Drug Policy

Reason Morning Links: Gary Johnson Gives up on New Hampshire, 200 Arrested at Occupy Los Angeles, Greece "Saved Overnight"

|

  • Gary Johnson to New Mexico's Capitol Report: "There's no expectation, none whatsoever" of doing well in New Hampshire. "We were hosting town halls every night [in New Hampshire] and basically nobody was showing up."
  • Police arrested over 200 people at the Occupy L.A. protest on Wednesday morning. 
  • Nine out of 10 schools in the UK will close and airline passengers in the country will face delays of 12 hours as roughly 2 million British public sector workers strike in response to austerity measures.
  • The author of a book on Pakistan policy that President Obama is currently reading tells POLITICO, "U.S. policy is incredibly confused. … What you're trying to do is completely contradictory, and time is running out." 
  • U.S. News & World Report: "Declassified Memo Hinted of 1941 Hawaii Attack"
  • AFP: Greece "saved overnight with a slice of rescue money." 
  • Senate votes 60-38 to give the U.S. military power to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism. 

New at Reason.tv: "California vs. The Feds: Obama's DOJ Cracks Down on Medical Marijuana"

NEXT: Mitt Romney's Immigration Dodge

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

  1. Chubby Chaser Special!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..nswer.html

    1. it’s no wonder that the UK crowd drinks so much.

      1. I’m not sure they’re drinking enough.

      2. explain to me again how tattoos are sexy…

        1. Would that chick be good looking without the tattoo?

      3. And that’s why I spent that summer vacation in Portugal and not England.

      4. Jesus, no kidding. The one in the white top in the 4-woman pic looks good (kind of like an older Joanna Garcia), and the one in the lace top and jean shorts in the bottom pic would look nice if she didn’t dress like a streetwalker.

        Everyone else is “ralph” territory.

    2. Why did you link these old Halloween photos of a bunch of girls dressed up as streetwalkers?

      1. I catch a rash of shit from John and others when I link to skinny chicks, so I thought I would do them a favor and link to some more to their liking.

        1. Thanks for that. I’m definitely down with the non-Auschwitz look. My point was that these particular ones look like whores.

          (And now I realize that was the gist of the article. Derp. I only looked at the pix the first time around.)

        2. The women in the picture of the four of them standing together are quite attractive. If you wouldn’t hit on them in a bar, you are either lying or gay.

          1. If you wouldn’t hit on them in a bar, you are either lying or gay.

            Chase those chubbies! Chase ’em! Chubbies need lovin’ too!
            Go get ’em John!
            Go get the chubbies!

            1. Those women are not fat. They are called women, as opposed to young boys.

              1. Toss up a slice of bacon and bang the one who gets it first!

                1. Why are all those women wearing American fashion from 2008? I thought the Limeys were so ahead of us when it cam to that. Picadilly, Fleet Street, Saville Row and all that. Tut, tut!

                  1. Are you a dedicated follower of fashion?

          2. Or want to remain STD free.

            1. Or want to remain STD free.

              Aw come on. What’s a little herpes among friends?

              1. My wife’s cousin actually is like the girls in the article. They call them “Essex girls” in the UK. She had a kid when she was 15. Has the skin color of an oompa loompa. A real winner I tell ya.

                1. So, that’s where our White Trash came from?

            2. Got a take your chances.

          3. you are either lying or gay … or you like women with a little class.

            1. You say “women with little class” like it is a bad thing. Good luck with uptight, topshelf white girls. I hear the missionary position is really exciting as an exclusive way to have sex.

              1. Good luck with uptight, topshelf white girls.

                I have had good luck with them, thank you very much. Married one in fact.

                I hear the missionary position is really exciting as an exclusive way to have sex.

                Good thing nobody ever told my wife that.

              2. Let me know if you’re ever in Wales, John. I’ll try to hook you up.

              3. Jesus, John. I’ve met women at church retreats that’ll do a reverse-cowgirl anal two weeks later. You can’t judge their “class” by where they hang out.

                I may have said too much…

                1. “a reverse cowgirl anal”?
                  did they win a ribbon in their “class” at that rodeo “two weeks later”?

                2. No, sloopy… DO go on. We’re hanging on every word after “anal”.

                3. Mmm, Catholic girls “saving” their virginity.

          4. The one on the far Left probably. The rest, meh. The third possibility is that we have higher standards.

            1. That’s referring to the pic with four women, btw.

          5. I must agree w/ John.

    3. You wanna see some scary UK shit, tune into My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding on TLC. Fuckin-a.

    4. I’d tap that!

      1. Not lower case chris, definitely not. Besides I’m mongoose. Hey, that last word in the previous sentence is the best auto-check correction I’ve ever seen. It stays.

    5. Not all chubby girls are as unattractive or trashy as those chicks. Just like not all skinnier girls look like 14 y/o boys.

  2. Kathleen Sebelius’ Gruesome Moral Calculus
    Health and Human Services policy may be furthering the exploitation of sex-trafficked women.
    http://www.ncregister.com/dail…..-calculus/

    The Washington Post’s Jerry Markon recently reported that senior political appointees at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had overruled the department’s professional staff and ended funding of the Catholic bishops’ program to aid victims of human trafficking.

    1. The government needs to end funding for a plethora of programs, which will undoubtedly lead to false accusations of them ‘furthering the exploitation’ of one victim class or another.

      No longer providing funding for assistance is not the same as furthering their exploitation.

    2. on a side note, I have a friend who just recently ended his multi-year stint as a civilian contractor over in Iraq. During his many vacations over to SE Asia, he fell in love with a girl. Well it turns out that to settle a family debt, she was sold ‘into slavery’ to work a piece shop here in America. Before my friend could ‘buy her back’, she was ‘resold’ to marry someone else. Or something like that – very confusing story that seems straight from the 19th century.

      1. All moot now, I’m guessing; her brothers have probably killed her by now for falling in love with an infidel.

      2. Stop being so judgmental.

        1. stop posting.

    3. Read Maggie McNeill’s blog sometime. You’ll get an education in trafficking hysteria.

      1. No thanks. I’ll just keep worrying about something I heard about from my friend who watched Oprah or something.

  3. Israelis save drowning Iranians
    Drama in Thailand as Israeli lifeguards save two drowning Iranians. ‘When we told them we were Israeli they just got up and fled’
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articl…..51,00.html

    1. ‘When we told them we were Israeli they just got up and fled’

      Unclean Unclean!!!

    2. They were probably afraid the JOOS! were going to make crackers out of their blood, or something.

      1. Mmmmm… bloooood crackers….

  4. Conservatives should think twice about Newt
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..wt/1958871

    Newt Gingrich’s surge to the top of the Republican presidential field has some conservatives imagining the former House Speaker as the anti-Romney. Gingrich is encouraging such a view with his claim that he is “certainly more conservative” than the former Massachusetts governor. The Manchester (N.H.) Union-Leader’s endorsement added to the perception of a growing “newt-mentum” to anoint Gingrich as the preferred conservative in the Republican presidential field. But there are substantial reasons why thoughtful conservatives should think very carefully before jumping on this bandwagon.

    etc etc

    1. Mark Stein (guest-hosting the Rush Limbaugh Programme yesterday) said Gingrich is somewhat more conservative than Romney, but “that’s like being the best gay bar in Riyadh.”

      1. Stein was awesome yesterday disassembling Newt!

      2. That is an AWESOME quote. Mark Steyn should replace Rush for good and I’d tune in every day. He’s a typical conservative jerk, but at least he’s very funny about it.

    2. Newt’s negatives are even worse than Romney’s. If he gets the nod, it will be a victory for the right and a loss for the GOP come the general election. Obama can just stand by and watch Newt’s ghosts return and consume him.

      1. I don’t see how Newt is a victory for the Right. He is as much of a RINO as Romney. In some ways he is worse. Romney is just a sleazy politician saying what he thinks people want to hear. He might do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Newt actually believes this shit.

        1. Newt is just a victory in that he isn’t Romney, which appears to be the right’s only objective, not picking Romney. But he is worse, on all sides.

          1. Romney did that too himself by being such a shit. If he had just repudiated and apologized for Romneycare and actually tried to win over the right rather than acting like they had no choice but to support him, they might have supported him.

            1. the right … might have supported him.

              Nope. Didn’t want in 2008. Don’t want now. No phony-baloney, crony capitalistic, NE liberals for the Repub ticket. The political insiders focus on Romneycare, but Romney has a lot of problems besides that, starting with his complete lack of authenticity which translates directly into untrustworthiness.

        2. In some ways he is worse.

          Oh, I don’t know. I’m not a Newt fan, but at least he is forceful enough that he has the potential to blunder about and shake up the system a bit. Romney has never done anything brave in his life and is a guaranteed choice for the status quo, which ain’t working out so well.

          1. That is a good point. Newt does not lack nerve. God help us for what he will use that nerve to accomplish.

          2. What the hell has Newt ever done that was “brave”? Dump his cancer-ridden wives for younger broads?

            Romney got wealthy by starting his own capital management firm. He also took over the SLC Olympic debacle that could have turned into a gigantic black mark on his record if he didn’t turn it around.

        3. John, most on the right are also RINO. That’s how it will be a win for them. If the major voting bloc on the right were actually conservative, we wouldn’t be in the fucking mess we’re in, but they aren’t; they’re every bit as socialist as the left. The only difference between them and soccer moms or greenies is that they want to use government differently than the other groups to fuck the rest of us over.

    3. Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Cain, none of them will receive my vote. The reasons range from disgust at their lack of principles to disdain for their stupidity. If any of them are nominated, the Republican Party can go to hell for all I care.

      1. And it will and Obama will win in 2012.
        Who does everyone like for 2016?
        (no baggage, no stupidity, etc. etc.)

        1. If Team Red loses next year, my money is on The Fat Man vs Rand Paul vs Paul Ryan.

        2. Here’s to hoping for an epic battle between Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan and Rand Paul (or Gary Johnson).

        3. It’s fucking amazing that Team RED has fucking Obama to beat, they have no one but a bunch of ass eaters to put up because they’re too stupid to vote for Ron Paul.

  5. Occupy Irrelevancy: Is Movement Already Fizzling Out?
    http://news.investors.com/Arti…..clines.htm

    Countless other pundits and advocates claimed more or less the same ? that Occupy Wall Street was a grass-roots movement equal to if not potentially more influential than the Tea Party.

    But two months after it began, the movement is giving every sign of running out of steam. Recent protests have been resounding flops, public support is slipping, and even Democrats are reluctant to embrace the movement.

    1. Because it isn’t a “movement.” A “movement” has a message, some goal they want to accomplish. There was no achievable goal with the Occupiers. I kept waiting for them to deliver a manifesto or something that explained to bemused middle Americans why they were important and should be listened to, not a bunch of commie/ socialist tripe that was guaranteed to put off the very people they were purportedly trying to reach (and if they were not trying to deliver a coherent message to uninvolved 99%-ers, then what was the purpose– public masturbation (literally and figuratively)?).

      In the meantime, a bunch of young adults throwing a public temper tantrum isn’t a “movement.”

      1. Frankly, it comes across as more of a social gathering than a movement.

        1. I call it Reddit Gets Laid.

    2. It’s laughable that anyone ever considered Occupy as anything other than what it was – astroturf. Anyone who ever claimed that it was or would be more influential than the TP is either a complete fool or shamelessly disingenuous.

      1. I think the “potential” was seen at one point in polls that showed more Americans viewed OWS favorably than they did the TP.

    3. From the quote, the one conclusion I get is that a lot of “pundits and advocates” have a poor ability to distinguish between claiming and wishing.

  6. Well thanks for stealing part of my thunder, morning links: Gary Johnson eyes Libertarians, who eye Ventura

    Would a Ventura candidacy be, overall, good or bad for the LP? More publicity, but would it be the kind we want?

    1. Would a Ventura candidacy be, overall, good or bad for the LP? More publicity, but would it be the kind we want?

      He is a Truther. DO NOT WANT.

      1. I thought he had moved to Mexico after losing a court challenge on Homeland Security or something.

      2. U.S. News & World Report: “Declassified Memo Hinted of 1941 Hawaii Attack”

        Pearl Harbor troothers were right. The government has no problems letting people die and then lying about it to start wars. Operation Northwoods.

        1. Jesus fucking Christ this is the dumbest fucking thing.

          If the government had known about Pearl Harbor they would have met the Japanese in the air and stopped the attack. The Pearl Harbor plan relied utterly on the element of surprise. Take that away and you get an American victory.

          The real question you have to ask conspiracy idiots is this: if FDR knew Yamamoto was coming, why did he choose to start the war with a defeat rather then a victory?

          1. So it looked like he had no choice but to act?

          2. Before the attack on PH, U.S. sentiment was anti involvement, the day after the attack, young men were lined up outside recruiting offices.

            That’s why.

            FDR told his staff a week before the attack that the U.S. was at war with Japan and all that was left was to get them to strike the first blow.

            Politicians read Machiavelli.

            1. Which does not answer the fucking question even a little bit.

              Indulging this bullshit idea that FDR knew Yamamoto was coming, let’s spin the following scenario:

              FDR sends secret, sealed orders to PacFlt warning of an imminent attack on Pearl, and ordering PacFlt’s battleships and aircraft to locate and destroy the Japanese fleet as they launch their attack on an empty Pearl Harbor.

              Then he has the casus belli he needs to go to war, and he also gets to start the war with a victory oh and by the way an actual intact Pacific Fleet.

              Being a conspiracy nut is so fucking stupid. FDR sought to intervene in European War, this is absolutely true. I might even buy that he deliberately pushed the Japanese into going to war. But the idea that he sacrificed the entire battleship fleet (remember at this time no one knew carriers were the future), which allowed the Japanese to push out and take most of the South Pacific is asinine. No one knew Pearl was going to happen. If you know about a surprise attack, you turn it into your own ambush (see Battle of Midway or the Six Day War), you don’t let it happen for nefarious political purposes.

              Fucking Truther scum.

    2. Jesse Ventura, the man who couldn’t run minnesota of all places?!? Politics be damned. That man is unqualified to run a Dairy Queen.

      1. Did you know: Rocky Mount, VA has more Dairy Queen’s per capita than anywhere else in America?

      2. Ventura was taken down by an informal pact between the state Reps & Dems. They did everything they could to short-circuit his term — including nearly bankrupting the state.

        Ventura, like 90% of the country, went crazy after the Manhattan Raid of 2001.

    3. Ventura is the obvious choice for a movement that wants to doom itself by aligning with the kooky fringe.

      1. I usually vote straight-line LP, but I’ll be damned if I am going to vote for a Truther. Fuck that noise.

        1. Sure, unless there is a Republican on the ticket…

          1. A Mental God, I tells ya.

    4. Would a Ventura candidacy be, overall, good or bad for the LP?

      Who gives a shit?

      1. Not me, that’s for sure.

      2. I say leave the LP to the dogs and start a new third party for rational, incrementalist libertarians. A truther candidate will help with the former; Gary Johnson leaving the GOP and starting a new party or taking over the shell of the Reform Party would accomplish the latter.

    5. After the Bob Barr debacle? Are they fucking kidding me? Next time I get an email solicictation from them, they’re getting apiece of what’s left of my mind.

      1. Ha! I had to look up callipygian.
        Nice word of the day…

      2. …and pictures or it isn’t true. 🙂

        1. It’s not at Kardashian levels, but it ain’t bad considering I’ve been sitting in a chair 8 hours a day since I was 22.

  7. Sheriff of the Year busted selling meth. New Professionalism continues apace.

    1. … and shoots own dog.

      Now That would be news.

    2. This is the old corrupt predecessor to Robinson, who was hand picked by Sullivan. The LP ran Ken Waters, a former deputy of Sullivan’s and Robinsons, against Rbinson 4 years ago. He was kicked off the ballot illegally by the county clerk at the time (a hand picked, literal secretary of the governor). The LP sued and ended up getting the law changed but the damage was done. Ken was getting awesome response on his campaign due tio his having smoking gun documents on both the previous and existing sheriff’s departments.

    3. I saw this on my local news last night. What’s great is he’s been placed in a jail that is named after him.

  8. OT: My first court appearance is today. Woo hoo!

    1. remember to start with a joke…

    2. Good luck!!

      1. Thanks! I hope to never read another case about grapes in a grocery store again in my life.
        As for the joke: nah, but I think I will wear the tights with the halloween theme! That’d be great!

