look like you are only looking at the facts you want to see, the exact same thing the Left is doing by denying or ignoring the government moral hazards, distortions of reality and overregulation that contributed to it.
        Actors within corporations are more prone to malfeasance and fraud because they know the risk is socialized. State-provided limited liability protection for business owners inherently encourages malfeasance and is just another government market distortion. It’s time that libertarians accept that corporations aren’t truly free market entities based on private contracts and personal responsibility, but instead are government protected legal fictions that shield criminals and those who profit from criminal actions while socializing the cost of damages for their actions onto victims and society.

        1. Interesting, I had no idea that anyone here denied the malfeasance of the banks in this matter. Good to know.

          1. Lots of people here have attempted to minimize the percentage of responsibility for the collapse on the actions of the banks to as close to zero as possible. Wasn’t sure whom I was originally responding to at the time, but both the Right and the Left have a tendency to oversimplify the causes.

            Of course, I argue that the corporate entity is not a free market entity but a government creation that contributes to malfeasance and fraud by detaching owners from direct and total responsibility. So in the end, the root of the problem still goes back to government.

        2. Corporations can’t tax people, enact legislation, or manipulate the monetary supply. Sorry but demonizing a symptom of government power does not address the underlying problem.

          1. Contrary to what you may have heard, limited liability doesn’t provide immunity for fraud and criminal activities. For that you need to work for the government.

            1. +1

          2. Never said they could, merely that the government distortion of state incorporation/limited liability creates conditions where risk is inherently socialized and profit is privatized, thus encouraging riskier activities for more profit. When owners can cash out at the first sign of liability and that money can’t be reclaimed even if the profits were created through fraud, this reduces the equity to pay for damages and places the burden onto the victims, creditors and society. In a free market where businesses were all proprietorships and partnerships, and the line between business property and individual property is secured only by liability insurance, the scales between profit and responsibility would be rebalanced and the market would be naturally healthier.

      2. Pushing bad loans certainly deserves some of the blame, but yes, these companies were leapfrogging each other to make these and other loans, there wasn’t much arm-twisting needed. Remember much of the problem seemed to come from these bad loans being bundled, securitized, insured and traded. Everyone thought housing prices would keep rising and they would keep making ka-ching.

        1. But the feds still forced the loans to be made. The bundling was just the way the banks got out from under the liability that the feds created in the first place.

          Are there bankers who were crooks? Probably. And if you want to go after them, you should. But regardless, Frank and Dodd both should be in prison for their roles in this.

          1. . . . Frank and Dodd both should be in prison for their roles in this.

            But that would be an admission that government had anything at all to do with the bubble. There is no way that 1) government would ever admit any culpability, and 2) Team BLUE supporters in the media (AKA the media) would ever allow that narrative to gain ground because it ruins their already existing “TEH BANKSTERZZ!!” storyline.

            They would have to essentially admit that Ron Paul is right, and there’s just no way that is EVER going to happen.

            1. nope – mortgage bundlers’s malfeasence & misrepresentation to SHAREHOLDERS, INVESTORS, INSURERS, & RATING AGENCIES is [FINANCIAL CRIME].

              1. nope – mortgage bundlers’s malfeasence & misrepresentation to SHAREHOLDERS, INVESTORS, INSURERS, & RATING AGENCIES is [FINANCIAL CRIME].

                So Obama and Holder are going to be prosecuting these people for committing securities fraud any day now, right? Right?

                So Obama and Holder are going to be prosecuting these people for committing securities fraud any day now, right? Right?

        2. Yes, they were leapfrogging each other so much they had to be threatened to make loans to poor credit customers. You make no sense.

          1. I think the argument is that banks would have made bad loans even if the government had not encouraged them to do so.

            This theory had the advantage of being nonfalsifiable, since how can you disprove someone’s claim about what would have happened in some alternate universe?

            1. since how can you disprove someone’s claim about what would have happened in some alternate universe

              Paging Professor Farnsworth.

          2. This is actually correct.

            People have this idea that banks hate to lend money and like to decline loans.

            Banks love to lend money. Because that’s how they MAKE money.

            Banks are engaged in brutal competition to acquire customers – and by customers I mean borrowers.

            Banks will fight like junkyard dogs for every last transaction they can justify with any reasonable data.

            During the bubble, all the data said that subprime loans were performing adequately – and often at levels that beat the models that had been used to design those products in the first place.

            With hindsight, everyone says, “Yeah, well, that was just an illusion created by the bubble itself, because every time a borrower got in trouble they’d either sell their property or take yet another cashout loan against their equity,” and that observation is TRUE.

            The only problem with it is that not one of the people now complaining about TEH BANKERZ uttered a single peep while the bubble was actually happening. And neither did Bernanke or any regulator, or any major figure from either party, with the notable exception of Ron Paul.

            So since none of these hindsight geniuses like Krugman saw the bubble and the problem with the foreclosure data set at the time, I don’t want to hear their fucking complaints now.

            1. Krugman actually called the RE bubble.

      3. So Obama and Holder are going to be prosecuting these people for committing securities fraud any day now, right? Right?

  12. Jennifer Fox, the allegedly pregnant Seattle Occupier who claimed to have miscarried after getting pepper-sprayed, may not have been pregnant and/or miscarried.

    Unsympathetic character becomes even more unsympathetic.

    Pigs kicking her in the midriff and pepper spraying her are consequently no big deal.

    1. P Brooks, don’t you think it’s possible that the woman lying about being pregnant might also have made up the fact that police officers, upon hearing she was pregnant, immediately targeted her belly for pinata treatment?