        1. case about grapes in a grocery store

          Another ambulance chaser aborning? *choking back bile*

          1. I didn’t pick the case; it’s part of a class I am in.

  9. I went clubbing with my son
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com…..le2203706/

    1. That article is hilariously awful:

      Not long ago, we went through seven years of estrangement when my son would have rather chewed worms than acknowledge my presence in his life.

      The son is 21. So you say you were “estranged” from your son during his teenage years? That’s not estrangement; that’s your kid being a teenager.

      1. He should consider himself lucky.

    2. Does mom get laid?

  10. Police arrested over 200 people at the Occupy L.A. protest on Wednesday morning.

    “Several Million Dollars Worth of Urban Renewal Resulting.”

  11. On the surface, the central conflict of The Muppet reads like a script from a bad 80s teen movie. An Evil Developer Evil Oilman Tex Richman is going to tear down the local rec center to put in a mall! is going to tear down the Muppet Theater to drill for oil. But the movie really revolves around a larger and far more interesting conflict, one that the franchise has been confronted with for the last 20 years, since Jim Henson’s death: In this age of CGI, celebrity voice overs, and “edgy” pop culture references in kids movies, is the felt and string simplicity of the Muppets still relevant? The answer in this film is a resounding yes.

    Why the Muppets are still relevant is answered pretty explicitly in the film. The Muppets are still relevant because of their fan, embodied by brothers Gary (played writer, star, and appropriately Muppets superfan Jason Segel, who is human) and Walter (voiced by Peter Linz, and a muppet). How they are brothers is never explained. If you need to know, ask SugarFree. Moving on, as a child, Walter was comforted by The Muppet Show, which helped him feel less alone in the world for obvious reasons. When asked by Gary to accompany him and his girlfriend Mary(Amy Adams) to Los Angeles for what is supposed to be their anniversary trip, Walter jumps at the chance to see his childhood idols in action. What he finds is a dilapidated Muppet Theater, the primary attraction of which is the wire and pulley section. Walter, of course, goes off tour into Kermit’s office (complete with a requisite and tear inducing picture of Kermit with Jim Henson hanging on the wall) where he learns of Tex Richman’s plan to tear down the Muppet Theater and drill for oil underneath… MANIACAL LAUGH! Arriving at Kermit’s stately Hollywood home, our character reunite with the franchise’s main character (and his 80s Robot, who is willing to bring you a nice Tab or New Coke at any time, and carries with with him a state of the art modem… for the 80s) and begin a “getting the band back together” montage. All your favorites are here, from Fozzie as a washed up performer in Reno to Gonzo finally fulfilling his dream of becoming a plumber. Even the minor characters get great moments, and if you don’t chuckle at Sam the Eagle’s new profession, you take yourself and your politics too seriously. However, after the group is back together, the movie does slow a bit, until the requisite big show that will save the theater is on. That goes off beautifully, complete with great celebrity cameos from the likes of Neil Patrick Harris and Jack Black (this is where having a generation of fans comes in handy). And the movie ends answering the question it poses: With cheering crowds greeting the Muppets as they exit the theater, proving their relevance.

    Mechanically, the movie works on all levels. The songs are saccharinely sweet, as telegraphed by the opening number I’ve Got Everything I Need, but this is a Muppet movie, for god’s sake! Also, it’s hard to kill a movie that has a showstopping rendition of the classic Rainbow Connection. Vocally, some of the voices are a bit off, but they sound close enough that unless you are a super fan, you shouldn’t notice anything to off. As for the jokes, the Muppets has always succeeded by being an absurdest cross between Monty Python and vaudeville, always willing to break the fourth wall and acknowledge the insanity of movie and television tropes. This movie is no different, with jokes that both children (Fozzie’s fart shoes) and adult’s (“Let’s travel by map!”) will appreciate. I’d go as far to say that it is the funniest kids movie in a good long while, outdoing a few of Pixar’s recent efforts.

    The opening number of The Muppet Show invites the viewer to play the music, start the lights, and meet the Muppets tonight. Whether it your first time, or this is a long awaited reunion, The Muppets is a great way to meet the Muppets tonight, tomorrow, or as soon as you possibly can.

    1. Where I went to watch the movie, they played a bunch of old muppets show clips before the movie and I’ve got to admit, if they’d canceled SNL in ’78 and kept the muppets, we’d probably be better off as a nation.

    2. I learned yesterday that “Mahna Mahna” was based on a song from a Swedish porn movie. Edgy.

      1. Also, the review clearly states that it is an Italian porn. Get it right!

        1. Oh, you’re right. I keep making that mistake because of the Sweden in the name and the Swedish actresses.

    3. C’mon! This review deserves more comments than Sunderman’s piece of crap.

    4. Can’t wait to see it. And what’s up with Pixar recently? They had a great run with Ratatouille, Wall-E and Up and then we get Toy Story and Cars sequels. There’s a Monsters Inc. sequel in the works now and a 4th Toy Story too, according to Tom Hanks.

      1. Pixar’s been coasting ever since The Incredibles, it’s just that their mediocrities are better than 90% of the crap being released. Even the “good” ones you mentioned weren’t really all that compelling.

    5. I like the chickens doing Cee Lo’s Fuck You.

        1. I’ll see your Sex Pistols and raise you… the Pork Pistols:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vZnqnIalyA

    6. My 9-year-old son and I went to see it last night. We were in a 500 seat theater and, sadly, the only people in there for a Tuesday evening, 7pm showing.

      When I picked my son up from school one of his classmates said “Ew, you are going to the Muppets?” My only assumption is that the current group of pre-teens thinks of the Mups only in Sesame Street connotations.

      That being said, my son (who has loved other muppet experiences and was psyched for the movie, despite his peer group) and I did enjoy the flick. I did not share my disappointment with him, though, about the failure to meet my expectations.

      What I missed was that clever wackiness that Henson and Oz used to bring to every scene. Most of the voices were just enough off for me to notice, not my son — but what was really missing was the orchestrated lunacy that the old creators brought. Rather than being a Muppets film, though, this instead seemed to be somewhat of a vanity piece for Jason Segal, who got to be the lead in the musical he had never been cast for.

      It is hard to describe for those born after a certain age, who might think these are just puppets and nowhere on the evolutionary scale beyond Hello Kitty. But Henson and Oz were truly geniuses, and I defy anyone on this board to say otherwise. They certainly would not have protested with OWS demanding their puppetry tuition refunded.

      1. The original Muppet Show was absolutely amazing. All the little blink-and-you-miss-it moments were what got me. And the John Denver Xmas special. Nothing beats that.

  12. Males that stray from the nest for adulterous adventures may leave an opening for their mates to cheat, new research on great tit birds suggests.
    While these absentee males end up with more adopted chicks from the female mate’s flings, they also leave their own offspring in other nests. On average, the “bold” males have the same number of chicks as males who stay home.
    “Males that were very bold, that explored very quickly, they were much less faithful to their mate, but they also had less paternity in their nests,” Patrick said. “What it showed was that your personality didn’t predict your fitness, how many young you had, but it predicted the mating strategy though which you had those young.”

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45…..tYoWlqykng

    1. Look, don’t be linking to a “great tit” site and then show me some damn birds.

      1. Englishmen are particularly confused by this bait-and-switch.

    1. Suprised he didn’t stick his tongue out at the reporter…

    2. Many years ago, Holder came back to the law firm I worked at to give a speech to his former colleagues. I was struck even then as to how much of a smug, mendacious prick he was.

      1. ‘You’ve got to know when to holder,
        know when to folder.
        know when to walk away, know when to run.
        You never count your supoenas, when you’re talking to the press corp.
        There’ll be time enough to count ’em when the indictments come.

    3. “”You guys need to ? you need to stop this. It’s not an organic thing that’s just happening. You guys are behind it.”

      Oh no, looks like another vast, right-wing conspiracy.

  13. http://bigjournalism.com/jjmno…..dont-care/

    So I guess Obama really did have the fund raiser at Bill Ayers’ home. Back in 2008, you were one step above a Birther if you believed that to be true. Now Ayers says it was true.

    The media’s mendaciousness here is just amazing. When something embarrassing about Obama comes out, immediately deny it and call everyone who says it a liar. When it is no longer deniable, just say it is old news and everyone knew it all along.

    1. When something embarrassing about Obama comes out, immediately deny it and call everyone who says it a liar. When it is no longer deniable, just say it is old news and everyone knew it all along.

      I’m pretty sure this has been the strategy at least since Clinton. (Moveon.org?)

      1. Yes it has been.

      2. Since at least Alger Hiss.

          1. IIRC, Pharoah pulled that same shit with the plagues.

    2. Back in 2008, you were one step above a Birther if you believed that to be cared whether that was true. Now Ayers says it was true.

      1. Ok. So the fact that Obama started his political career with a guy who is separated from Tim McVeigh by mere fact that he was a lousy bomb maker and McVeigh wasn’t, doesn’t matter? I am sure you would say the same thing if Mitt Romney had fund raisers with Eric Rudolph. And the fact that Obama bald faced lied about it means nothing too.

        You have let the mask slip lately NM. You used to try to be something besides a Dem cheerleader. But now you really don’t even try that.

        1. Non-stories are non-stories…no matter how hard you want to make them matter.

          1. Non-stories are non-stories…no matter how hard you want to make them matter.

            Thank you, Eric Holder.

          2. Of course, it’s a non-story now because Obama won the election.

            Would it have changed things if the “unofficial Obama campaign”, aka the media, had done its job? Maybe.

            It it came out during the primary, it certainly could have helped Billary’s campaign.

            1. Ayers was and is still a thug, Neu. It’s no big deal to you because questionable associations only matter to the other major half of the political spectrum.

              1. questionable associations only matter to the other major half of the political spectrum

                A true statement, no matter which half of the political spectrum you are in.

      2. True, a fund-raiser with a reformed terrorist? How is that news? I mean, if the Republican candidate held a fund-raiser at an old KKK church bomber’s house, I seriously doubt anyone would care.

        1. I have never hosted a Republican fundraiser at my hosue.

        2. cynical,

          What John is ignoring is the fact that his story WAS reported back then. The information was available to the voters back then. There will be the same debate now about the veracity, about the important, about the continued relationship, etc. I doubt it will get much traction this time around either. Maybe I am wrong. Currently it is a he said/he said story. But, you know, the media discourse has degraded even since 2008, so maybe I am wrong.

        3. Of course they’d care–the klan is a traditionally democrat institution.

  14. Blanche Lincoln Introduces Bill to force Airlines to allow you one checked bags for free; liberals rejoice, think there will be no consequences.

    Hmm, wasn’t there something exactly like this? It involved the banking industry. But after we banned their fees, there was no problem, I bet.

    1. An uncommonly silly proposal for sure. Even if this were something dire, which it is not, and even if it would not cause some messed up consequence, which it would, as anyone who watches any NFL game can tell you there is at least one airline who is drawing the line at bag fees. Just fly with them.

      1. Those Southwest commercials with the “referees” are getting super annoying.

    2. They are evil corporations. They print their own money. Don’t you know that?

    3. The stupid, it burns

    4. Seems she didn’t get the news that American declared bankruptcy.

    5. Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, whatever.

    6. There’s just No WAY that airlines fares are about to jump up $30 or so. I mean, they’ve written a LAW dammit!!

    1. It’s wrong to call her a “skank,” but she is a jerk.

      There are those who call her…cunt.

      1. “I HEARD THAT!!!”

        1. Wow… women on Feministing actually *date* men?

          1. Well… “men,” at any rate.

            1. “PRESENT!!!”

    2. I think it’s safe to say most would actually think better of her and her roommates if they put out a little in return. Road head, or even an nice ol’ fashioned during the cab ride after, or something.

      But these sweet girls are saving themselves for the right guy who can do more than just provide a free meal. They’re waiting for that fella who can pay off their credit cards.

      1. Present.

    3. Well, surprisingly (!), at least Jezebel agrees that the woman in question is a bad person. I was kind of expecting that they’d be all down with socking it to the patriarchy via cadging free meals.

      1. I guarantee you that most of them did the same thing to their beta male nerd friends in college. It’s remarkably easy to get those types to take care of a lot of stuff for you if you hint at the possibility, but never follow through, of them getting to touch a boob.

    4. That’s why you don’t buy them dinner until after you’ve had sex. Keep the first dates to casual meet-ups, a couple drinks, coffee, etc., split the bills.

      1. Never go back for a second date with one who doesn’t offer to split it.

    5. I’m pretty sure I spent this summer “dating” a girl using that strategy. We haven’t seen each other since the day I helped her move and said I’d like our next date to be just hanging out without going out for dinner.

      1. you were just being “groomed” for the move…

        1. Maybe. It probably had something to do with my salary being 2.5x hers.

  15. Will Wilkinson has apparently soured on occupy wall street. What is interesting about this link is not what Wilkinson has to say, nothing he has to say is ever interesting. It is the title of the site. Get this Big Think: A forum where top experts explore the big ideas and core skills defining the 21st century.

    Just what is Wilkinson a “top expert” at besides being a douchebag?

    http://bigthink.com/ideas/41309

    1. Well, of course you hate Wilkinson, like SIV does, because he represents something anti-thetical to all your work here: that maybe libertarians can make common cause with liberals more than they can with conservatives on many issues.

      1. What is Wilkinson an expert at? He has a masters in philosophy. He has never held a job doing anything but writing. He has never been in government or business. But he is a “top expert”? The title of the site is laughable.

        1. ntil August 2010, he was a research fellow at the Cato Institute where he worked on a variety of issues including Social Security reform and, most notably, the policy implications of happiness research…Previously, he was Academic Coordinator of the Social Change Project and the Global Prosperity Initiative at The Mercatus Center at George Mason University, and, before that, he ran the Social Change Workshop for Graduate Students for The Institute for Humane Studies…He graduated from the University of Northern Iowa in 1995, received his M.A. in Philosophy from the Northern Illinois University in 1998 and did work toward a Ph.D. at the University of Maryland.

          1. Again, he has done nothing but go to school and pontificate. Sorry but running “social change” workshops doesn’t qualify you as an expert at anything. I wouldn’t hire Wilkinson to mow my lawn.

            1. Er, he worked for quite a while as a think tank and academic researcher. That is the kind of thing that gets someone labeled an expert on the topics they researched John.

              1. Top. Men.

              2. Not really. Those jobs don’t pay worth shit and are generally inhabited by people who can’t get the better paying jobs in government or academics.

                1. Research fellows at George Mason, the IHS and Cato are not experts on what they research.

                  Got it John. Glad we have you around to decide who is an expert and who is not, otherwise I would have assumed that someone who worked for top universities and think tanks for a long time were so.

                  1. No MNG, just because you hold a few jobs as an academic researcher doesn’t make you an expert at anything. Are some of them experts? Sure. And they move on to academia or government when they become such.

                    1. What the fuck are you trying to argue? He worked in academe for years, at George Mason, a well respected (especially for libertarians) academic institution. He then worked for years at Cato, the most well respected libertarian think tank in the country. As libertarian researchers go he was at the top dude.

                    2. Academic Coordinator of the Social Change Project and the Global Prosperity Initiative at The Mercatus Center at George Mason University, and, before that, he ran the Social Change Workshop for Graduate Students for The Institute for Humane Studies..

                      Ah those are not research jobs MNG. Those are “coordinator” jobs. That means he did the logistics to support the people who actually did the research.

                      And again, what is Wilkinson an expert in? Economics? He doesn’t have so much as an undergrad degree in the subject. Politics? He has never worked in a campaign or in government. Law? He is not a lawyer. International affairs? He has never worked for an international organization or so much as lived overseas.

                      If he is an expert much less a top one, tell me what subject he is an expert at other than being a douchebag.

                    3. What an assuming, generalizing blowhard you are. Many coordinators of academic centers do far more than what you state dude. I know, I used to work for one. Often the “coordinator” is the top scholar there.

                      But in his time as a RESEARCH FELLOW at the TOP LIBERTARIAN THINK TANK in the nation he focused on several areas which would be listed by any sane, non-partisan hack like yourself who simply hates him because he has leaned left lately, as his “areas of expertise.”

                    4. Once more MNG, what subject is he an “expert” in? If you can’t name the subject you are an “expert” in, then you are not an expert.

                    5. The wiki mentions happiness research and social security reform, for starters.

                    6. From the Cato website:

                      Will Wilkinson was a research fellow who works on a wide range of issues at the intersection of political philosophy, psychology, and economics. He has authored major studies on the moral dimensions of Social Security reform, the policy implications of happiness research, and economic inequality. He is also editor of Cato Unbound, the Institute’s online forum of big ideas. Prior to joining Cato, Wilkinson was the academic coordinator of the Social Change Project and the Global Prosperity Initiative for the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, where his work concentrated on the mechanisms of social change and the role of institutions in economic development.