    2. Considering she lied about being pregnant and then miscarrying, her claim of getting kicked or whatever should also not be taken with a grain of salt.

      By the way, did I not call this as fake on the original morning thread that discussed this?

      1. Wow that first sentence almost made sense…

      2. And you were right. Damn, I had high hopes for the gene pool.

      3. did I not call this as fake

        I believe you did. As did only a handful of others.…..nt_2649952

        Those of you who reliably fell for the scam for political reasons (you know who you are) should be embarrassed. But you won’t be. You hate law enforcement so much that you’re ready to believe anything. You swallow the hook every time, a propagandist’s dream.

        1. Those of you who reliably fell for the scam for political reasons (you know who you are) should be embarrassed. But you won’t be.

          Yup. The Reason equivalent of all those willing DU/Daily Kos rubes who scrambled frantically over one another to line up and stamp APPROVED onto Crystal Gail Mangum’s unalloyed bullshit, in 2006.

          That’s not a very nice comparison.

          It isn’t meant to be.

          1. +50 Bunny PWNage.

          2. BAM!!! “… and down goes Blaze — !”


    3. Pigs kicking her in the midriff and pepper spraying her are consequently no big deal.

      Given that it was an imaginary phantom baby that (*kaff*kaff*) “miscarried,” it’s at least an even money bet that the rest of her story is similarly… ummmmmmmmmm… well… “Obama-esque,” let’s say.

      1. Fox said that she’s having a memorial service for her miscarried baby and one of her fellow occupiers is planning a candlelight vigil

        Ha ha!


    Rezko get 10 and 1/2 years.

    1. ^^ odl ^mix spoff ^^


  14. So does anyone else think Gingrich will have the same problems as Perry did from the anti-immigration crowd after calling himself “humane” last night? That’s almost exactly like what Perry said a few months ago.

    1. If I were his opponent I would sure sell it like that, I’d scream “Amnesty!” as loud as I could. But Perry did not fall just because of his immigration stance but because of his terrible debate performances. Most of all GOPers want to WIN in November.

    2. Apparently, “fencers” are okay with being inhumane, just not heartless.

    3. Yes, I do think this will be problematic for Newt. Republican primary voters are extremely hostile to the idea of almost any consideration for illegals. I would not be surprised if his star begins to fall about as quickly as it rose.

  15. Man claims sex 6 times a day with 728 pound hubby…..woman.html

    “Even though one of Pauline’s legs weighs more than I do, we’re able to position her body to make sex enjoyable for both of us.

    “It’s really dangerous for us to have sex because at any moment the bed could collapse and one or both of us could be seriously injured or even killed from the impact.”

    Pauline, who admits Alex does most of the work in the bedroom, said: “It also helps that I did gymnastics until I was 12 so I’m very limber.”

      1. She is unable to walk more than a few steps. Pauline, who gets $850 (?540) a month in disability benefits…

        But of course… It is impertinent to expect her to do something productive despite being too fucking fat to move. Telemarketing? Day trading? A website with live streaming of these couplings?

        1. Cut off her aid and let her starve to being slim. The woman is clearly mentally ill and should be in a mental hospital with her diet controlled.

          1. Clearly mentally ill? Oh, I dunno… she’s comfortably on the public tit and her ex-husband came back to her. So it’s working out for her so far.

          2. At last, a woman that John wouldn’t “do.”

            1. *grins*

        2. A website with live streaming of these couplings?

          Now that’s entrepreneurial spirit!

        3. Girl nees to dump this chump and shack up with “Adult Baby” guy in America.

          I hear NBC is already working up a treatment for the first few episodes of the **cough** reality **cough** series.

    1. *baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa*

      Oh hey look, Rectal is in the news


    2. what’s more amazing? that it happened, or that they admit it?

      1. That he can breath during foreplay.

        1. I think it’s Missionary or bust.

          1. Death by reverse cowgirl

          2. More likely just two available folds.

            1. And with all of the sweat, they probably don’t even need any lube.

    3. *This*, my company doesn’t block. sigh

    4. Man catches 728lb tuna.

      1. Dude, please! – I simply do not want to think of that woman and tuna at the same time.

      2. Tuesday is no longer tuna night. It is now chub night.

    5. Did you mean:

      Man claims sex 6 times a day with 728 pound wife


      Man claims sex 6 times a day with 728 pound chubby

      because ‘chubby’ may qualify as ‘understatement of the year’

      Hubby… wife… at 728 lbs, it probably doesn’t matter. You won’t reach those parts anyway without a 6-man crew and some hydraulic equipment.

      1. Hubby… wife… at 728 lbs, it probably doesn’t matter. You won’t reach those parts anyway without a 6-man crew and some hydraulic equipment.

        Does it really matter? After a certain point, it’s simply matter of choosing your fold and taking the plunge. They’re all going to be warm and moist, and given the weight of some of the larger rolls, probably tighter, too. The vagina itself loses its relevance in a woman like this.

      2. Throw on some flour and look for the wet spot!

      3. Oh, Goddamn y’all.

    6. If I was that little puppie, I would not feel safe being around that land whale.

    7. In the top picture, where’s she’s sitting on the sofa, what is that hanging down between her legs??

        1. I fucking love Urban Dictionary. Thanks for that!

          1. I think that qualifies as a gunt.

      1. I think that’s the FUPA hanging down… ugh.

        1. And I should have refreshed. I am rendered redundant!

      2. Panniculus is a medical term describing a dense layer of fatty tissue growth, consisting of subcutaneous fat in the lower abdominal area.[1] It can be a result of obesity and can be mistaken for a tumor or hernia. Abdominal panniculus can be removed during abdominal panniculectomy, a type of abdominoplasty. A panniculus can also be the result of loose tissues after pregnancy or massive weight loss.[2]

    8. I bet the methane she develops could power the entire block.

  16. Unable to win fair and square, Big Labor pushes ‘ambush elections’
    …Currently, there is about a five-week window between when union organizers petition the NLRB to conduct a secret-ballot election, and when the vote actually happens. That time between announcement and vote allows both sides abundant opportunities to make their case, so workers can cast informed ballots on whether to form a union. But the problem for Big Labor is that informed workers are increasingly choosing to keep their freedom to work without paying union dues. Union membership peaked at 26 percent of the work force in 1953. Today, only 9.6 percent of workers are union members. In the private sector, less than 7 percent of workers are unionized.

    The NLRB regulation to be adopted next Wednesday is designed to reverse that trend. Union organizers would be empowered to force hurry-up, or “ambush,” elections in less than two weeks. At best, this compressed schedule would significantly reduce the time business owners and managers have to make their case against unionization.

    Worse, in typical Obama fashion, the rule of law is being tossed out the window to facilitate this latest union power grab. The board received more than 65,000 public comments when it published the first version of this proposal in June. Federal law requires that the board explain how it will take account of such comments, then publish a proposed final version that incorporates the response. No such explanation has been offered, yet the board plans to hold a final vote on the main provisions of the proposal anyway — an apparent violation of the federal Administrative Procedures Act. Coincidentally, the recess-appointment by Obama of former SEIU lawyer Craig Becker to the board expires Dec. 31. Without Becker, the NLRB would lack the quorum necessary to vote on anything, much less a major change in union election rules….

    1. This is how fascism works. Liberals only scream fascist at their opponents because they assume everyone else is just like them.

    2. I’m sure this source with its references to “Big Labor” and “workers increasingly choosing to keep their freedom to work without paying union dues” is a fair and balanced source of information on what’s going on at the NLRB…

      1. The law says you have to respond to comments and explain them in relation to the regulation you just published. That is regulatory law 101.

        1. And you know they haven’t…how? Because this explicitly biased source says so?

          Oh guillible John…

          1. Because the article says it hasn’t. And there is no way they could account for 65,000 comments in that short of time. This is why it takes years to write regs. They are rushing it because the recess appointment expires.

            1. “And you know they haven’t…how? Because this explicitly biased source says so?John|11.23.11 @ 9:41AM|#
              Because the article says it hasn’t. ”

              Wow. That’s worse than your argument from yesterday that while you admit you find the GOPer is better on every single issue you are not a GOPer partisan because they actually are better on every one!

              1. MNG, you are just showing your stupidity. Have you ever been involved in the writing of a reg? Anyone who knows the first thing about regulatory process could see that it is a sham.

                It is not that you are ignorant. How many people know how regs are actually written? It is that you are so arrogant that you refuse to understand or admit how ignorant you are.

                1. I know quite a bit about the APA John. Why don’t we discuss it?

                  1. Then tell me all about it. Because the APA and reg writing is a significant part of my practice. And there is no way that they properly responded to all of that many comments in that short of time.

                    Further, if they did, it would be in the federal register. I seriously doubt the examiner is just lying about something that can be so easily checked. If they did respond to the comments, then give us the citation because the Examiner couldn’t seem to find it.

                    1. So check it John, just like I did when I busted your ass on the ESA by pointing to the Fed. Register. I mean, you work on this all the time right so surely you can just look it up quickly.

                      Let’s go big boy.

                  2. My masters thesis was on the APA, my internship involved working with a state APA, and I worked for several years in that area.

                    So yes, by all means let’s talk about this John. I hope you know more about it than you do the “exception-less ESA that has exceptions…”

                    1. If you’ve got some evidence you can produce here that such a turn around time, IF true btw, is unheard of, then by all means, produce, produce, produce.

                    2. I work for the federal government and am involved with the writing of regs. If they responded to the comments it would be in the Federal Register. Go find it and give us the source and show us that the Examiner is lying or shut up.

                      If you know anything about the APA, you know the responses should be in the Fed Register. You know they are not. So you are just shouting a bunch of noise.

                    3. Sorry, as I said an article that is as clearly biased as this one can’t stand independently. I take it you have no idea whether it is true or even if it were true whether such a turnaround is unprecedented, but you like what it has to say so you give it the “benefit of the doubt.”

                    4. Thank goodness we have Rolling Stone around.

                    5. Be careful, John. MNG probably makes more money than you.

          2. It’s a complete farce that the NLRB can impose this kind of change unilaterally without a new vote from Congress in the first place, dude.

            So your entire discussion with John on the regulatory procedure minutiae is moot.

      2. I wouldn’t want to be forced to join a union just to have a job, MNG.

        Would you?

    3. So, conservatives celebrate measures being pushed in state houses around the nation to shorten voting periods in actual elections, but are angry over similar proposals for union certification elections.


      1. I thought that the date of Election Day was known just as soon as scientists could calculate exactly when the first Tuesday after the first Monday falls in any particular year. But not being a scientist, I could be wrong.

        1. …in November. See, this is why I’m not a scientist.

        2. Several states have long voting periods, and GOPer statehouses around the coountry are suggesting the periods be shortened.

          1. But since the question involves the announced date of the vote, and the date of a political election in the U.S. (however long one has to turn in a absentee ballot) is known months — even years, some claim, though that seems crazy — in advance, it seems your analogy is spurious, my good man.

            1. Er, there is never a “set” date for union certification elections dude. They only happened when “called for” via certain means. So the only thing being debated is the voting period.