                      It also has several of his white papers he wrote while there.

                      http://www.cato.org/people/will-wilkinson

                    7. “He has authored major studies on the moral dimensions of Social Security reform, the policy implications of happiness research, and economic inequality. ”

                      He wrote a few research papers. Wow. That doesn’t make him an expert on anything, except maybe social security reform. Woo Hoo.

                    8. He’s worked at top libertarian universities and the top national think tank, as a research fellow writing and publishing research papers on several subjects.

                      Yeah, that’s no reason to think he’s an expert.

                      Just say you hate the guy cuz he likes Democrats and let’s get it over with John.

                    9. John|11.30.11 @ 10:56AM|#
                      Once more MNG, what subject is he an “expert” in?

                      John|11.30.11 @ 11:14AM|#
                      That doesn’t make him an expert on anything, except maybe social security reform.

                      Jesus Christ arguing with you is a waste of time. Deny until you can’t deny anymore, with no shame for wasting so much time with the denials which you know concede (but of course in conceding try to minimize).

                      Jesus. What did I expect arguing with a guy who tried to present as evidence that he is not a partisan GOPer that the GOP is better on every single issue?

                    10. happiness research

                      Oh, that’s just so desperate and sad. The “think tank” equivalent of a major in Gender Studies.

                    11. Wrong. It’s a fairly big area of study by international economists and psychologists.

                    12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H…..omic_views

                      But it’s nice to try to move the goal posts anyway. We started with Will Wilkinson has never held a position that would make one think he’s an expert. Then Will Wilkinson has never done any research in any area that would make him an expert. Now it’s well, his area is teh stupid.

                    13. Wrong. It’s a fairly big area of study by international economists and psychologists.

                      And if Wilkerson were one of them, I might care what he had to say about it. He doesn’t even have his PHD. Again, all he has ever done is pontificate. BFD

                    14. Okay, I’m gonna have to agree with MNG on this one. Just because you don’t have a degree, aren’t a lawyer, and never worked in government doesn’t mean you can’t be an expert in those things.

                    15. But you at least should have to work in the field. Wilkinson has never worked in any field and doesn’t have the degrees. All he has done is shoot his mouth off.

                    16. So why are we even bothering reading Reason then? Who cares about the opinions of these non-experts, right John?

                    17. Indeed, Wilkinson’s resume is better than most of the experts here.

                      Is Sullum an expert on drug issues? Bailey on police? I’d say so.

                      You also have to love how John, who usually decries academic credentialism loudly and longly, says Wilkinson is no expert because he doesn’t have his PhD.

                      He just hates the guy because he dared suggest liberals might be better on some things than conservatives from a libertarian view, and that’s contrary to John’s “body of work” here.

                    18. Indeed, Wilkinson’s resume is better than most of the experts here.

                      Faster, dammit. Bob your head FASTER — !”

                    19. But you don’t see them touting themselves as ‘experts’–never mind ‘top’ experts.

                      As John says, it’s very difficult to discern what Wilkerson’s ‘top expertise’ is in.

          2. Previously, he was Academic Coordinator of the Social Change Project and the Global Prosperity Initiative at The Mercatus Center at George Mason University, and, before that, he ran the Social Change Workshop for Graduate Students for The Institute for Humane Studies…He graduated from the University of Northern Iowa in 1995, received his M.A. in Philosophy from the Northern Illinois University in 1998 and did work toward a Ph.D. at the University of Maryland.

            Like John said, he’s an uber douche.

            Just another DC parasite. No wonder that he’s evolving into a progressive or that you think he’s great.

            1. Let me get this straight, people who work for the Institute for Humane Studies and Cato are DC uberdouches? Thanks for letting us know you don’t know wtf those orgs are.

              1. I would not be proud to have been part of a “social change workshop”, as I am not a douchebag.

          3. I did some serious partying at Northern Illinois University, a small state college in the middle of nowhere. I will say the ladies were licentious there, back in the 80’s. I hope that Wilkinson also had the same sort of fun there that many of the rest of us did (I did not attend but a pal got a JD there between trysts), to justify obtaining a degree from that diploma mill.

      2. “If we stroke his fur and give him our children occasionally, then maybe the tiger will eat us last!”

      3. Bzzzt* Sorry, thanks for playing. Libertarians tried the whole liberal thing when Obama got elected. The results have been…spectacularly aweful. We’ll go play in the woods and hope Red and Blue wipe each other out.

        1. Sure, Obama has given libertarians nothing. I concede that much dude. Wilkinson wrote before his election, he was hoping for something different, just like many libertarians hoped for something different when the GOP last came to power.

          1. He was dumb not to see what Obama was and anyone who supported Bush was dumb as well.

            U.S. News & World Report: “Declassified Memo Hinted of 1941 Hawaii Attack”

            Pearl Harbor truthers were right…USS Liberty troothers were right…Gulf of Tonkin troothers were right..I wonder what more will be known about 9/11 in 60 years.

            1. It just astounds (and depresses) me how many sensible people, who otherwise wouldn’t believe the government if it said hello, swallow the ludicrous Officially Approved 9/11 Conspiracy Theory hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, hand and arm.

            2. That it was planned, performed, and executed by militant islamist?

          2. Since I stopped voting a few years ago, there’s no reason to “hope” for anything. Much easier that way.

        2. hope Red and Blue wipe each other out

          This is all I asked for Christmas this year.

        3. The Democrats are 100% statists; the GOP is 99.99% statist. We are friendly with the 0.01%.

          A general alliance with the left would be stupid. We might as well stop being libertarians. If they want us to go along on specific issues where we do agree, fine, but let’s not pretend that haters of government and lovers of government have much common ground.

          1. Of course I think that is wrong. In GOP circles it is common to find people who think that incorporation of the BOR or Griswold v. CT were bad things. These are probably the most pro-liberty developments in this century.

            If you focus on economic liberty more than other facets then you might be on to something…

            1. Griswald was over 40 years ago. At some point that check doesn’t cash anymore. If there is a serious threat in the country of banning contraception, get back to us.

              1. Griswold is the basis for the privacy right that is still very much in play today, as in cases such as Lawrence (which conservatives decried).

                1. So what? You as much as admitting liberals haven’t done anything but erode liberty for going on 50 years.

                  1. What? Didn’t I just mention Lawrence and the conservatives that decried it? The privacy right recognized in Griswold had been applied in several areas in the last fifty years, with liberals generally applauding and conservatives bitching the whole way.

                    1. You mentioned a privacy fight that happened 40+ years ago. Again, get back to us when there is any danger of Griswald being overturned.

                    2. MNG|11.30.11 @ 10:10AM|#
                      Griswold is the basis for the privacy right that is still very much in play today

                    3. Back when the Democrats were the “racist and religious” party, incidentally. Whatever that means.

                    4. That’s always been a complicated thing. The Dems were the party of the South (and its racism) and Bryant (and his evangelicals), but the GOP always had a religious following too (think abolitionism). When Prohibition went through much backed in rural, religious areas there were plenty of GOPers in that crowd, as well as plenty of Southern Dems.

                      During the New Deal the Dems were such a big, majority party. The citified Northern elements and the Southern rural elements barely co-existed. It started to fall to pieces when Henry Wallace ran in 48, Truman and Johnson made civil rights feints, and the Warren Court (dominated by Democratic appointees) made the separation of church and state rulings. The modern Democratic party basically came from the Henry Wallace wing, Southern and rural Dems tended to turn to the GOP which was refashioning itself around states rights (ironic for the party of Reconstruction), which was seen as a means to resist federal mandates on civil rights and religion.

                      Either way, from Roe to Lawrence we can see what conservatives even recently thought of the privacy right…

                    5. There is nothing freedom inspiring about letting unelected Justices make broad decisions about our lives. You may agree with a ruling now and then, but ultimately the lack of accountability will bite you in the ass.

                    6. reason has had many article on the libertarian view on ‘judicial activism.’ You should read them.

                2. “Griswold is the basis for the privacy right that is still very much in play today”

                  Right. The government has no plans to assert authority with issues related to my health.

                  You are one dumb fuck.

          2. let’s not pretend that haters of government and lovers of government have much common ground.

            So much ^ THIS ^, there are no words.

          3. “The Democrats are 100% statists; the GOP is 99.99% statist”

            That’s a silly statement. If the choice is between more statism for war, religion, drug control, corporations and against disfavored ethnic and sexual minorities vs. more statism for education, healthcare, unions, gun control, the environment and against megacorporations, some anti-statists stuck in a “lesser of two evils” political system will find the latter grouping slightly more palatable than the former. They’re wrong to assume they have to make that choice, but you can’t assume that just because they vote Democrat they are automatically unabashed statists. Again, if libertarians make no effort to market to the Left and break out of being labelled a subset of the Right, the Left will pay little credence to libertarian ideas.

        4. Yes, enjoy President Gingrich. Our alliance with the Right has been so utterly fruitful. Look at that great libertarian president, George W. Bush, for example.

          Seriously though, there’s never been a real concerted effort to reach out to the Left, so how can we say it wouldn’t work? The Left are automatically turned off by our affiliation with the Right and Objectivism. I think we’d have a shot if we rebrand and more vocally reject corporatism and embrace voluntary collectivism as a preferable substitute for government action.

          1. Man, you are just inviting the LGFers here to attack.

            The funny thing imo is that all these conservatives come on here and pander to libertarians, I think they actually see themselves as performing some service for their cause, pushing libertarians to vote for the “right” team. It’s insulting really.

            I never claim to be a libertarian. Where I disagree with them I say it. But why am I here? I’ve come here for years because I am dissatisfied with what liberals and Democrats have done on many issues, from drugs to war. I also don’t like how the Democrats and liberal seem to uncritically embrace taxing and spending and berate markets.
            There are quite a few liberals like me. But until libertarianism stops being dominated by conservatives then places like Reason will be places many people would rather avoid.

            There are issues liberals like me and libertarians are never going to agree on. But why not work together on the issues, like drugs or euthanasia, that we can?

            1. There are quite a few liberals like me. But until libertarianism stops being dominated by conservatives then places like Reason will be places many people would rather avoid.

              Concern troll is concerned.

              1. LGFer doesn’t like suggestion LGFers ruin H&R

                1. Seriously, it is obvious that Hit & Run is overcome with Republicans. If the Reverend cannot see that, it must be his blinkered partisan blinders and his GOP-fellating that causes his blindness.

                  1. Stay classy, MNG.

                    1. 11:50 is not me Rev, just the usual pussies.

                  2. The direct spoof, wonderful. I guess the others were too subtle for right wing tastes.

                2. Hey Minge, LGF is a lefty site now. Try to keep up.

            2. What’s an LGFer?

              1. What’s an LGFer?

                Little Green Footballs.

                A Muslim-Panic blog.

          2. Leave out the “Right and Objectivism” bit, and the left still has a lot they hate about liberatarianism – individualism, self-reliance (how many times have you read a mocking tone on the subject of “bootstraps”? I’ve seen shitloads of those comments), and not to mention our preference for capitalism over the “mixed economy” model…

            1. I guess I don’t see individualism and collectivism as being a real conflict as long as the action is voluntary. Individualism can easily violate the rights of others in many cases, so that’s not inherently libertarian. (See also: the conclusion to The Fountainhead).

              Collectivism is done out of mutual self-interest, even if it does not necessarily maximize individual self-interest. People sacrifice freedom voluntarily to live in society, start families, etc. There’s nothing anti-libertarian about that as long as there’s no coercion via government or other non-governmental entities.

              Same with capitalism. One need not be a capitalist to be a libertarian. One must merely believe that individuals should be able to freely sort themselves into the voluntary economic systems they desire and respect the rights of others to do the same. If a private, voluntary commune wants to reallocate their property and share their labor, there should be nothing stopping them.

              In my opinion all anti-authoritarians, Left or Right, should automatically be free market libertarians. “Free market” is not necessarily capitalism and “libertarianism” is not necessarily uncompromising Objectivist individualism. Libertarians have failed marketing to the Left, but that doesn’t mean it can never be corrected.

              1. Libertarians have failed marketing to the Left, but that doesn’t mean it can never be corrected.

                Libertarianism could “market” itself even more effectively to the redistributionist Left by morphing its economic principles and philosophy into lockstep simulacra of those of, say, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, or Nancy Pelosi, or Michael Moore.

                Golly! What a great plan!

                1. Yes, because that’s exactly what I said. Derp.

                  1. Yes, it is. Derp.

                    1. Lacking simple reading comprehension must make life hard for you. Maybe if you take off your Team Red goggles you can see better?

                    2. Coming from some anonymous online yip-yop who equates established, baseline libertarian principle with “Team Red goggles”…? My hair remains unturned.

                      I suspect that was your very best effort. Have a juice box, poppet.

                    3. I see. So under your system of libertarianism, how exactly would you stop people from forsaking capitalism and living in voluntary communes? How would you stop White Indian from gamboling across his own field with his primitivist buddies?

                      A free market allows everyone to organize as they desire without intruding on the rights of others to do the same. How does advocating a free market and no government coercion beyond enforcement of individual rights = being lockstep with the policies of Michael Moore and Nancy Pelosi? Such an assertion is almost so stupid I don’t know why I’m bothering.

                      Libertarians can legitimately hold different value systems, including leftist ones. As long as one is not advocating government or pseudo-governmental force, one is classified as a libertarian.

                    4. I see. So under your system of libertarianism, how exactly would you stop people from forsaking capitalism and living in voluntary communes?

                      You “see” so pitifully little, you all but require the patient services of an Annie Sullivan to type your mewlings out for you. At what juncture along the way did I advocate “stopping people from forsaking capitalism,” if you please. Point to it, without further dissembling or delay, ready, set, GO — !

                      How does advocating a free market and no government coercion beyond enforcement of individual rights = being lockstep with the policies of Michael Moore and Nancy Pelosi? Such an assertion is almost so stupid I don’t know why I’m bothering.

                      Only a genuinely bad actor argues in such demonstrably shabby faith as you do, right there. This is what I wrote, in plain English and in toto:

                      Libertarianism could “market” itself even more effectively to the redistributionist Left by morphing its economic principles and philosophy into lockstep simulacra of those of, say, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, or Nancy Pelosi, or Michael Moore.

                      Nowhere along the way, you odd, disingenuous little message board chitterling, did I equate “free markets” and/or “lack of government coercion” with Moore, Pelosi, etc. As is, in fact, baldly and irrefutably apparent: I did precisely the opposite. And you snivel on about “reading comprehension” — ! You’re a clown bumbling about in search of his funny car.

                      Quit while you’re behind, lad. This isn’t the Special Olympics, and I’ll not award you anything simply for showing up.

                    5. At what juncture along the way did I advocate “stopping people from forsaking capitalism,” if you please. Point to it, without further dissembling or delay, ready, set, GO — !

                      Oh, dear. What would a distributionist do, in the face of this sudden, roaring silence…?

                      Ummmmm… “Mic Check. MIC CHECK — !”

                    6. Haha, those are some clever ad hominems you got there.

                      Your post either implied that I think libertarianism should abandon its economic principles to more successfully cater to the Left, or you sidestepped my points and essentially made a pointless argument that being Leftist will make you appeal more to Leftists. By your “yes it is” I assumed the former and defended my arguments from your straw man implications of Team Blue statism. But perhaps that was also just sarcasm and you were just making a completely pointless argument in the first place?

                    7. Haha, those are some clever ad hominems you got there.

                      Haha, rank intellectual dishonesty merits no better. Failure to back up your silly, overheated burble that I had “advocate[d]” “stopping people from forsaking capitalism,” noted. I’d thank you for playing, if you were genuinely any damned good at doing so.

                      Proprietist|11.30.11 @ 7:27PM|#
                      Your post either implied that I think libertarianism should abandon its economic principles to more successfully cater to the Left

                      Proprietist|11.30.11 @ 11:26AM|#
                      I think we’d have a shot if we rebrand and more vocally reject corporatism and embrace voluntary collectivism

                      *yaaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnn* Bored, now.

                    8. Yeah, I think you just contradicted yourself. “Rejecting corporatism and embracing voluntary collectivism” are completely in line with libertarian policies, if not the philosophy’s traditional, right-leaning branding thanks to Objectivism and Team Red infiltration efforts.