              1. You don’t say?
                I believe you miss the entire point, my good man, or perhaps are just moving, what are they called in the sporting community again, the goal-posts?
                In any case, I see our little tete-a-tete is once again pointless. So I will just wish you a hearty good day and ta ta. Have a blessed holiday, old chap.

          2. Actually, dumbass, GOP statehouses around the country that are squeezing vote periods are doing so because they’re expanding on the back end the time period allowed for the return of overseas military ballots; since many of those ballots aren’t making it back on time to comply with the current law.

            But, since you’re a shill for the ideology associated with those who actively pursue the vote for criminals and corpses while celebrating military ballots not being counted, you would definitely spew hate all over such a move.

  17. GOPer Debate Highlights: War Drums Beating, Civil Liberties Sacrificed, Paul Stands Alone Against Them

    Romney argued that Obama was moving too rapidly to bring out U.S. troops and said he favors maintaining a substantial presence for several more years…On Iran, Cain said he would consider helping Israel in a military strike against the Iranian regime if he believed that the Israelis had a credible plan that would succeed…Paul called the Patriot Act “unpatriotic.” He said that there is no need to “sacrifice liberty for security” and that the criminal justice system had effectively dealt with Timothy J. McVeigh…antorum said he would support profiling “radical Muslims” to prevent terrorist attacks. But he was quickly criticized by Paul, who offered: “What if they look like Timothy McVeigh?”…..ory_1.html

    1. Yet Paul is supposed to be the ‘nutty’ one.

      1. Gingrich & Cain neck & neck in Iowa.…..iowa-poll/

        1. They’re necking?

          Well, if you can think of another way to exchange long protein strings, I’d like to hear it.

          1. [::drapes feather boa around neck; dims lights; starts humming theme to A Summer Place::]

    2. It’s amazing that Politico’s comment on Paul’s performance was that he “failed to show he can expand his base.”

      1. Given the GOP electorate they are probably correct.

        Paul’s problems is that his national security stances are attractive to the left but not the right. Remember when National Review drummed anti-war conservatives out of the movement as “America haters” (it was Frum who wrote the cover article)? Warmongering and civil liberties raping has become a defining point in conservatism today…

        1. Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not John, I’m not going to argue Paul would be popular with many Democrats. His immigration and abortion stances (ironically two areas where his arguable divergence from libertarianism has made him palatable to the GOP) would torpedo him there, and his government cutting stance as well.

          1. Except he’s not anti-abortion or anti-immigration, but he is anti-socialism.

            1. He’s against the combination of a huge welfare state and open borders.

              He’s also against abortion in the one practical way in which someone can be anti-abortion: He believes it should be a crime. He doesn’t want to federalize this crime any more than he wants to federalize murder, but he wants Congress to get the abortion-loving courts out of the abortion business, leaving the issue to state courts (and ultimately voters, since state judges are elected).

          2. …abortion stances (ironically two areas where his arguable divergence from libertarianism…

            The fuck? Since when were libbertarians all pro-abortion? I’d say it’s a lot closer to 50-50 than you would think.

      2. i.e. he keeps failing to sell out. What the fuck is wrong with the weird old dude?
        So anybody into the Bad Lipreading stuff? They’ve got a new one out on Paul. Funny stuff. But I still think Obama’s is the best. Trick the bridesmaid, biatch.

  18. Developer with shotgun scared off Oakland rioters
    Oakland developer Phil Tagami is used to working behind the scenes to broker some of the biggest deals in town. Late Wednesday, he was using different persuasive skills – holding a loaded shotgun to scare away rioters trying to get into a downtown building.

    “We had people who attempted to break into our building,” the landmark Rotunda Building on Frank Ogawa Plaza outside City Hall, Tagami said Thursday. He grabbed a shotgun that he usually keeps at home, went down to the ground floor and “discouraged them,” he said.

    “I was standing there and they saw me there, and I lifted it – I didn’t point it – I just held it in my hands,” Tagami said. “And I just racked it, and they ran.”…

    1. That is an old link. But the sound of a pump action shotgun tends to motivate people to leave.

      1. I’ve been out of town.

      2. I recently bought a new shotgun. I was gonna go semiauto, then I thought of that beautiful “chunk-chunk” and reconsidered.

        1. Always preferred the pump to semiauto myself.

          1. Me too, then again I don’t like semi-auto in general.

        2. Just don’t short-stroke it when you really need it.

        3. Franchi SPAS-12

          …best of BOTH worlds …

          1. Urk. Have you ever owned one? ‘Reliable’ and ‘robust’ are not words I would use to describe that gun.

            1. Owned-No
              Used- Yes

              Didn’t have any problems with it in the short time I shot with it at the plinking range …

  19. You would of thought the occupiers would be happy that the cops gave her a free abortion, and helped lower her carbon footprint.

  20. Man catches 881-pound tuna by accident. Feds claim he caught it illegally, confiscate the fish, sell it for close to half a million, and keep the money.

    Privatizing the oceans would be an improvement, but I’m not outraged by this. “No nets for tuna” is the way we’re preventing the tragedy of the commons. This guy netted a tuna by accident. He loses the tuna, but he’s not being fined. The tuna is sold rather than destroyed. I’m not happy that the government keeps the money, but what else would you do with it? As a rule I think it’s a bad idea for the government to profit from enforcing the law, but I’m not seeing the corruption here yet, no suggestion that they’re confiscating tuna on trumped up charges.

    1. What do they do with the money they make?

      1. I think the idea is that the money would go into a general fund rather than directly to the enforcers. But I don’t want to speak for Warren.