                      If you claim that the ideas I advocate abandon libertarian principles and policies, you must know of some magical way to stop voluntary collectivism in a libertarian society? If you claim you can’t and don’t advocate doing so, then obviously I’m not saying libertarians should abandon their economic principles, because there is no contradiction between different kinds of voluntary economic organization in a free market. We can market voluntary communitarianism to the Left and voluntary capitalism to the Right and still be completely consistent libertarians.

                      That libertarians have chosen to ally more with Objectivism instead mutualism was a marketing decision reflecting the personal value systems of most libertarians, but not necessarily a practical political maneuver. By abandoning the notion that consistent libertarians can still hold core Leftist ends like increased equality of opportunity and privatization of corporate risk, libertarians cut off the Left and allowed statism to flourish on that half of the spectrum.

                    9. you must know of some magical way to stop voluntary collectivism in a libertarian society

                      *yaaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnn* redux. Already spanked your smarmily disingenuous ass, re: falsely ascribing statements/positions of your own clumsy inventioned to me, last time out, kiddo. You fetishistically insist upon arguing with the imaginary “Ice Cream Bunny” in your head, rather than dealing, straightforwardly, with the simple declarative sentences already provided for you repeatedly, above.

                      I’ll leave the two of you to become better acquainted, then.

                      Dismissed.

                    10. You’ve offered little but ad hominems, non sequiturs and circular logic, then declared victory? And I’m the disingenuous one…I’m the one trying to have a rational debate.

                      You claim I’m contradicting libertarian principles with my proposal to advocate more voluntary collectivism and reach out to the Left, then you state that my theoretical challenge to your claim is ascribing false positions to what you believe. But I never claimed you actually believe that nor am I arguing in bad faith – merely pointing out that libertarians would have to accept voluntary collectivism in a free society anyway, so why not use that to grow our political coalition?

                    11. I’m the disingenuous one

                      Congratulations, at long and painful last, on your personal epiphany.

                      Again: Dismissed.

                    12. Whatever, dude. I hope you enjoy your lame delusions of chatroom victory.

          3. There is so much to hate in the two parties that have a lock on power in this country, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s a total waste of time to “reach out” to either.

          4. I think we’d have a shot if we rebrand and more vocally reject corporatism

            You know nothing of me, or my work.

            1. If you rejected corporatism so much, it’s strange that Atlas Shrugged’s protagonists are the executives of large corporations. Corporations are government-licensed legal entities that socialize risk and thus not creatures of a free market.

              As I’ve said before, the regulatory state exists to balance the moral hazards of limited liability and bankruptcy. Supporting the rollback of the regulatory state without support the end of limited liability and bankruptcy means supporting more socialized risk. If you care about individuals rights, you can’t prioritize a polluter’s right to pollute over a victim’s right to not be polluted.

              1. “Principled Libertarianism is haaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd!

                1. Actually I do believe that most libertarians don’t take their supposedly principled economic philosophy to its logical conclusion. Socialized risk is no big deal as long as profit is totally privatized, right?

              2. moral hazards of bankruptcy

                so if we brought back debtor’s prisons we could properly get rid of more the regulatory state, in your universe?

                1. As I’ve said about a million times I’m all for debtor’s prisons when bad faith debtors are making no attempt to repay their debts. Of course, if a debtor has lost their income or can not necessarily afford increased interest rates, that does not mean bad faith. It should be between the debtor and creditor to renegotiate voluntarily in such circumstances, or for the creditor to cash in on collateral.

                  If the system disincentivized debt by removing state bankruptcy, fewer people would go into debt and more people would offer credit at lower rates.

                  1. “Just a leeeeeeeetle more brute power to the federal government, over all the rest of us… and then — ALAKAZAM! — we’ll all magically become freer, as a result!”

                    1. Ah, reinforcing the screwed up priorities of “vulgar libertarianism”…

                      A debtor in bad faith is no different than a thief or fraud. As a miniarchist who believes the sole role of government is defending individual rights, I don’t see how removing a state instituted legal process that enables theft/fraud and forces the victims to comply with the state’s decision is morally superior to jailing those who commit the theft/fraud.

                      Same with limited liability: how is forcing victims to pay for damages to their health and property by others more libertarian than forcing the polluter/violator to do so?

                      Why must a libertarian prioritize the rights of violators over victims? I’m not calling for more government power by any means. There would be little need for the regulatory state if everyone was fully responsible for their actions. Your system merely replaces tyranny by government with tyranny by private actors, which is not inherently superior.

                    2. Make that “I don’t see how removing maintaining a state instituted legal process that enables theft/fraud and forces the victims to comply with the state’s decision is morally superior to jailing those who commit the theft/fraud.

    2. Just what is Wilkinson a “top expert” at besides being a douchebag?

      Isn’t that enough of an achievement?

      1. “PRESENT!!!”

    3. Big Think has good articles on occasion.

      And the experts pool is deep…I mean they have Henry Rollins.

      1. Speaking of experts on being a douchebag…

      2. Does he write articles on making bad punk records?

        1. “PRESENT!!!”

          1. wrong,they actually know how to create a riff

            1. … if, by “create,” you mean “take one of ours.”

              1. Green Day? 4th rate Buzzcocks

                1. Buzzcocks…4th Rate Wire

                  1. Making Green Day 16th rate Wire…that seem too big a compliment.

                  2. Buzzcocks and Wire can’t even be compared. Stylistically and aesthetically they are totally different. I’d say both were equally great at what they specialized in.

                    1. I don’t know about that, but this stuff is entirely subjective.

                      I hear a lot of common elements in Wire and Buzzcocks, but have never been a fan of Buzzcocks’ music.

                    2. Wire, Magazine and Gang of Four were more political, artsy and edgy post-punk. Pink Flag has a few punk-poppy tunes but Wire didn’t really bear any resemblance to the Buzzcocks style or traditional punk after that album.

                      Post-Devoto, Buzzcocks mostly wrote simple 3 minute love songs. They’re more along the lines of the Undertones or the Ramones, in the pop realm.

                      So yeah, Green Day probably comes from that lineage. I probably wouldn’t mind Green Day much if they hadn’t spawned fifteen plus years of godawful corporate pop-punk shit. But that’s also kind of like blaming Nirvana for Creed and Nickelback.

                    3. Pink Flag has a few punk-poppy tunes but Wire didn’t really bear any resemblance to the Buzzcocks style or traditional punk after that album.

                      Well, duh. But, of course Wire and Buzzcocks started in similar places and Wire continued to get better, while Buzzcocks weren’t in the same league. Hence the 4th rate comment. But to be fair I stopped listening to Buzzcocks early cuz, well, they bored me to death.

                    4. Wire, Magazine and Gang of Four were more political, artsy and edgy post-punk.

                      While the sound they defined became known as post punk…it is hard to call bands from seventy six, seventy seven “post” punk. C.F. Chrome. So, GOF, sure…but…

                    5. It is weird that many “post-punk” bands came before punk, like Devo, Pere Ubu, Chrome, Blondie, Talking Heads, etc. I think post-punk more or less means anything that is punk aesthetically but doesn’t sound like the Sex Pistols or Ramones. Although my personal favorite post-punk bands did actually came after punk (Family Fodder, This Heat, The Pop Group, Flying Lizards, etc.)

                    6. I guess I’ve always felt that Wire were more interesting and innovative, but side by side I think the Buzzcocks are better songwriters. Magazine probably has both beat though. And from a pop perspective I prefer the Undertones to the Buzzcocks.

                2. Dickies. Definately Dickies. Buzzcocks is way beyond them.

  16. UK: All Iranian diplomats must leave Britain within 48 hrs
    http://www.jpost.com/Internati…..?id=247603

    British FM Hague tells parliament he has ordered the Iranian embassy in London closed, all Iranian staff must leave; announcement comes minutes after Cameron says UK weighing “very tough action.”

    1. What are they going to do, throw their hanky at them?

      1. Lord Pennywhistle will use his rapier wit to belittle them.

        1. Don’t confuse the brits with other European powers as far as lack of military prowess.

          The British can be very hard-corps.

          1. The British Army of yore was an amazing thing to behold. But now they have very little in terms of force projection. Perhaps the SAS could do something though…

          2. As we saw last year when a boat full of Royal Marines was kidnapped by Iranians in the Persian Gulf.

          3. I sliced through dozens of those ‘hard-corp’ chaps with my Tigers – all I had to do was wait for them to sit down to afternoon tea.

          4. The UK has nukes.

          5. Don’t confuse the brits with other European powers as far as lack of military prowess.

            Like the Germans, for instance.

            Wait a few more years. After the EU disintegrates, nationalism reasserts itself with a vengeance and young Germans get thoroughly fed up with immigrants and being told to be embarrassed about Germany’s past. The Hun will march again.

            Totally agree about the British, though. They’re not pussies.

            1. The Brits are certainly not pussies. However, they’ve so totally gutted their military they just don’t have the capability to project effective force anymore.

          6. In the Obama pronunciation guide, the s is not silent in “hard-corps.”

  17. “I am very pleased. The next disbursement is a very good signal for Greece. Greece is now back on track and I am very optimistic,” Greek Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos said after the eurozone meeting.

    Never throw money on a Greece fire.

    1. And Fist wins the thread

    2. Clever. I’m stealing it.

    3. *golf clap*

      1. [insert rimshot]

  18. Someone named Martha Brokenbrough makes her case for wife of the year.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/29/…..hpt=hp_bn8

    My God what a nagging bitch. I honestly feel sorry for her poor husband.

    1. Once, when I was dangling at the end of my rope, I insisted he go to the doctor for a hearing test. I was quite certain the man was deaf. How else, for instance, could he have taken my grandma’s books to Goodwill instead of the antique-book dealer, as I’d asked when he was cleaning out the basement?
      Just as I’d gotten used to the idea of the man I love with hearing aids, the news came in from the doctor. My husband’s ears work fine. Better than mine, actually.

      She was enough of an overbearing bitch to demand he get his hearing checked, and he was enough of a gutless coward to do it. He deserves what he gets.

      1. He’s playing the long game…I wonder if she’s an heiress.

        1. In that case, there’s no excuse for him not arranging an accident for her.

          1. A simple divorce nets him half without the ugly potential for a criminal investigation. Oh, and think of the alimony.

      2. If my wife told me that, fuck off would be the mild part of my reaction. I can’t believe he took that shit either.

        1. Marrying some sweet young girl and having her turn into this has to be awful.

          1. I’m betting he didn’t actually go to the doctor, but maybe to the “doctor.”

            1. How sweet. She still hasn’t discerned the difference between “deaf” and “ignoring you.”

              1. Another case of a “wife notch” audio filter.

                1. It’s ‘what’s for dinner’.

        2. I’d just pretend not to hear her.

      3. Hell, my family got together for my grandparents’ 60th anniversary and before going out we stopped by the g’rents’ house. We were there for 10 minutes before my grandfather says, “hold on, let me turn on my hearing aid.” Not listening to your wife bitch may be the secret of a lasting marriage.

    2. Once, when I was dangling at the end of my rope, I insisted he go to the doctor for a hearing test. I was quite certain the man was deaf. How else, for instance, could he have taken my grandma’s books to Goodwill instead of the antique-book dealer, as I’d asked when he was cleaning out the basement?

      As someone intimately acquainted with the antiquarian community, let me assure you that 99.9999999999% of everything you find in a basement will turn out to have no monetary worth or historical importance.

      1. Old books are almost never worth anything. I have one from the 18th century that is barely worth $150.

        1. Yeah — as a collector of (some) antiquarian books, I predict they were probably better off taking the tax write-off. The chances that there was something in grandma’s basement that was worth anything was probably 1 in 500 (but not SF’s 1 in a billion, or whatever that percentage worked out to).

          1. Ah, I said everything, not just books. The books percentage is much higher, if still far too low to bother me about.

      2. What about all those reality shows where they make big finds? Are you saying that’s bullshit? That TV lies to us?

        1. In two decades of collecting, I’ve made two or three nice finds in antiques malls, but that’s all. When I used to deal at antiques shows a few weekends a year, the ratio of junk to treasure was depressing. But the treasure did exist.

        2. Imagine if they showed all the people they talk to on those shows… 56 episodes in, they finally find someone with a lamp worth $75! Exciting!

      3. About the only thing that retains or increases in value is – luxury/upscale goods. Of course there are exceptions – some toys, some cars, and er… vacuum tubes (seriously).

        1. Vaccum tubes – especially ones for guitar amps.

          1. used to be I could get (real) 1960s Mullard EL34s for $25ea… now? HA!

        2. Basically things that didn’t have value back in the day rarely acquire value now.

          And if I had a million dollars to spend on trinkets, it wouldn’t be on someone’s 15th century underwear.

          1. actually, the lady next door told me (with much disgust) that large women’s underwear is a hot seller on ebay…

        3. Firearms do very well.

      4. It’s funny how people believe that old stuff must be more valuable. Even if you look at a piece of antique furniture that seems rather expensive, unless it is something with particular historical importance (and marketability) it would probably cost much more to have a new piece of the same quality made today.

    3. She has a second part that is even worse.

      http://www.parenting.com/artic…..-the-anger

      1. Am I wrong to think the name of the permalink “mad-at-dad-part-2” sounds like a porn title?

        1. No. If Vivid Video doesn’t have such a title, they should.

          1. “Mad at Dad”

            That’s the title of the entire pornography industry.

            1. haha i get it

      2. I’m looking forward to the next “WHY WON’T MEN GROW UP AND GET MARRIED?” article myself, as if a lifetime of this kind of marital bliss is to be envied.

        And her name almost has to be a joke, right? Right?

        1. i’m sure lack of activities in the bedroom has been conveniently left out of the equation…

    4. “He always hops-to when I ask him, but it bugs me that he doesn’t just pitch in and help on his own. I have to ask every damn day.”

      In other words, it bugs her that he doesn’t ‘read my mind’.

      1. If he really loved her, he would know what she wants.

        1. I was engaged to a bitch like that. She said it was difficult for her to tell me what she wanted, so I should just know.

          1. You got off easy. I married her.

            In my defense she had a magnificent pair of breasts.

            Glorious. Simply glorious. Rendered me stupid.

    5. I actually read that article a couple months ago. I didn’t find it all that offensive, honestly. Notice that most of the numbers are around half. Should we be surprised that half of the women surveyed have problems with their spouses’ behavior? I’m sure half of a random group of men would have complaints as well. And notice in the second article, she says:

      (A note to those involved pops out there, like Sportswriter Dad, who chimed in that “I can braid hair and wipe butts with the best of them… I can do the chores and stay in tune to my kids’ wants”: We’re not mad at you.)

      I thought the personal story at the top was kinda lame, but a lot of the other ones were legit.

    6. Wow…bristling much, guys? I don’t see anything terribly inaccurate about this article. Women get frustrated because men don’t pull their weight. You can bitch and mock these women all you desire, but for many women, it’s a fact of life.

  19. The GOP presidential candidates believe, as an article of faith, that the United States is an overly-regulated society?The GOP candidates claim that the U.S. regulatory environment is not competitive with that of our peer group, and risks losing jobs to other countries. Still another article of faith among GOP candidates is that the regulatory scheme has worsened under President Obama?

    I describe these as “articles of faith”, because to my knowledge — they have not shown any non-partisan research, or international benchmarks, to demonstrate that our overall regulatory environment is particularly burdensome?Leaving aside the GOP candidates’ anecdotal views, it is helpful to examine real data that compares the U.S. regulatory burden with that of our peer group. The World Bank conveniently prepares an Ease of Doing Business Index (Index)? The World Bank Index samples 10 regulatory categories, so is not exhaustive across all regulations. But it clearly shows that overall — we are among the easiest of countries in which to conduct business, particularly when compared with our peers.

    As for the Obama administration’s performance, a recent General Accounting Office study found no particular increase in the regulatory burden by comparison with the preceding Bush administration.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..18792.html

    1. I describe these as “articles of faith”, because to my knowledge — they have not shown any non-partisan research, or international benchmarks, to demonstrate that our overall regulatory environment is particularly burdensome?

      And you have research that says it isn’t? Citation please?

      1. Er, click on the article Sherlock.

        1. Watch the sleight of hand the author did there:

          The GOP presidential candidates believe, as an article of faith, that the United States is an overly-regulated society

          and then this:

          they have not shown any non-partisan research, or international benchmarks, to demonstrate that our overall regulatory environment is particularly burdensome?Leaving aside the GOP candidates’ anecdotal views, it is helpful to examine real data that compares the U.S. regulatory burden with that of our peer group.