      2. the fisheries enforcement fund received some bad findings recently from NOAA’s IG so some policies were changed. we’ll see though. old habits die hard.……html#affp

    2. I think if someone catches a single tuna one time, let them keep it. But then for each subsequent one caught each year, they either lose the fish or (after a certain point, maybe #3 in a 12-month period) fines start kicking in.

      The idea being, once in a long while is an honest accident; too often and it’s someone trying to game the system.

      1. This may very well work for certain animals. But not for this particular species. They cannot be bred in captivity and the rate they are being taken (Even accidentally) will leave us with an extinct species rather soon.

  21. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac shell out big bonuses
    …The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates the mortgage giants that are now under government receivership, has approved $12.79 million in bonus pay for the performance of 10 executives at Fannie and Freddie last year despite both companies posting losses in all four quarters, Politico reported.

    The executives were rewarded with Wall Street-style incentives for meeting modest performance targets tied to modifying mortgages in jeopardy of foreclosure, according to Politico. Among the compensation deals was a $2.3 million bonus awarded to outgoing Freddie Mac CEO Ed Haldeman for 2010, a figure that is more than double his salary of $900,000. Fannie Mae CEO Michael Williams got $2.37 million in performance bonuses….

  22. Al Gore is in town for “We Day”

    1. Got a really warm parka?

      1. Its supposed to be unseasonably warm today. Uh oh

    2. Is there any chance he’ll stay there?

      We can only hope.

      1. We don’t want him in Canada

  23. Sky Rim released.
    Dragon Lady dies.…..ssic-books

    1. Pern got super weird as it went on.

  24. Guess who’s writing nutrition columns now…..le2241453/

    1. The [Gamboler]?

  25. http://mediamythalert.wordpres…..n-a-movie/

    New Yorker blogger confuses Watergate movie line with reality. Remember, journalism should be left to the professionals.

    1. which is why he’s a blogger & not a journalist. duh

      1. He is a journalist who writes a blog for the an old line publication.

        1. bloogs dont deserv 2st ammendmetn protecton like jurnalist do

          1. Only approved people have the right to free speech. Fascist much?

            1. Oh Jesus, and John was duped by it.

              Well, no surprise there.

              1. I don’t know it wasn’t him. You and Orin write so much stupid crazy shit on here, it can’t be effectively spoofed.

                1. John: Can be fooled anytime, anywhere, by almost anyone.

                  1. I blame me.

          2. 1. What a pussy spoofer you are!

            2. What a total pussified distortion of what O said.

            Is the Right really this pussified and brain dead?

            1. no mgn i m on youre side that bocktards winnutz old mux iz foming and spoffig me

              1. 1. pussified pussy spoofer pussy 2. pussy pussy pussified distorter
                3. pussy puss puss cheezeburger brain ded pussy

                1. My, our pussy right winger is reloading not retreating in his pussy spoofing. Whodathunkit?

              1. go away dude. obvious spoof FAILZ

            2. I don’t like John.

              1. And pussy right wing spoofer doesn’t like me. And is a pussy.

                Got it.

                1. I’m so much smarter than you guys.

      2. Clown. Here’s the bio.

        John Cassidy has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1995. He has written many, many articles for the magazine, on topics ranging from Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke to the Iraqi oil industry and the economics of Hollywood. He also writes a blog on The New Yorker’s Web site, entitled “Rational Irrationality.” His latest book, “How Markets Fail: The Logic of Economic Calamities,” was published in November, 2009, by Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

        Cassidy is also a contributor to The New York Review of Books and a financial commentator for the BBC. He came to The New Yorker after working for newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic. He joined the Sunday Times, in London, in 1986, and served as the paper’s Washington bureau chief for three years, and then as its business editor, from 1991 to 1993. From 1993 to 1995, he was at the New York Post, where he edited the Business section and then served as the deputy editor.

        Crawl back down you gibberish strewn spider hole.

  26. It’s lonely at the top.

    At the other end of Manhattan, Robert Curtis, a lawyer, is asking $35,000 a month for his five-story house on Duane Street in TriBeCa. Built in 1830, his home has 4,500 square feet of space, including a fully equipped office with seven workstations and a roof deck with a greenhouse and a conservatory. An open circular staircase winds to the top floor; many of the interior walls are brick; and some of the high ceilings have exposed beams of Southern pine. There are 16 large windows. Other amenities include a lavishly appointed chef’s kitchen and a personal gym.

    The house comes with a baby grand piano, a thousand books and Mr. Curtis’s collection of works by TriBeCa artists. It is so well equipped, with everything from sheets to Baccarat crystal, that a tenant could walk in and start living there immediately.

    Mr. Curtis, who is 68 and lives in the house with his Siamese cat, Butch, plans to spend the next year at his turn-of-the-century farmhouse in upstate New York. His move is motivated by a combination of moral, practical and financial concerns.

  27. Regarding the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA): sopa is Portuguese for soup.

    You do the math.

    1. I think I’ll need to call in the Jeff Goldblum guy from the South Park episode Cancelled to make sense of that math.

      And fuck you youtube for not having that up.

    1. That is some funny shit.

    2. Damn, there are some seriously hilarious pics.

  28. The server squirrels are going after Reason this morning. On my Facebook feed, Reason shared the ML link, and then beneath that it posted “Don’t miss today’s Morning Links!” 5 consecutive times. Ha…

  29. So I didn’t see the whole debate last night, but from the article I read and looked at above it seemed like it was deja vu from the last nomination run when Rudy and Mitt played the “national security” and warmongering cards against Paul while Paul bravely stood his ground.

    1. The good thing for Mitt is that he at least has the current Administration on his side. So there is that.

      1. Well John you’re a self-described “national security conservative.” What do you think of Paul’s stances on Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, and the Patriot Act?