          Why, if the complaint is that we are over-regulated, is the author talking about peer groups? Do we tell Egyptians to stop complaining because oppression is worse in African nations?

          So, in short, dishonest hack is dishonest, and MNG cited him excitedly. Big fucking surprise.

          1. Do we tell Egyptians to stop complaining because oppression is worse in African nations?

            Before I get picked apart, I know that Egypt is in Africa. I am setting it apart from continental Africa vis-a-vis the Middle East.

          2. When you say something has too much of something you could mean it in some absolute way, but it’s hardly “sleight of hand” to mean it in comparison to other examples.

            1. If someone said “New York has too much crime” it is not crazy to compare NY’s crime to other states.

              The fact you see hackery in that suggests far more about yourself and projection dude…

              1. If someone said “New York has too much crime” it is not crazy to compare NY’s crime to other states.

                Next time someone complains about crime in NY, I’ll just tell them “Hey, it could be Mogadishu! Count your lucky stars!”

                You are retarded.

                1. My lord, not only is your partisanship projected, but your mental retardation.

                  This is why he compares them to peer groups goofball (as in comparing New york to other US states, or one first world nations to another). Your shifting from 1st to 3rd world shows you either don’t understand this idea or, as is more likely, are just being dishonest in your hackery.

                  1. This is why he compares them to peer groups goofball (as in comparing New york to other US states, or one first world nations to another). Your shifting from 1st to 3rd world shows you either don’t understand this idea or, as is more likely, are just being dishonest in your hackery.

                    It was an analogy, dumbass.

                    Here is the dialogue:

                    GOP CANDIDATES: We have too much regulation!
                    MNG: Wait, we are not particularly burdened by regulation. Compare us to other First World Countries!
                    RBB: What the fuck does that have to do with anything? The GOP candidates making an absolute statement, and you want to shift to comparative ones.

                    And somehow I am the hack.

                    I am not going to continue to masturbate you, you dishonest little fuck. Own up to what you endorsed or fuck off.

                  2. “My lord, not only is your partisanship projected, but your mental retardation.”

            2. The GOP is traditionally loath to compare the United States to other countries, especially with respect to the death penalty, jurisprudence, economics, culture, ad infinitum. This is yet-another case of the author (and, of course, you) either failing to understand or deliberately misunderstanding your opponent and then launching/endorsing an attack on a strawman.

              If the regulatory scheme is burdensome (which the author says is may be, just not particularly burdensome), then it is perfectly valid for GOP candidates to say that we are over-regulated as an absolute measure.

              Like I said yesterday, pull your partisan head out of your partisan ass and learn to read.

              1. Like I said, certainly one can mean over-regulated in some cosmic sense. Sure. But it’s common research practice to test something like this by comparing equivalent nations dude. Your hysterical reaction says more about you.

                1. Like I said, certainly one can mean over-regulated in some cosmic sense.

                  Which is what they mean. If you bothered to know anything about the GOP, you would know. Let me ask you this: if the GOP candidates said “We have too many restrictions on our Second Amendment rights”, do you think it would make sense, in order to understand what they are saying, to talk about gun rights in Europe?

                  Fuck no, it wouldn’t. You like to misunderstand and obfuscate.

                  1. And if you bothered to know anything about, I dunno, the world of research on anything, including the GOP when it suits them, it’s perfectly common to test a charge of “too much” or “too little” X by comparing what are thought to be equivalent political/geographic units. Your hysterical reaction to this common practice says more about your hyperpartisanship than anything else.

                    1. If any GOP candidate had said “we are over-regulated as compared to X nation”, then that would be a valid point.

                      They never said that, of course.

                      “The world of research” is not a justification for malicious mischaracterization.

                      It strikes me as particularly funny because everyone Rightist I know will say something like “look at these regulations! Do you want this nation to wind up like Europe?” And then you endorse something that compares us to Europe?

                      How does someone so stupid manage to live?

                    2. Look, do you think it is unheard of to judge claims of a political entity having too much X to compare it to what are thought to be equivalent political units? From the incarceration rates, to economic growth, to taxation, to crime rates, this is a common way to assess that claim. Is it the only one? Of course not. As I conceded you could judge it along some cosmic metric, or as noted below you could judge it historically. But it is a common one. If you want to say it is not the best one, say it, but to find “malicious mischaracterization” in such an approach shows you are way too caught up in KultureWar.

                      Hell, wasn’t it just yesterday Reason had two articles talking about too muc corporate taxation in which that claim was demonstrated with comparisons to other nations corporate tax rates and comparing state tax rates? Did you throw such a fit then too?

                    3. And if you bothered to know anything about, I dunno, the world of research on anything, including the GOP when it suits them, it’s perfectly common to test a charge of “too much” or “too little” X by comparing what are thought to be equivalent political/geographic units.

                      Please. Every time it gets pointed out that, empirically, the United States has never taken in more than 20% of its GDP in taxes, no matter what the rates or employment levels were, there’s typically some sperglord who cries that “Well, in other countries they do this!!” Which is entirely beside the point, because they never bother to contemplate exactly WHY this country has never collected more than 20% of GDP in revenues, even with marginal rates well over 80% at times.

                      It’s nothing more than intellectually lazy misdirection, regardless of who’s doing it. Comparing the US to, say, Europe is only marginally beneficial because you’re examining two organic systems that are quite different in terms of population, demographics, geography, culture, and social complexity.

                      That the author talks about “international benchmarks” is particularly telling.

                      This index averages the country’s percentile rankings on 10 topics, made up of a variety of indicators, giving equal weight to each topic. The rankings for all economies are benchmarked to June 2011

                      The bolded portion indicates a methodological flaw. Why should the topics be given equal weight if the possibility exists that they don’t have equal impact? Why did the World Bank determine that these topics had equivalent impact? Strauss doesn’t say.

                      Furthermore the author, either intentionally or not, displays a deliberate obfuscation of what these candidates are actually arguing–that the amount of regulation and red tape is crippling the health of businesses in this country right now, particularly small businesses which can’t afford an army of lawyers and accountants to help them navigate those hurdles. Now this is an argument that can actually be examined with empirical data–profit margins, small business growth, employment-to-population ratios, and comparisons with past recent eras where different laws, or lack therof, were in place. Surveys can be conducted with business owners at all income levels to determine the impact of bureaucratic complexity on their companies.

                      But this being a HuffPo piece, the author has no time for the kind of hard work and critical thinking required to make an objective assessment. Furthermore, the amount of qualifiers Strauss inserts into his article regarding the World Bank’s methodology and data demonstrates an understanding that his thesis isn’t fully supported. He’s simply throwing out red meat for the HuffPo mouth-breathers to gorge on.

                2. Hey, John. Looks like the Rev. BM is beatin’ your time. Just sayin’.

                  1. Fuck this, he’s going into the filter.

                    1. Aw, I hurt lil’ pussies feelings, he don’t want to see my mean posts no more!

                      What is it about the correlation between our LGFer-lites and being such pussies?

                    2. “What is it about the correlation between our LGFer-lites and being such pussies?”

                    3. Join the club… There was a time when he was worth reading but not anymore…

                    4. Oh good lord, the “you used to be such a good, reasonable liberal” line. The only one lamer than that is “you are now worse than joe/NM/Tony etc.”

                      Look tarran, do you think it that hysterical reaction was warranted from someone testing a claim of a nation having too much of something by comparing “peer” nations? It’s a pretty common way of addressing that kind of thing (though as I conceded waaay back @ 9:37).

                    5. the “you used to be such a good, reasonable liberal” line.

                      If it’s any consolation, I genuinely can’t see anyone here making that mistake with you ever again.

                  2. CN,

                    I only respond because no one else does. And I hate to see bullshit go unchallenged. When other people respond, I happily stay out of it.

                3. because I really think the USA, the most economically and militarily dominant nation in the history of the world, with a large ethnically diverse population and foundation in the Constitution, has ‘equivalent nations’ to compare to. derp

                  1. What I really mean is that I want to compare the US to the shitty, over-regulated, under-employed, taxed-to-death European countries I love so much.

                    1. My goodness, two pussy spoofers in one discussion! The LGFer hate is strong today.

                    2. every1 whoo mocks mee must be a repub derp

                    3. I hate you too.

                    4. Look at it like this. Suppose most countries in the world randomly killed many of their citizens each year. Let’s say, on average, the US killed 22,000 citizens, randomly picked, each year. And then the UK killed 28,000, Japan 30,000, Egypt 25,000, Germany 26,000, and so on. Well, some people in the US say “Our government is killing too many of us.” Some dipshit decides, “well, let’s compare our government to others around the world. Oh, look, we kill less per capita and in total numbers, so it’s not all that bad.” No, it is still bad! Bad is bad, no matter how high or low the numbers are in comparison with others.

                    5. Look, I conceded at the start here that when a person says there is too much of something in a political unit they could be talking in some cosmic sense. Or in a historical sense. Or they could be talking in comparison to equivalent units. My point is that someone is not involved in “malicious mischaracterization” by taking the other tack.

                    6. There isn’t enough toilet paper in the world to wipe the shit off of you.

                    7. lol, this is typical right wing argument here!

                    8. Sorry MNG, but that is just as much a canard of left wing argumentation as it is the right.

                4. Like I said, certainly one can mean over-regulated in some cosmic sense.

                  How about in a historical sense.

                  As in the growth of regulations over the last twenty five years has increased the cost of doing business in the US increasing the pace of outsourcing and the consolidation of large businesses that are better able to deal with the regulatory environment than smaller businesses.

                  1. Sure, there are lots of ways to look at it. Ironically, this guy took your tack somewhat when he cited evidence that regulation has not grown under Obama IN COMPARISON to Bush.

                    See, it is common to think about a claim of too much or too little something to, you know, COMPARE it to some equivalent…Blue Moon’s hysterical reaction was just his hyper-partisanship taking the usual cruise.

                    1. See, it is common to think about a claim of too much or too little something to, you know, COMPARE it to some equivalent

                      See, guys, because it is common to do a thing, it must be OK, for purposes of understanding an opponent, to shift the discussion from “absolute” to “comparative” statements and then proceed to mock the opponent for saying something they didn’t say.

                      MNG, just admit that you were wrong already. The implicit argument you put forth was that the GOP candidates are wrong for saying a thing, because HEY LOOK COMPARISONS, when that had nothing to do with the point.

                      I am sure you are high-fiving yourself for “winning” the argument in the face of looking like a total moron.

                    2. “The implicit argument”

                      Good lord, from conversations with other GOPer partisans we all know where it leads when they see “implicit arguments” under every bed. Has there ever been something more associated with partisan projection?

                      Again, Reason has had several articles where they “demonstrate” the US has too much taxation, like corporate taxation, by comparing us to other nations. Did you throw a similar fit there? Why?

                      Well, we already know why, don’t we?

                    3. Again, Reason has had several articles where they “demonstrate” the US has too much taxation, like corporate taxation, by comparing us to other nations. Did you throw a similar fit there? Why?

                      Because that was their aim. “Hey, look, a lot of people think America has a low corporate tax rate. That is, in fact, not true.”

                      Whereas you want to say the GOP candidates are wrong when they say we are over-regulated as an absolute (or historical) statement by using comparative arguments.

                      I seriously cannot spell this out more simply for you. If you are not going to bother to understand, I can only now assume that it is deliberate on your part, because you are not this dumb.

                    4. But why should any researcher assume the GOP sense of the word is the best one? I mean, especially if you want to empirically test it that conceptualization is a problematic one. The value comparative evaluations give you is that they are amenable to empirical analysis, and it is by no means self evident that a comparative evaluation is not meaningful.

                      You couldn’t be worse off on the corporate tax thing. Maybe American think corporations should, in some cosmic sense, pay more than they do, more than they do here or in Europe. It’s the exact same situation. But you find one OK and the other, well, you froth at the mouth over. But like I said, we know why you reacted differently: you like the results of one and not the other.

                    5. This is very simple. If a doctor says “you are sick”, you want to know how to get well, not how his other patients are doing much worse.

                      “Hey, you may have the flu, but that guy over there is on his deathbed. It is dumb for you to say you are ‘sick’ when there others out there with much worse symptoms.”

                      But why should any researcher assume the GOP sense of the word is the best one?

                      WTF? If you are going to criticize GOP candidates for what they say, then you have to actually engage what they said, not what you wish they had said. Look inside yourself and ask “Which one did the GOP candidates mean when they say things like this?” I am guessing you don’t do that because you prefer to attack strawmen rather than actual opponents.

                    6. “This is very simple. If a doctor says “you are sick”, you want to know how to get well, not how his other patients are doing much worse.”

                      Sorry buddy, this is cute and all but you obviously don’t see that all this and what follows applies to the corporate tax thing you blessed earlier.

                      You know what, I bet you actually don’t see that…Sigh, let me spell it out to you: You want to say when a guy is sick you don’t point to someone dying and say “see you are not sick” (actually people do this all the time). And your analogy is when a nation has too much regulation you don’t point to places with more regulation to say they are not over-regulated. But of course then if you think taxation is too high then pointing to other nations where taxation is lower would be equally silly, right? But you’ve blessed that.

                    7. “”Hey, look, a lot of people think America has a low corporate tax rate. That is, in fact, not true.” And they demonstrated by showing that, in comparison to peers, ours are high.

                      “Hey, look, a lot of people think America has too much regulation. That is, in fact, not true.” And he demonstrated this by showing that, in comparison to peers, ours are not high.

                      Dude, it’s the exact same thing. And you walked right into it. Gotcha.

                      So what are you so angry about really? Cain’s campaign doing poorly? Yesterday you frothed at the mouth at the suggestion that Cain’s equivocating response to whether he had sex with his accuser was strange, today you go nuts over something at least very similar to something you usually don’t find objectionable. Are you upset over the latest conservative hope’s flame-out? Dude, there’s always Santorum.

                    8. “Hey, look, a lot of people think America has too much regulation. That is, in fact, not true.” And he demonstrated this by showing that, in comparison to peers, ours are not high.

                      Dude, it’s the exact same thing. And you walked right into it. Gotcha.

                      This is so breathtakingly dumb that I don’t think I can help you. For the benefit of others who might think your self-congratulatory attitude means you are “right”, I want to ensure they are not mislead.

                      “A lot of people think America has too much regulation” can be read multiple ways, as you admit. However, what you refuse to admit is that you read that statement the wrong way when it comes to the Republican Party and the GOP candidates. They meant that phrase in an absolute sense. “America is over-regulated to the point where it impinges on freedom/our unique economic status in the world/whatever.” There is no way the candidates meant “as compared to Europe.”

                      Seriously, stop lauding yourself for being so, so dumb.

                    9. ” For the benefit of others who might think your self-congratulatory attitude means you are “right”, I want to ensure they are not mislead.”

                      My goodness, you really are worried other people will see you’ve stepped right in it!

                      First, let me point something I often have to point out to hyperpartisans such as yourself. I simply posted this, I did not put in any of my comments about whether I agreed this was what the GOP meant or that the author’s tack was correct. Like most projecting partisans you’ve read that into things (“implicit argument” indeed).

                      But more importantly, EVERYTHING you’ve said applies to the corporate tax thing. Just as easily someone could just say corporations should pay a lot of taxes. But there, as here, one could try to get an “objective” sense of whether there is “too much” taxation/regulation by comparing us to peers. In the latter case you go nuts, the former, cool with you. You don’t like the results of the latter, we get it.

                    10. There’s too much regulation compared to what I’d prefer. How’s that? Also, most here agree that Bush did plenty of regulating.

                    11. I agreed that was one way to look at it two hours ago.

                      But can you see that if you were an empirical researcher that is a problematic way to look at it? Because everyone has a different idea of what is ideal. Comparative analysis gives some ground to judge this kind of thing in a more objective way.

                    12. But can you see that if you were an empirical researcher that is a problematic way to look at it? Because everyone has a different idea of what is ideal. Comparative analysis gives some ground to judge this kind of thing in a more objective way.

                      In other words, when all you have is a hammer…

                      Move those goalposts faster MNG!

                    13. I realize you come on chatboards and hear people talk about moving goalposts and maybe think its a cool, general rebuke, but it has a specific meaning. Where have I “moved the goalposts?” From the get-go I’ve said you could judge “too much x” in a cosmic sense, a historical sense, or in a comparative sense. It’s you that keeps hyperventilating over anyone taking the third approach.

                    14. maybe because the third approach is adding more to their statement than what they said or meant. If some GOP douchebag wants to say “There is too much regulation in the US” but doesn’t add “compared to other countries”, it’s a safe bet they weren’t making a comparative statement. (Compared being the word necessary to make it such a statement)

                    15. I’d say what an empirical researcher discovers with a comparative analysis, while informative, doesn’t say anything about what is ideal, precisely because people have different ideas about that. It would be better to analyze the effects of regulation, rather than saying we have more or less than some other political subdivision.

                    16. “‘d say what an empirical researcher discovers with a comparative analysis, while informative, doesn’t say anything about what is ideal”

                      Exactly. I could not agree more. This guy’s analysis is interesting, informative, but no, it doesn’t rule out other notions of the ideal. It’s one way of looking at it, it’s not dispositive of the issue, but neither is it “malicious” to approach the issue that way.

                      Blue Moon is very upset about something…

                5. No it isn’t MNG. You’re arguing in bad faith here.

                  It doesn’t matter that France might be more regulated in many ways than we here. How many regulations other countries have isn’t any kind of measuring stick to what too much regulation looks like.

                  Would you really argue that we aren’t over regulated here?

                  Everything you do and everything you use every single day is regulated from the pillow case you wake up on to the toothpaste you use to the eggs you eat to the fucking fork you shovel them in your mouth with. Every. Fucking. Thing.

                  The only (legal) thing I can think of that isn’t regulated is guns, and it’s of no surprise that it’s a booming industry. And I bet that so many people find it amazing that they don’t explode due to a lack of regulation.

                6. My 5 year old can’t sell lemonade from a stand she made from a couple of cardboard boxes on my lawn without getting a permit from the city. The United States is over-regulated.

                  See? Didn’t have to bother with how they do it in the EU. Because how they do it in the EU doesn’t fucking matter.

            3. How can I be overweight? There are plenty of Americans fatter than me!

              1. Look this poor, dumb, LGF bastard (and THIRD MNG spoofer today) also doesn’t get that everything he’s saying applies equally to the corporate tax thing Reason did.

                1. Oh my god you are not that fucking stupid MNG. The Reason articles were making explicit comparative statements. You can’t interpret something someone says as being comparative without some kind of qualifier like “compared to” or “in relation to”. Stop being a dick.

            4. Do you actually think that Republicans are arguing that we have more regulations than other countries when they say we are over-regulated? If not, then the argument being burned is a strawman. If so, I’m pretty sure you’re just incorrect.

              It’s far more likely that Republicans mean we are over-regulated either in relation to the historical American norm (a conservative approach), or relative to what they consider optimal for society (a rational approach).

              1. No, I’m pretty sure they mean in a cosmic sense. My point is that it is at least fair and reasonable for someone to say “well, if “over-regulated” means anything apart from people’s shifting ideas about what is ideal, then places that are over-regulated should have more regulations than their peers.”

                1. Just like when people say corporations should pay more taxes (or that we should not reduce their taxes) they often mean in a cosmic, ideal sense (they should “pay their fair share”, let’s leave aside that I likely agree with you this is silly for many reasons [not all corporations are wealthy, many average folks livelihood depends on corporations, etc]). But one can still reasonably say “look, you say we should not reduce taxes on corporations because they are not paying enough, but when compared to other nations our corporate tax rates are quite high.”

                  It’s the EXACT SAME THING.

                  1. Except corporations pass on taxes to consumers by raising prices. A corporation doesn’t really pay taxes, all taxes are laid on the shoulders of private citizens in the end.

                    I’d have a lot more respect for you, MNG, if you didn’t double down when you’re so clearly wrong. This is not a case of differing moral frameworks, which is what most of your arguments with others come down to. You tried a gotcha statement, to wit the evergreen lefty line of “Stupid Republican is wrong and stupid”. You got called out on it. I even believe you weren’t being deliberately mendacious, due to the knee jerk desire of the lefty to be just like Europe in all respects, you probably didn’t even realize you were moving the goalposts.

                2. My point is that it is at least fair and reasonable for someone to say “well, if “over-regulated” means anything apart from people’s shifting ideas about what is ideal, then places that are over-regulated should have more regulations than their peers.”

                  I don’t think that makes sense. That would suggest that a place could be “over-regulated” for a while, but then somehow not be anymore if a neighboring region increased its burden to surpass the first region. So you could have regions continually increasing regulations forever, always with the justification, which would alternate between regions, that the other guys have more, so we can’t be over-regulated.

                3. It should also be noted that part of the GOP’s complaint is that the US is losing business to other nations because of being overly regulated – in which case comparing how easy it is to do business in the US to other nations is perfectly reasonable. This obviously doesn’t address the other objection, which is that regulation harms business even when it doesn’t leave (and also perhaps that the government shouldn’t be telling people what to do with their money – but I’m not convinced there are many in the GOP who take that point of view) – but when someone’s wrong you should say so.

                  1. Stop disagreeing with me! Article of faithers! WORLD BANK

                4. My point is that it is at least fair and reasonable for someone to say “well, if “over-regulated” means anything apart from people’s shifting ideas about what is ideal, then places that are over-regulated should have more regulations than their peers.”

                  If the proper amount of regulation was an esoteric, aesthetic, or moral preference, you might have a point. But since it’s more of a practical, objective question about the impact of regulations on economic health, there’s no reason everyone in a “peer group”* can’t be over-regulated.

                  *Presumably, the group of countries that are over-regulated.

    2. I describe these as “articles of faith”, because to my knowledge — they have not shown any non-partisan research, or international benchmarks, to demonstrate that our overall regulatory environment is particularly burdensome…

      HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

    3. “Overly-regulated” doesn’t just mean in the realm of business regulation, MNG.

  20. Leftist Feminism is literally insane or Why Kermit is a Terrible Boyfriend.

    From the article:

    Kermit never wanted to devote his life to making Piggy happy ? he just wanted to host his show and enjoy hanging out with his friends. Anything more she’d ask of him would elicit a gulp. And just as I strove to emulate Piggy-resplendent in feather boas, lavender mules and rings over opera gloves ? I wonder how many guys from my generation looked to Kermit as an example of what the coolest guy in the room looks like. How maybe they think it’s fine to defer the advances of the fabulous women they know will always be there, while they dreamily pursue creative endeavors and dabble with other contenders. How maybe they learned the value of bromance from Kermit’s constant emphasis on his obligations to his friends before his ball and chain. And how maybe they figured out that if you’re soft-spoken and shy, but you know how to play a musical instrument, girls will come in droves. You just keep your creativity flowing and your guy friends close, and you’ll have to beat the ladies down with a stick.

    And from the comments:

    You’d think on the surface that it’s a mistake to label Piggy a feminist, but in doing a systematic analysis of the muppet movies you can uncover moments of feminism, whether inadvertent or not. I did a feminist analysis of Miss Piggy and Princess Leia as the lone women in their respective universes, and while I’d not call them paragons of feminism it wasn’t a reach to label them icons of a sort, particularly to girls (and my prof agreed, got an A+ on that paper!!). As a child I had a very different impression of Miss Piggy than Julie, my takeaway was much more of the aspirational ball-busting variety.

    And also, Miss Piggy and Kermit got married at the end of Muppets Take Manhattan, so however weird their relationship is/was, they did do the clincher…

    So, we have Leftist Feminism, which is to be distinguished from the feminism of Cathy Young or Wendy McEllroy or others. And the adherents are, I have to say, actually crazy. As in, they believe that secretly, there is a culture out there that encourages men to rape women, that is all around and influences us, but is completely invisible. If these people were talking about aliens, and how aliens are all around us and secretly controlling and influencing us, we’d call them what they are: crazy. But because Leftist Feminism has academic supporters, we are forced to pretend that it is a valid and rational belief.

    Well, I prefer not/Bartelby the Scribner.

    1. Lets not even get into the massive amount of domestic abuse that she subjected Kermit to.

      1. I always hated that it was supposed to be funny that Ms. Piggy was an abusive bitch.

        1. She’s not abusie, but I think most psychiatrists would label miss piggy manic depressive. She’s never on a level field, either exhibiting extreme happiness and affection or uncontrollable violent anger and depre….she’s a fucking muppet, stop analyzing her.

          1. What are you talking about? She hits people all the time.

            1. She beats on people when they don’t do what she wants. If that ain’t the definition of abusive, I dunno what is.

              1. I call that good police work.

        2. Salmon Rushdie got a Fatwa, why not Jim Henson and his unclean pig demons?

          1. Do Muslims object to the very existence of pigs? I thought they just didn’t eat them.

            1. Hell yeah, Zeb. In Great Britain, there was a mascot of a cartoon puppy in a “Bobbie” uniform, and since Muslims don’t like dogs, either…

    2. I did a feminist analysis of Miss Piggy and Princess Leia as the lone women in their respective universes

      Then you should have gotten an F-. Or does Janice not count because she isn’t a megalomania fatso who physically assaults people?

      1. Here’s a thesis that will never get published: Who’s more alone–Princess Leia in the Star Wars universe or an ounce of common sense in academia?

        1. Leia has a brother/ex-boyfriend and a boyfriend to hang out with. Common sense in academia is totally alone.

      2. Janice. I was trying to think of the name of the girl in the band.

      3. Let’s not forget Gonzo’s chickens.

        And has this girl never seen the Smurfs?

    3. Kermit never wanted to devote his life to making Piggy happy

      Excuse me, dearheart, but it is a man’s job to make you happy? That sounds not terribly feminist.

      1. I always assumed that Kermit only stay with her because he knew she would straight up OJ him if he tried to leave.

    4. I did a feminist analysis of Miss Piggy and Princess Leia as the lone women in their respective universes…

      What about Mon Mothma? She led the fucking rebellion!

      1. ANd she fought Godzilla!

    5. And just as I strove to emulate Piggy-resplendent in feather boas, lavender mules and rings over opera gloves,..

      .. I clutched my pearls worrying about other people’s role models.

    6. I did a feminist analysis of Miss Piggy and Princess Leia as the lone women in their respective universes

      Yet another example of how nerds continue to dumb down what’s left of the country’s intellectual strength with their emotionally regressive childhood fetishes.

  21. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47815

    Europeans and Guns: It is time for Europeans to support the natural right of human beings to protect oneself with a firearm

    “Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute in the United States has raised a very interesting issue for those who believe that a complete collapse of European society is inevitable.”

    “Mitchell wrote a piece titled ‘European Economic Crisis Highlights an Increasingly Important Reason to Oppose Gun Control’ where he argued that many of the not so rich in Europe may need to arm themselves for personal protection in anticipation of a possible economic collapse. I agree.”

    “Here is how the Mitchell argument plays out. …”

    “Need for firearms: It is not out of the question that the Euro will collapse, resulting in social unrest and no government to protect the public” …

    ———————

    Opinions?

    1. They’re going out with a bang.

    2. White flags are cheaper and more readily obtainable than guns.

    3. The Europeans believe, as an article of faith, that the United States is an overly-armed society.

      1. Yeah — I don’t get why that scares them so much….

      2. Parts of Europe. I doubt the Swiss would say that, and I’m pretty sure some of the other Northern European states have similar rates of citizen armament.

        1. I was just riffing on MNG:

          https://reason.com/blog/2011/11…..nt_2662030

      3. And apparently Americans of the left see owning a large number of guns as somehow indicative of either A) paranoia; B) mental illness; C) some symptom of an illness that has affected brain functioning.

        See the most recent House episode.

    4. Economic collapse doesn’t necassarily mean a societal breakdown.

      Having separate countries within the EU cushions the impact even more so.

      (I remember the doomsayers of Cato freaking out when Clinton was elected).

  22. “We were hosting town halls every night [in New Hampshire] and basically nobody was showing up.”

    The Free State Project is off to a rousing start.

    1. Not even old mistresses with lawyers in tow? You know you’re doing poorly when even the gold digging bimbos have written you off.

      1. Gold digging bimbos will be the primary export of the free state!

    2. I think that “basically nobody” might mean a small choir of free-staters to preach to. Who knows. I might have gone if I had heard about them, or anything about Johnson (and if I ever went to political events).

    3. It’s sad, but when Ron Paul got in the race, Gary Johnson probably should have made other plans (either an indy run or NM Senate). There’s no way Johnson can compete with Paul’s intensity of support, and without approval voting or some alternative voting structure, there’s no way Johnson could pull out the plurality win with Paul-as-second-choice libertarians alone.

      1. He should give it a try though.

        He should detach himself from that incredibly foul GOP field.

  23. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c…..o-us-soil/

    Will the Defense Authorization Bill Bring Battlefield Rules to US Soil?

    “From Amnesty International by way of the Huffington Post we hear: Senate Introduces Disastrous New Detention Bill, part of SB1867, the National Defense Authorization bill. When I first read about this I thought it had to be a hoax. I couldn’t believe that even a Congresscritter would be stupid enough to vote for something like this. But a quick perusal of Google News confirmed that some members of Congress, not satisfied with merely abrogating their oaths of office, are intent upon positively shredding the Constitution. And quite possibly starting a civil war while they are at it?” …

    ———-

    Holy shit — this can’t be real

    1. Even I have checked out of defending this. McCain is worse than even his worst critics suggested. What the hell is the matter with these people? They really have no imagination. McCain thinks that because it won’t be misused today (and I think it won’t be) it could never be misused in the future.

      1. I would love for a president’s first act to be to round up and detain indefinately everyone who voted for this bill.

        1. It may make me a cruel bastard, but for some reason I think it would be fitting for McCain to die in a prison camp.

    2. Where McCain and Graham are concerned, there is no limit to their stupidity and/or malice.

      1. The Senate voted Tuesday to keep a controversial provision to let the military detain terrorism suspects on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without trial — prompting White House officials to reissue a veto threat.

        The measure, part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act, was also opposed by civil libertarians on the left and right. But 16 Democrats and an independent joined with Republicans to defeat an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have killed the provision, voting it down with 61 against, and 37 for it.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..19473.html

        Shame on the 16 Democrats and the majority of GOPers who voted this way. Props to Rand Paul who helped lead the efforts on the right side.

        1. And shame on the President who plans to sign it.

            1. Did you even bother the RTFA? He is not threatening a VETO because he objects to the provision. Instead

              In a deal between Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, and the ranking Republican, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the military is given custody of anyone who has planned or carried out an attack against the U.S. and its allies, or who is deemed to be a member of al Qaeda or one of its affiliates. The compromise gives the administration the authority to waive military custody but only if top Cabinet officials certify that national security dictates civilian control.

              Mr. Obama and his top advisers fought the provisions, arguing that it amounted to micromanaging the war on terrorism. The administration said it should be able to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the military or civilian law enforcement is better able to handle a situation.

              “The best method for securing vital intelligence from suspected terrorists varies depending on the facts and circumstances of each case,” Director of National IntelligenceJames R. Clapper wrote in a letter to senators detailing the administration’s objections.

              He said the national security waiver given to the administration still doesn’t allow enough flexibility.

              The White House this month threatened to veto the legislation if it “challenges or constrains the president’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation.” An official on Tuesday said that threat still stands.

              He is threatening a veto because he wants more power to do shit than even this bill grants him.

              1. Dude, you said “shame on the President for planing to sign this” but as you can see it seems he is planning not to sign it.

                As usual you are wrong in the basic facts.

                1. He’ll sign it. Probably with a signing statement that gives him the power he wants.

          1. er, from the article:

            “prompting White House officials to reissue a veto threat.”

            1. See above. He is not threatening to veto it because of this provision. He doesn’t like other provisions that actually restrict his power.

              And what do you want to bet it gets passed and he signs it with this provision?

              1. Oh, I totally expect him to roll over on it eventually, that’s what Obama does. That’s why I offered him no praise above.

                But it’s nice that you can go from the actual votes cast with no condemnation of the GOPers who voted for this to a condemnation of the Dem President who at least currently is threatening a veto.

                And you call me partisan. I specifically condemned the Dems who voted for this and praised the GOPer who led the fight against it. Meanwhile you just want to continue your relentless attacks on Obama.

                1. But it’s nice that you can go from the actual votes cast with no condemnation of the GOPers who voted for this to a condemnation of the Dem President who at least currently is threatening a veto.

                  John: Even I have checked out of defending this. McCain is worse than even his worst critics suggested. What the hell is the matter with these people? They really have no imagination. McCain thinks that because it won’t be misused today (and I think it won’t be) it could never be misused in the future

                  Really MNG. Reading comprehension?

                  1. Calling out McCain is hardly demonstrative of non-partsianship in a conservative GOPer LIT. They’ve always hated him. Noting, I dunno, that the majority of GOPers voted for this while the majority of Dems voted against would be more like it.