        1. I think he is naive. At the same time he is right about Iraq, we are done there and are right to go home. As far as Iran neither I nor you can make an intelligent answer. I don’t have access to the intelligence and don’t know what the US is actually doing. For all I know we could be totally foiling the Iranian nuke program covertly and the treats to bomb them to stop it a charade. I just don’t know. Ultimately, a nuclear Iran would be a very bad thing. But I don’t know enough to say if that is going to happen or if it is how we can stop it.

          Paul is most disappointing on the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is huge. Most people who use the term don’t know what it means. It is just a brand name. Some things in the Patriot Act were needed reforms. Breaking down the artificial barriers between intel and LE, so that the IC actually tells law enforcement about the various threat streams makes sense. I wouldn’t vote to repeal that. That Act contains hundreds of provisions. Some of which are bad, some of which are good. It is just not an intelligent thing to say “repeal the Patriot Act”. It needs to be reformed.

          I agree with Obama about Pakistan and disagree with Paul. As long as Pakistan wants to support the Taliban and allow it to operate from its territory and make war against Afghanistan, they can live with the drone strikes. We really have no choice.

          Paul’s heart is in the right place. But he doesn’t know enough about what is going on to make the right criticisms. For example, the real problem isn’t the drone strikes, it is the fact that the CIA is running them. We have made our intelligence apparatus an operational entity. That is a terrible precedent. People should be very upset about that.

          People should also be upset about the complete lack of oversight over special operations command and the CIA. They are out killing people outside of combat zones. Yet, no one knows who they are killing and there is no oversight of where how and whom they are killing. They are just drawing up target lists and whacking people. It has gotten completely out of control. That needs to be stopped.

          1. I respect your answers, though I disagree with him. It’s Iran’s business if they develop a nuke. If they do, well, we dealt with the USSR which had thousands of them just fine without invading them.

            The Patriot Act needs more than reform. Paul is 100% right that we had more than enough tools to get someone like McVeigh. I’m more worried about the abuses by government with such provisions than than the good uses…

            On Iraq, let me make sure I have you clear: Romney and other GOPers who are criticizing the Prez for planning to pull out now are wrong, right?

            1. It strikes me that you agree with Obama on most national security issues much more than you do with Paul. As someone who describes himself as a national security conservative (implying those issues are critical to you) does that mean you would vote for Obama over Paul, were they the only choices?

              1. Obama is nothing but Bush III. He hasn’t changed national policy much, except that he has allowed USSOC and the CIA go even more out of control than they were with Bush. Obama has killed a lot more people covertly than Bush ever did. He took the trends and precedents Bush set and ran with them. That is where I part ways with Obama and disagree with Bush.

                And yeah, Romney and the like are wrong to criticize Obama for pulling out of Iraq. We stayed until they wanted us to leave. They have a democracy and are no longer a threat to anyone. The rest is up to them. Mission accomplished.

                1. Try not to move the goalposts here. You say Obama is Bush III. OK, but you made quite a name here defending Bush II on national security issues. So again, being a national security conservative, and seemingly agreeing with Obama much more than Paul on such issues, you would prefer Obama to Paul?

                  1. Two reasons. One, I think Paul would disappoint his libertarian supporters just as much as Obama did. The President is driven by events much more than we like to admit. Once Paul is President if he is, he will do things he never dreamed of doing.

                    Second, I don’t just vote on that. I vote on economic issues and Paul is vastly superior in that regard.

                    1. “”I think Paul would disappoint his libertarian supporters just as much as Obama did. The President is driven by events much more than we like to admit.””

                      I don’t know if he will disappoint. There’s a perception problem with voters than those who really understand government don’t have a problem with. What happen in government is far more about Congress, not the president. Those who don’t understand that buy into the notion that the President can do what he promises. Which is rarely true. Paul understands this though. When I saw him on the Corbert Report, he was asked if he would get rid of the IRS. He replied that he couldn’t but he would work with Congress to do that. That’s the proper answer. Too many people think the President has far more power than what he does to get things done. Other than vetos, the President is largely an agent of influence. Of couse the exception is when Congress gives it’s own authority to the executive by creating agencies.

                      I do agree with your last sentence. Situations have more to do with actions than beliefs.

                2. “”Obama is nothing but Bush III””

                  True. But neither the left or the right will admit it. Those who oppose Bush II policies will vote for Obama again. Those you supported Bush II policies will not vote for Obama at all.

                  Partisan politics.

          2. “”For example, the real problem isn’t the drone strikes, it is the fact that the CIA is running them. We have made our intelligence apparatus an operational entity. That is a terrible precedent. “”

            The CIA has been a operational entity for a long time, albeit cladistine. I do agree with you though. They have not been operational to this magantude in the past, they have more of a legit role instead of under the table.

            There probably is some oversight. But how that is done is probably classified. It may appear to have none because we are will to kill a dozen to get one, and the bar for what is a target is really low.

            But the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. was nothing but a prosecutors wish list made into law. It has less to do with terrorism than law enforcement (LE) in general. More uses of that act have been for drug bust than anti-terrorism.

            You said long ago that the problem with putting the war on terror under LE is that it fucks up LE, and the courts. The fact that more sneek and peek warrants have been use for LE than terrorism is proof that the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act allows the WoT to fuck up LE. If you don’t want the WoT to fuck up LE, you can’t really be for the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act.

            1. The oversight over who they are killing is little or nothing. Since it it all secret, we have no idea if they are abusing it or not. I am not saying they are. I am saying they or future people could be and that is a problem.