                    1. Notice how fellow LGFer Scruffy also included usual right-wing whipping boy Graham in there too.

                    2. I included Graham primarily because this is one of his favorite “areas of expertise”. He’s a fear-mongering SOB that won’t be happy until we live under martial law

                    3. So John has to call them all out by name? You sure are picky MNG.

                    4. I think you know what I was getting at, but to reiterate singling out only John McCain is hardly demonstrative of a conservative GOPer overcoming partisanship. They’ve long hated that guy.

                      It would be like if the Dems overwhelmingly passed some crap of a bill and I said “Shame on Ben Nelson!”

                    5. I mean, McCain was the co-sponsor with Sen. Levin.

                    6. I voted for McCain and spent all of 2008 defending him, you half wit. Could you be anymore stupid and dishonest if you tried?

                  2. John: Even I have checked out of defending this.

                    If I read this correctly, John is saying that he was defending the team on this, but has decided even a good team player can’t defend it any longer.

                    Hard to tell.

                    1. It is only hard to tell because you are amazingly stupid NM. Actually you are just dishonest. Let me explain it to you in simple terms. While I have often defended efforts to capture terrorists in the past, this measure goes too far even for me.

                      It is amazing how angry and nasty you have become. This whole Obama failing thing really must have you down.

                    2. John,

                      Thanks for the clarification. So,

                      “on this” = “often defended {MORALLY QUESTIONALBLE} efforts to capture terrorists in the past,”

                      So, you still defend morally questionable practices and policies to capture terrorists. I wonder if you see that the same mindset that leads to the policies you do support leads to this more extreme policy that you don/’t.

                      And, for the record, I continue to find your conceptualization of me as a democrat funny. This issue, however, does lend credence to the idea that “McCain would have been worse than Obama.” Which is pretty much where I was once we had the two candidates last election cycle. Obama hasn’t disappointed me at all. He has been about as ineffective as I thought he would be…but I do think things would be worse had McCain won. We would have had the same economic policies that Obama implemented, with a side crazy-assed maverick foreign policy and even greater abuse of presidential power on the civil rights front.

    3. That veto threat better be more than a threat.

      1. Obama only threatened to veto it if it didn’t give him the leeway this obviously gives him. I don’t think he’ll veto it.

      2. As I said yesterday, without the line item veto (thanks, Rudy G.) Obama will have to veto the whole defense appropriations bill, which won’t look good politically.

      3. I’ll believe it when I see it.

        While there are party to party differences in statism (Democrats being worse on economic intervention, even anti-populist ones like the bailouts; Republicans being worse over security vs. freedom), there’s also a general trend of increasing statism from the House to the Senate to the Presidency regardless of who holds the office.

    4. from DaveL in the comment section:

      Consider the source, everyone ? this is the Huffington Post we’re talking about, after all. I’ve started reading the bill and I find that section 1032(b) provides:

      APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
      AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.?
      (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.?The require
      ment to detain a person in military custody under
      this section does not extend to citizens of the United
      States.
      (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.?The require
      ment to detain a person in military custody under
      his section does not extend to a lawful resident
      alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
      taking place within the United States, except to the
      extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
      States.

      1. So? Even if the requirement to indefinitely detain doesn’t exist, the power does.

        1. It says REQUIREMENT to detain, not ABILITY to detain.

          To the statist mind what this says is “I don’t HAVE to use the military option, but there isn’t anything stopping me.”

    5. Would that be the majority Democrat Senate?

      1. 2/3rd of Democrats tried to strip the worst bits out of the bill. The GOP senators were almost unanimously on the wrong side, aside from Paul and one other guy.

        1. Would that be the majority Democrat Senate?

          1. Irrelevant — this (rather; opposition to the amendment stripping the detainment language) was driven almost entirely by Republicans. Just look at the vote.

  24. Making the Klan Boring
    … I’ve long argued that there’s an infuriating tendency among mainstream liberal historians to take two approaches to evils in American history. Sins are always either the result of conservatives doing conservative things or they’re the product of America’s fundamentally bigoted nature. It’s just never, ever, the case that liberalism or progressivism has something to apologize for. Liberalism is never wrong, because essential to the concept of liberalism is the idea that it must always be right. The fact that racism and other evils were commonplace, even central, to much of the progressive project is simply too jarring to contemplate and so we get either a whitewash or blame-shifting. And with Boyle, we get both.

    The Great Global Warming Fizzle
    How do religions die? Generally they don’t, which probably explains why there’s so little literature on the subject. Zoroastrianism, for instance, lost many of its sacred texts when Alexander sacked Persepolis in 330 B.C., and most Zoroastrians converted to Islam over 1,000 years ago. Yet today old Zoroaster still counts as many as 210,000 followers, including 11,000 in the U.S. Christopher Hitchens might say you can’t kill what wasn’t there to begin with.

    Still, Zeus and Apollo are no longer with us, and neither are Odin and Thor. Among the secular gods, Marx is mostly dead and Freud is totally so. Something did away with them, and it’s worth asking what.

    Consider the case of global warming, another system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen….

    1. Thor? Thor just got his own movie, it may not be traditional religion but those deities have lucrative second careers in entertainment.

      1. Zeus et al had Immortals, which the critics may have hated but I thought was awesome.

      2. There are huge swaths of metal listening Swedes and Fins who would totally disagree with the idea that Thor and Odin doesn’t exist.

    2. Marxism isn’t dead.

      It morphed into progressivism.

    3. Actually, the worship of norse gods still occurs among neo-Nazis. I don’t know how seriously they take it.

      1. And some metalheads in that part of the world too. Churchburnings even

    4. If Marx is mostly dead, he can be revived. Just needs some true love

  25. ‘Sometimes a police state is a good thing’
    …That wasn’t enough for the Twittermob, however, who wanted a piece of the action. They instantly expressed their moral fury, passing judgement without pausing for thought. Almost immediately upon seeing the video, people were tweeting it to the cops and naming the potential culprit and the place where she apparently works. Even Labour Party leader Ed Miliband joined in, asking followers to help ‘identify the woman shouting racist abuse on a tram in London’. Following the arrest of a suspect, tweeters showered the transport police with praise. ‘Sometimes a police state can be used for the powers of good. Well done, @btp_uk!’, said one tweet. ‘That’s social media at work for you, an arrest in the afternoon of the video hitting the TT in Twitter!’, said another….

    World’s Nastiest Font Is Made From Someone’s Leg Hair

    1. “China lowered its Reserve Requirement Ratio also this morning”

      Always a good sign for long-term financial stability.

    2. Short it.

    3. So the Fed is going to bailout EVERYBODY!

      Buy gold and silver.
      Buy ammo.

      1. Buying ammo does no good, and it’s too expensive.

        Make your own.

        Buy components by the truckload.

    4. Milton Friedman rolls… Stagflation!

  26. Heathrow has never been more efficient! Passengers’ glee as border agency strike SPEEDS UP passport control
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..k-out.html

    1. What if they threw a strike and no one was inconvenienced?

      1. Think we could convince the TSA to strike in sympathy?

  27. Fuck you, I’m reposting this link from last night. The Case Against SpaceX

    As an advocate of commercial spaceflight I can understand why many find it difficult to write objectively about SpaceX – which is arguably the poster child of this nascent industry…

    1. Most of the critiques in the article are a fair cop. I’m still like Charlie Brown running to kick the football with SpaceX.

  28. Without exception, loser nations are always the most homophobic. Leaders of such lands desperately look for scapegoats to distract the public from noticing their dismal failures. They also find the promotion of religious extremism useful, because it is more difficult to vilify leaders who present themselves as deified.

    Homophobia is a mark of failing nations. Even in America, it is the emblem of poor, second-tier states. It is the signpost of inferior cities that perpetually fail to reach their potential and can’t figure out why.
    It is not that anti-gay sentiment on its own causes the collapse of such places. It is that homophobia virtually never stands alone. It can only flower in corrupt environments that lack basic freedom, devalue education, limit liberty, have huge income disparities, degrade women, discourage religious pluralism, mock intellectuals, and promote superstition at the expense of science.

    Russia is not the only loser nation where leaders manipulate the public through virulent gay bashing. Brutal Zimbabwe dictator Robert Mugabe called homosexuality un-Christian and un-African last week, and then threatened to severely discipline anyone in a gay relationship.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..17747.html

    1. They are pretty homophobic in China and India and really all of SE Asia. I am not sure I would call those nations “loser nations”.

      1. Two decades of rapid growth and China still has a lower per capita GDP lower than Belize, Bosnia and Jamaica. India’s is still below that of economic powerhouses of Iraq, Mongolia and Angola.

        1. Yeah, but they are a big power and look where they came from. Lets put Belieze through 50 years of worst sort of communism and see where they are.

          I am not a fan of China. But I don’t see how homophobia prevents your country from developing. Last I looked it was flat out illegal to be a homosexual in places like Singapore. And they seem to be doing pretty well.

          1. This greatest growth in the US predated the Stonewall riots you ignorant fuck.

      2. China should promote male homosexuality and discourage it for females simply because there will soon be many more males of marrying age than females.

    2. Well once you run out of jews you gotta go after somebody.

      1. Exactly my thoughts

        1. There will always be an “other” to persecute.

          1. “There will always be an “other” to persecute.”

            aka MNG’s Law

    3. “It can only flower in corrupt environments that lack basic freedom, devalue education, limit liberty, have huge income disparities, degrade women, discourage religious pluralism, mock intellectuals, and promote superstition at the expense of science.”

      Nice strawman there

      1. It’s really nothing more than a bucket list of progressive academic hobby-horses.

    4. IOW celebrating sexual relationships that are 100% guaranteed not to further the species is a sign of being a winner.

      I suppose the ultimate expression of being a winner would be to stop reproducing and disappear, eh?

      1. Far be it for me to suggest this to your nutty ass, but you might want to give sex acts “that are 100% guaranteed not to further the species” a try dude.

        In addition to being a homicidal nut you’re a homophobic prude. Whodathunkit?

        1. I just wish all liberals like you were homosexual. That way you wouldn’t reproduce and pass along your mental illness.

        2. And no thanks, I have no desire to stick it up my wife’s ass.
          You can bugger women all you want, but I think I’ll pass.

          1. “You can bugger women all you want, but I think I’ll pass.”

            That this comment alone can pass uncommented on shows what a LGF-lite site H&R has become as of late. In the old days this prudery would have been laughed off the site.

            1. Or maybe you don’t have any friends here to laugh at me?

              Nobody likes you everybody hates you think you’ll go eat worms!

              1. Jesus Christ MNG – how can one person be so consistently wrong – LGF is a LEFT WING SITE

            2. Poor MNG. Nobody is willing to stand up for you. Poor baby.
              Wanna binky for your nunny?

            3. What is with your late infatuation with LGF? Did you get the ban-hammer?

            4. What is with your late infatuation with LGF?

              I’m a thinkin he got a knob-job from a man and liked it.

            5. MuNG kissed a boy and he liked it!

              1. “I Kissed Charles Johnson, and I Liked It!”

          2. sarcasmic asked me if something was wrong once during sex, because I moved.

          3. I’ve hinted for years that I’d like to try DP, but nooooo, having another dick around is just too gay/intimidating for sarcasmic to deal with.

            1. I actually did have a girlfriend break up with me because I wouldn’t stick it in her ass. Serious. I have this thing about shit on my dick. Well, actually I’ve never had shit on my dick and I plan to keep it that way.
              She broke up with me and found a gay guy who didn’t care if the ass he stuck it in belonged to a male or female to do the deed.
              Last I saw her she was a full fledged fag-hag. Probably getting them to stick it in her ass when they couldn’t find a guy’s ass to stick it in.

          4. I’ve never personally done it, but doing your wife in the ass doesn’t make you gay or curious. And you can’t tell me that you’ve never done your wife from behind so you should be able to tell the difference between her ass and a dude’s.

        3. Far be it for me to suggest this to your nutty ass, but you might want to give sex acts “that are 100% guaranteed not to further the species” a try dude.

          I think it is pretty audacious of you to suggest that he flush his wife’s birth control pills.

          1. At first I was going to be pedantic, then I got it, then I lol’d.

      2. Because as we all know “furthering the species” is the only valid reason one should exist at all.

    5. MNG, just another nationalist cunt who thinks he is a winner because he happened to be born in the correct nation.

      Individuals can be losers, not nations, it does not matter where you are born in, it does not make you any less of a loser.

      1. No, nations can be losers. Latin America is full of examples, as is sub-Saharan Africa.

    6. Um… homosexuality was illegal in much of Europe and the US until the mid 20th century. And when it was illegal (1800s) Europe colonized the shit out of the world and ruled it. In fact, acceptance of homosexuality came in a period of decline for places like Britain. So, couldn’t I just draw the exact opposite conclusion as HuffPo?

      1. I thought this was too obvious to point out, but, in hindsight, I guess it was necessary for some.

        1. When sarcasmic and MNG argue, we all lose.

          1. The expressions of their love are no where near as pure and innocent as MNG and John’s.

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

    Does Grassley’s latest barrage signal bad moon rising for Holder?

    “Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley’s two new blistering commentaries on Operation Fast and Furious and Attorney General Eric Holder’s curious lack of knowledge about that operation’s direct link to the slaying of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry last year may signal what awaits Holder next week when he is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee.” …

    —————

    Prediction —

    Committee: What the fuck happened, man?

    Holder: I didn’t do nothin’!

    Committee: K

    And so on and so forth until the end of time!

    1. For a 39 year old school teacher, she looks pretty good. What a great prom day that guy had.

      1. Yeah, but then he went and told his mom. Didn’t learn the rule: let her tell people you had sex. You STFU so you can get some more.

        1. It is bad enough to brag to your friends. But telling your parents? What is this kid an Aspi?

    2. I’m always curious how the subject gets raised the first time. Does she just go for it?

      1. “C’mon back into the supplies closet, Billy, and Teacher will show you how to split an infinitive…”

  30. I don’t know who she is, but oh my…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..lenge.html

    1. meh, she has nice boobs and a nice ass, but a little bony and a brown bag face. Of course I might be being a tad unfair since that was obviously some sort of survior type show.

  31. Mariella Frostrup accidentally invites swingers
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..ngers.html

    The gravelly-voiced journalist said she had been inundated with lusty admirers after placing two pampas grass plants on her balcony.

    Now, after realising they are recognised as a calling card for swingers, the BBC arts presenter is trying to get rid of the plants.

    If you’ve ever seen the BBC show ‘Coupling’, she does have one sexy voice.

    1. who wants a mustache ride?

  32. The unions claim as many as two million border agency workers, teachers, garbage collectors, firefighters and other public sector staff will join the 24-hour strike which begins shortly after midnight, plunging air travel and many basic services into disarray.

    Wait, this strike is only for a day? Yawn. Wake me when someone comes up with a good reason to wake me.

  33. http://www.kionrightnow.com/st…..er-suicide

    CA: Police: San Jose Officer Involved in Gilroy Murder-Suicide (video available)

    “Gilroy police officers found the bodies of a San Jose police sergeant and his wife Sunday night in their home in an apparent murder-suicide.”

    “Officers found the bodies during a welfare check at the request of friends and family around 9:39 p.m. Police say that friends and family called 911 when they could not get in touch with Christopher Shimek or his wife, Lynn.” …

    1. Garlic can do strange things to a man

  34. http://www.modbee.com/2011/11/…..hared.html

    CA: Formula for safety: Info shared, armed citizenry

    .. “There are many ways to encourage collaboration between law enforcement agencies and the citizens they serve, but none is more telling than the issuance of concealed carry permits granting law-abiding citizens the ability to protect themselves.”

    “In April 2010, [Sheriff] Christianson signed a pledge, his promise to make the simple desire of a person with good citizenship to protect themselves a good cause to process a concealed carry permit, keeping that person not only safe but within the law. It’s a promise that’s being kept.” …

    ————

    I’m impressed — if you roughed this guy up, Dunphy, thanks — I’ll send you a box of chocolates!

    1. Some rural CA sheriffs have been pretty good on concealed carry.

      This guy only took some gentle persuasions… A rubber hose, a bottle of thunderbird, and a trip
      To the olive garden

  35. Because I Hate You All:Sustainable Cycles: Sarah and Toni Bicycle Down the West Coast, Live on $4 a Day, and Talk to People about Sustainable Menstrual Products

    And because I know none of you are dumb enough to click on that link:

    Using a menstrual cup puts a woman in more intimate contact with her body: she needs to figure out the mechanics of inserting and removing the cup, and sees the color and consistency of her menstrual fluid each time she empties the cup. Once you get over the learning curve, cups seems easier, more hygienic, and believe it or not, less gross than pads and tampons. Many users come to value the increased knowledge of their body and cycle that they get from their cup.