              1. “”The oversight over who they are killing is little or nothing. Since it it all secret,””

                Since it’s secret, you can’t really claim what it is with accuracy. Just saying.

                But I think we agree that general speaking, they will do the least that is necessary. We have no way of knowning what that is.

    2. and huntsman said we should employ a counterterrorism strategy w a much smaller footprint…& presumably smaller cost

  30. Putting an 88 year old out of business is “not a result of DEA regulations, but rather the selfish actions of criminal opportunists.”

    1. “If Mr. Wallace is no longer in business he has perhaps become part of that collateral damage, for it was not a result of DEA regulations, but rather the selfish actions of criminal opportunists. Individuals that readily sacrifice human lives for money.”

      You mean like the selfish people who work for the DEA, ruin lives by enforcing laws purposed to keep black men from thinking that they’re as good as white men, and collect a paycheck?

      Yes, such selfish individuals are ruining that man’s business.

    2. Jesus Tittyfucking Christ. Mr. Wallace found a simple cheap solution to a problem and then had the audacity to make money off of it without kowtowing to our nation’s nannies; now he finds himself out of business.

      That entrepreneurial spirit is getting harder and harder to maintain.

      And Mr. Wallace is awesome. His cantankerous distaste of authority and homespun ingenuity are traits that this country is becoming increasingly intolerant of in this new age of the meddling bureaucrat.

  31. Should smoking in your car be banned?

    When did the left get so pussy in regards to things like smoking? I know not all on the left, but the people who changed liberalism in the 30s would have kicked the current fuckers asses.

    1. its the EU dude. jeesch

    2. Restrictions on smoking in your car strike me as absurd and immoral.

      Public health nannyism is the worst element of the left today imo.

      1. In yesterday’s paper there was an article about the salt content in common thanksgiving dinner foods. The article admitted that you could find such info “in the fine print” of the product, but the government was worried that still too many consumers were taking in too much salt. The government was trying to think of ways to lessen salt content in products gradually so the public would not notice too much, the upshot being less public health problems. I wanted to crumple the paper and toss it in disgust.

        I’m fine with labeling, but once someone wants a salty turkey it is their own damn business. No one is pressured in any sense to eat a salty turkey…

        1. Here’s a story on what I read:

          “In a meeting held this month, the FDA deliberated on how to cut enough salt in processed foods for average shoppers to have a good shot at meeting dietary guidelines. The idea: If sodium levels gradually drop in the overall food supply, it will ease the nation’s high blood pressure epidemic and people’s taste buds will adjust.”


          1. Because people would never think of adding their table salt to the product to compensate, and maybe even end up with more salt than the products currently have now.

            1. Clearly table salt must be made prescription-only. For The Children.

    3. …but the law could help protect people who don’t want to inhale secondhand smoke and don’t feel they can just ask the driver to stop.

      I don’t like driving the streets of LA with Asian drivers, but I feel I just can’t ask Asian drivers to stop. Could the government please ban them also.

    4. Second-hand smoke is bullshit.

  32. Why some women are burning out of work at 30.

    Because who wouldn’t want to be kept? I’d love a sugar mama who kept me around for my body and skills at oral sex.

    1. *bats eyelashes*

      1. Not cool, reason.

    2. *tiny violin*

    3. Too bad you missed yesterday morning’s thread then.

  33. Glug, glug, glug.

    I voted for Barack Obama, and I don’t want my money back. He’s never gotten the credit he deserves for bringing the economy he inherited back from the brink of a depression. He’s fought the war on terrorism in a smart and effective way. He’s making health care possible for millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions, and he saved the auto industry. This is big stuff. But, as important as all of these achievements are, they pale in comparison to the defining challenge of Obama’s presidency: Can he put the country on a sustainable economic recovery path at a time when, if we fail, it could be the end of the American dream?

    Tom Friedman wants his Lord and Saviour to carry us into the Promised Land.

    1. That one paragraph makes me want to vomit. I don’t understand how anyone could read the whole thing, much less write it.

      1. If you thought that was bad, try this classic Friedman sentence:

        “Second, he’d offer a plan in which the wealthy have to pay their fair share and more, because they’ve had a great two decades.”

        It must be so nice to live without any principle other than “push me around, boss!”

        1. Friedman is probably think of his wife (who has him by the balls) when he writes crap like that.

        2. It must be so nice to live without any principle other than “push me around, boss!”

          Got me free room and board since 2008, didn’t it…?

  34. Mall tracking holiday shoppers by cell phone signals.…../index.htm

  35. The contract for the garages between the city and Marlins contains a clause ? an unusual one ? stating in no uncertain terms that the city is responsible for all taxes. In most of its contracts, Miami places the tax burden on the tenant or party using city property.

    The Marlins sure saw Miami coming.

    1. We went to Tampa and all we got was this lousy Tropicana.

    2. How do the Marlins even stay in business? Any game I’ve ever seen on tv shows about 80% empty seats. Unless and until the Havana Sugar Kings come into the major leagues, practically no one in Miami gives a crap about seeing a game in person.

      1. Florida is just a shitty state for pro sports in general, mostly because just about everyone there is from somewhere else.

      2. Joe Robbie stadium (or whatever the fuck it’s called now) is a football stadium built to house 70k+ fans. it was built for the Dolphins.

        Compare that capacity to Yankee Stadium or Fenway Park and you’ll get an idea of why it looks so empty.

        That said, their attendance is STILL slack.

      3. Ticket sales are not major income for professional sports teams, they’re incidental. The real money is in corporate sponsorships and television.

        1. And merchandising.

        2. I hate to disagree, but when it comes to baseball, you’re wrong.

          Their gate receipts either make them profitable or not, since their TV contracts, excepting the Yankees and Red Sox, are not so huge. The contracts with ESPN and their local carriers make up approximately 30% of their revenue. Compared with football, where the TV contracts make up around 80% of revenue.

          Even the lowest attendance of the major leagues probably generated $30M in revenue at $22/ticket average for the Athletics. For the Raiders to generate the same revenue, they would have to sell out that dump at an average ticket price of $160, and that ain’t happenin.

          1. Honestly, all the major league sports are at a point where a little contraction would do wonders for the quality of play and save some embarrassment.

            Just look at the NFL–I don’t think I’ve ever seen a collection of overall quarterback talent as lousy as it is right now. You’d think that with all the pass-happy offenses being put in place in college, that decent quarterbacks would be a dime a dozen. Yet there seemed to be better QB prospects coming out 30-40 years ago when everyone was running some version of the veer option.

            The people who are wailing and gnashing their teeth about Tebow should be directing their rage at a league which allowed the talent pool to be so diluted that someone with his skill set would ever have a serious opportunity of starting. The league could cut at least four teams, if not more, let them join the UFL, and their talent base wouldn’t erode any worse than it is right now.

  36. Cue bloodthirsty cretins!

    Oregon’s Democratic Governor John Kitzhaber said on Tuesday he would allow no more executions in the state on his watch because he believed the death penalty was “morally wrong.”

    The move, by a man who is also a former emergency room physician, effectively halts the planned execution of convicted killer Gary Haugen, who was scheduled to die by lethal injection on December 6.

    “It is time for Oregon to consider a different approach,” Kitzhaber said in a statement. “I refuse to be a part of this compromised and inequitable system any longer; and I will not allow further executions while I am governor.”

    The move marks the latest salvo in a long-running battle over the death penalty in America, where support for capital punishment has long been viewed as a benchmark of toughness for politicians running for office.


    Greg Horner, Clackamas County chief deputy district attorney, said he disagreed with Kitzhaber’s decision.

    “I have not heard any legitimate complaints about the system except that it is way too slow.

    No more revenge murders? What a gyp!

    1. “Kitzhaber said that despite his decision to disallow further executions, he had not commuted the sentences of Haugen or the other 36 inmates on Oregon’s death row because the state’s law on capital punishment was not his alone to decide.”

      You want to get technical? The law isn’t his to decide, but whether to grant pardons and commutations of sentences *is* his to decide.

      Art. V(14) of Oregon’s constitution empowers the governor to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, with only a couple of limitations – his power is limited in the case of convicted traitors, and he has to give reports to the legislature about who he’s pardoned.

      If the voters want to take these powers away from him, eg, in murder cases, then so be it, but until then, it is his duty to examine people’s sentences and reduce those he deems excessive. If he deems the death penalty excessive, he should act on that belief and commute to life in prison. The voters can always elect a more execution-friendly governor if they’re into that sort of thing.

      1. Great. “legislating morality.”

        1. I’m not sure what that means. Who is using legislative power here? Pardons aren’t legislative,* they’re an executive power dating back to the mists of antiquity.

          Oregonians could have limited the gov’s pardon power – and they did, as to treason, and to require regular reports, but they didn’t limit the power to pardon murder.

          “A secondary effect of using pardons to undercut harsh legislation is to put pressure on legislatures to change the unfairly harsh law by calling attention to the unfairness.”

          This had frequently happened – eg, the kings of England used pardons to spare the lives of thieves and even murderers for whom bloodthirsty Parliaments had specified the death penalty.

          *Except for treason, where the Oregon legislature decides on pardons.

          1. (the quotation is from Kathleen Dean Moore, Pardons: Justice, Mercy and the Public Interest, Oxford, 1989, p. 175)

  37. I have not heard any legitimate complaints about the system except that it is way too slow.

    Mr. Horner, would you consider this a legitimate complaint, “Murder is morally wrong even when committed by The State”?

  38. Because you can’t make this shit up:

    BERGHOLZ, Ohio (AP) ? Authorities raided the compound of a breakaway Amish group in eastern Ohio on Wednesday morning and arrested seven men on federal hate crime charges in hair-cutting attacks against Amish men and women.

    Among those arrested were the group’s leader, Sam Mullet, and three of his sons, said Mike Tobin, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Cleveland.…..51950.html

  39. UH-OH: Bunds sale a disaster!

    Germany’s public debt is 82% of its GDP. It’s supposed frugality is rather exaggerated. Contagion coming to a kraut near you.

    1. You know who else…

      Oh, fuck it, too easy.

    2. And it was only like a week or two ago that Alfred E. Krugman was claiming that Germany was doing fine. I can’t wait to hear the new line of bullcrap he spins out after this one.

  40. Nobody’s gonna read my quote rewrite upthread? After my FIFY last night garnered near-unanimous applause?


    1. 18. God thought this was LULZY,

      Sorry, the lolcat bible’s been done.

    2. Nothing is so disheartening as to see one’s witty quips go unacknowledged here. Nothing is so tedious as to have every fifth comment here be “LOL’ or “+1”. Ah, to find that golden mean. But, yeah, your rewrite was funny.

  41. Dude seems to know what he is talking about. Wow.

  42. U.S. government urges expats in Syria to leave now.

    Gee, do you think maybe we’re headed for war over there? You don’t exactly have to be a genius to read these tea leaves.

    1. I guess because we’re not bombing enough countries yet.

  43. Epic DUI:…
    2 thumbs up!

    1. Watson was charged with aggravated assault on a cop, resisting arrest, and “DUI-super extreme.”

      Three times the legal limit? Holy fuck.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.