    And:

    We have been talking to a lot of people about sustainable menstrual products, and have found the conversations surprisingly easy to have. There are four basic reasons to make the switch: the money, the environmental impact, the health risks, and the empowerment of women in their own bodies. Most people resonate with one of those reasons enough to get behind this movement; not just menstruating women, but also post-menopausal women, men, fathers, friends, brothers, boyfriends. We realized that our target audience was open and inclusive, because everyone knows someone who menstruates.

    Many women we have met already use and love menstrual cups, and already excitedly tell all of their friends. When a woman switches to a cup from disposable products, she stops giving her hard-earned money to multi-national corporations and stops creating trash with her natural cycle. It is a simple and empowering lifestyle change.

    We believe that person-to-person relationships are the way that people make this lifestyle change. Thirty-five dollars is a lot to spend on a product you are not sure about. A magazine ad can’t answer your questions. It often takes the one-on-one testimonial of a friend to really understand how the cups work and why you’d want to use one. We have found it rewarding to be that “friend” to many, many women as we travel. Each cup we give away saves that person a lot of money (a 25 year old will save about 1,500 dollars!), and saves the environment from a truck-load of trash. We hope that the cups we give as gifts are invitations for people to keep up the work of spreading this grassroots movement.

    That vomit rising in your throat? That’s me!

    1. This is why conservatives and liberals can never be friends. How could you possibly respect a person who values menstrual cups more than gainful employment?

      1. I can’t be friends with liberals because I despise thieves and liars, and I view liberals as people who use the government to lie and steal on their behalf.

    2. Worst Tupperware party ever.

        1. but needs a period between each of the words

    3. Eh – I’m in the “whatever floats your boat” crowd on this one. If it works for you, it could save a lot of money.

  36. Ive been following the Orwell Diaries, which, unfortunately, are on hiatus until March. I was really interested in what Orwell was writing up to and past Pearl Harbor, but, alas, he didnt.

    That said, following newspaper accounts would be the next best thing, I like the approach Craig Shirley took.

  37. http://www.lvrj.com/news/polic…..ml?ref=128

    NV: Police settle with man who said officers used excessive force

    “Las Vegas police will pay $83,000 to settle a case with a tourist who alleged officers used excessive force and broke his ankle as he tried to stop an argument between two people in 2008.” …

    “… Raymond Romero was on vacation with his fiancee when they saw two people arguing … Romero tried to stop the argument. Officers Ricardo Lara and Joey Hernandez responded to break up the fight.”

    “The officers allege they approached Romero and asked him to step aside, but he refused their request, and that’s when Lara took Romero to the ground …”

    “Romero said Lara, thinking he was part of the fight, picked him up from behind without warning and slammed him to the ground, causing the injury.” …

    ——–

    There was a case in southern England a few years ago where cops lined up in front of a burning building and refused to let anybody in, threatening two guys with a skull-fucking and jail time, and there was a little girl upstairs, and she burned alive, and those two dudes were trying to run in to save her — I hope we don’t become the sort of people.

    Just something I recalled. And, as always, fuck tha po-lice (just kidding!).

  38. AuH20 — how the fuck’s Skyrim going? I NEED TO KNOW!

    1. Seriously, just buy it at Christmas. That gives them about two months to work out the major bugs.

      1. Some critics say it’s too snowy and gloomy — is that true? Is Oblivion’s woodland better?

        1. It makes me feel cold while playing, so that’s a good thing! But it’s honestly a beautiful game. There are some issues with it. I second AuH20’s advice to hold off on it if you can stand to. I have been enjoying playing it, but there are quests that I can’t complete, and today’s patch (which has not yet been released for the PC) seems to have broken elemental resistance, meaning that your elemental-based summons will take damage from their own element, and also you will succumb easily to dragon flame, etc. I feel bad for the console gamers, and I am wondering if the PC patch hasn’t been released yet because it is so broken.

          1. I was planning on holding off for at least a few months, maybe a year, for the mods and the patches to have time to get around.

            I’m going for DA: O’s city elf origin right now, and Elder Scrolls is going to have to wait.

            1. I was thinking of using Skyrim as an excuse to upgrade my home machine – but there’s no way in hell I’ll buy a Steam only game. Since the PS3 seems to have a rather bad memory leak problem, I guess I’ll get the XBox version. But I think I’ll wait for GOTY or get it used in 6 months or so.
              -K

            2. That origin pissed me off so much! The whole point of it is that humans are super racist against elves. I decided to go “elf supremacist” (think Malcom X) with my character. Then, I’m doing the Mages’ Tower quest, and the guy says some shit about elves. I get all up in his business, and the fucker APOLOGIZES!!! Seriously, if you’re going to make racism part of your game, follow through on it.

        2. There are woodlands in Skyrim. OBJECTION OVERRULED!

          1. Yeah, well, your face!!11!11!!!!!

            Honestly, if somebody could please fucking convert Skyrim’s movement animations to Oblivion, I’ll be happy as hell. Walking like a badass through the Better Cities and ImpeREAL City-effected Imperial City, through a Legion honor guard, pulling your sword out, and wreaking havoc/just walking by, even, would be damned awesome.

            1. Honestly, I think having your character start by the Imperial City was a big mistake. Every other city looked crappy by comparison.

      2. I just got screwed on the Companion’s questline because of the Helm of Winterhold.

        1. “That’s why I like playing Hello Kitty’s Island of Adventure, instead!”

  39. http://www.examiner.com/gun-ri…..-amendment

    How did Sen. Feinstein get ATF gun trace data in violation of Tiahrt Amendment?

    “Persons within the Department of Justice whose identities are not yet publicly known apparently broke the law by leaking firearms trace data to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, which she introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee record in the hearing on Department of Justice oversight earlier this month.”

    Submitter’s note: Was this leading anti-gunner abetting a violation of law by DOJ, or was she their dupe? The only way we’ll get an answer is if you help bang pots and pans to demand them so loudly it cannot be ignored. Share the link?

    ——–

    Feinstein? Lol

  40. http://hotair.com/archives/201…..ign-ranch/

    Meanwhile, on the “Holder Should Resign” ranch?

    In the heat of a primary contest, endless debates and the rest of the bad economic news making the rounds, it’s easy to let other important stories slip through the cracks. One of them is the ongoing saga of Gunwalker, which we’ve covered here before, and the increasing chorus of voices calling for Attorney General Eric Holder’s resignation over it. Mary Chastain notes today that while the media has remained largely mum on the subject, the number of voices demanding this action has increased to include 51 members of congress and three presidential candidates.

  41. Confirming SF’s theory that Leftist Feminism is primarily woman pissed about the wrong men hitting on them:

    My Big Mouth Attracts the Wrong Boys.

    To wit:

    I’ve been brought up in both the Western and the Eastern world and both societies have set standards on how girls should act in social situations. Unfortunately for me, I find it extremely difficult to be the non-assertive, coy, non-questioning, shy girl that most societies are comfortable with. It’s only natural for me to initiate conversations with those who I find interesting. However when it comes to guys, because I am the initiator, who is non-apologetic about being comfortable in her own skin and have lots of opinions on most things and not afraid to share them, they seem to think somehow I am a super confident girl who is looking for casual sex. Now, I have nothing against casual sex. I am all for it. Except when I am not looking for it. Since when did talking to someone mean wanting to sleep with them?

    1. “Since when did talking to someone mean wanting to sleep with them?”

      Single guys will try to sleep with anyone in their acceptable parameters list who pays the least bit of attention to them. And many who aren’t on the AP list who carry on more than a 2 minute conversation.

      1. *conditions subject to change without notice with the addition of alcohol

    2. Recently I was on a 14-hour flight to the US during which I was seated next to a young man. As usual my insatiable need to talk led me to have long discussions with him about our different cultures, capitalism and the weather. He must have been in another world all together because three-quarters of the way in, he leaned in and tried to kiss me. Twice. I shrieked. Then remained mortified while having to endure the rest of an extremely long and unpleasant flight.

      The mental movie I’m making out of this passage is spectacular.

      1. Since when did talking to someone mean wanting to sleep with them?

        Let’s see now….carry the one…times 10….yeah, that’s what I thought. About a billion fucking years ago.

        1. Human evolution is patriarchal!

          1. THAT’S NOT FUNNY.

            1. From what I can tell, this is Shreya Sen.

              Hmmm, cute, obviously smart, and you start conversations with male strangers. Yeah, it’s big, fucking mystery why men want to sleep with you.

      2. Perhaps he tried the kiss just to shut that yappin’ mouth.

        1. Sounds like it worked. Score one for him.

          1. This is how my mind would work int his situation:
            She is indicating she is interesed in me…the subset of girls who would have sex with me come from the larger set of girls who are interested in me, therefore there is a better than average chance I can hit this.
            I’ll make a move and if I am rejected I won’t have much more conversation with her. This isn’t that bad.

            If it works then …”mile high club”.

            go for it.

        2. I’m thinkin this has to be the only explanation. And I pity the poor bastards who had to sit near the harpy and her verbal diarrhea.

        3. I confess I have deliberately offended women just to get them to STFU. It is a preferred strategy as long as you know she will never come in contact with anyone you know.

      3. my insatiable need to talk

        If you aren’t comfortable enough in your own skin that you can’t go without some form of interaction with other people, you aren’t as ‘super confident’ as you claim.

        Plus, put a sock in it, you daft bitch.

        1. Yeah. Honestly, I really hate it when people try to talk to me while flying. Esp since they invariably do so while I am trying to read, as if it is somehow up to me to alleviate their boredom.

          1. The people I want to crotch punch more than anything are the dipshits who ask “What are you reading?”. Nothing until you quit interrupting me, fucktard.

          2. Headphones. From the moment I get out of the car until the moment I get back in the car at my destination, I have headphones on.

            Not even during take off and landing do I shut off my music.

            I just want to be left the fuck alone, ad nothing says that like a big fucking set of headphones covering my ears.

    3. That article is a lot of 888 to basically say “I lack self-control and am a complete narcissist.”

  42. http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcom…..st-78.html

    Canada: Are photos featuring guns and Santa appropriate for Christmas cards?

    An Arizona Santa Claus is putting a brand new spin on the idea of the Christmas photo shoot.

    This Saint Nick arrived for an appearance at the Scottsdale Gun Club Saturday toting a sack filled not with toys, but lethal weaponry ranging from AK47s to grenade launchers to assault rifles.

    —————

    Already had three Canadians on my list bitch about it on Facebook!

    1. Dear Santa:

      I need a varmint rifle and new pistol. I’ve been good.

    2. “You’ll shoot your eye out, kid”

    3. So, in other words, the awesomest Santa ever.

      Why is the dateline Canada if it is about things happening in AZ?

    4. Imagine how they would feel about an on-line stripper who rides a Ak-47 while it fired blanks.

      Very NSFW

      http://www.camlive.com/cam/TigerLil/

    5. I had a clip of a girl riding an Ak-47 shooting blanks for sexually stimulative purposes that would have highly offended your Canadian friends, but unfortunately the squirrels marked it as spam.

  43. Secretary Paulson gave hedge fund managers advance warning about placing Frannie into conservatorship.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..escue.html

    1. Paulson really is an arch criminal. When the going got tough and it looked like some really important rich people might have to settle for just being kind of rich, Paulson knew how to do their bidding.

    2. “His name is Robert Paulson”

  44. An innovation to show the cost of health care

    Okay, I’m taking bets on how long until this is declared illegal.

    1. You silly Americans and paying for medical services.

    2. Love the idea. The only time I contemplate physically harming someone is when I ask about the cost of a medical service and I get a facefull of attitude, as if asking for the cost of a service is a deep affront. What other industry is like that?

      Most States? Cities? have laws requiring a written estimate for car repairs. Why can’t there be the same for medical care?

  45. Houston police unions too lazy to arrest people for actual crimes, come out against DA for not accepting felony charges for drug residue cases.

    http://www.chron.com/news/hous…..303207.php

    While as Dunphy says the legislature should be tarred and feathered for this preposterous law here the local police are going against the democratically elected DA, the democratically elected judges and polls of the local citizens. And don’t give me the few bad apples argument, these police union leaders are elected by the police themselves I assume.

    1. This was pretty mindblowing when I heard it on the radio this morning. I sent the link to Sullum so hopefully he’ll give this apparently relatively good DA some publicity.

      1. IMO, police unions absolutely have the right to spend money on andor protest what they perceive as bad law… They do not have the right to encourage or facilitate lawlessness

  46. As usual my insatiable need to talk led me to have long discussions with him about our different cultures, capitalism and the weather.

    Airline Passenger Found Dead in Seat at End of Flight; Woman Was Smothered With Pillow

  47. I like Gary Johnson but he needs a good sex scandal. Any volunteers?

    1. If it’ll save any time, we already have the same last name.

      1. OK,I’ll do it: I’m fucking Rick Perry Gary Johnson

  48. Run, Gary, run!

  49. I don’t even know what to say to this. But it must be read to be believed.

    Several years ago, I had breakups with three of my closest friends, all in rapid succession. The first happened after my friend “Sara” began making snide remarks to me (e.g. “you know, when you’re older, your neck is going to be so ugly”). Later, after she found out I’d gone out to lunch with a friend with whom she was embroiled in a fight, she got angry, dumped me, and wanted an apology for not backing her up. The second falling out?with my friend “Jane”?occurred after I introduced her to a male friend of mine. I was hoping they’d hit it off. (Jane’s greatest complaint?and source of insecurity?is that she’s single.) He invited us to see his band play. But on the night of the performance, I was sick with a cold and opted out. After that, Jane stopped talking to me?even after I wrote her a letter.

    The third breakup happened when my friend “Claire” bought a townhouse right across the way from me. At first, we were carpooling everywhere and watching over each other’s homes. After she became distant and flaky, I discovered she was seeing my rude louse of an ex-boyfriend (“Sam”). To make matters worse, I’d confided in Claire about all of his … ahem … shortcomings before I dumped him! Now, all of a sudden, he was lurking at every event and even on my front lawn. To me, that was a serious breach of trust. (Adios to another pal.)
    Advertisement

    Since all of this went down, I’ve become a lot more closed-off to women. I still have female friends, but I no longer confide in them the way I did with Sara, Jane, and Claire. I long for that closeness, but I’m afraid of losing another friend, or worse, discovering that I’m just a horrible friend and these breaks were really my fault. To make matters worse, Sara is now trying to get me blackballed from the group. Oddly enough, everything else in my life is better than ever. I recently got a dream job, and my boyfriend and I are about to get engaged. Yet I feel like I’m in crisis. Should I just chalk these fallings out up to bad luck?or am I missing something?

    http://www.slate.com/articles/…..p_me_.html

    1. She must have a beautiful navel, the way she gazes at it.

      1. In fairness, this is an advice column.

        1. Oops, I thought it was Reason Morning Links!

    2. Again, confidence means being comfortable in your own skin. Apparently, she lacks this and needs validation from the internet about her decisions.

      Which, BTW, is about the last place I’d go looking for it.

      1. She should try 4chan.

        1. … or black tar heroin.

    3. Aren’t there drugs for schizophrenia?

      1. According to many anti marijuana folks… Marijuana is one. Oh you mean drugs that TREAT schizophrenia? Yea there are

        IMO, when I have had to invol or arrest schizos, they are almost always not taking their meds. Many hate taking the meds because they say it makes them feel dull, kind of numb,etc

        1. I’ve heard the same from some adult ADDs I know. And I suspect my sister quit taking her meds and went back to self-medicating with beer because of the same thing.

          1. The ironic thing alanis is that those with ADD/ADHD don’t take their drugs because they say it makes them feel slow and dull whereas they or others sell it to people without that condition who say it is a great form of speed that amps them up. So, that at least, great gatsby aside, suggests there is something to the disease. As I have said, manykf not most drug cases I see come from MD’s or pharmacists. Some guys in the next beat over from me arrested some moron the other day for buying adderall (ADD DRUG) with a forged prescription.he was an idiot. Just go to a doctor and fake ADHD symptoms. Duh. Apparent,ly, he was selling it at raves

          2. My coworker with ADD said that she doesn’t like taking her meds because, while they do make her productive and able to focus, they take away all her emotions.

            1. I don’t know what meds your friend is taking, but that’s hasn’t been my experience. I take Dexedrine spansules (the extended release form). They just make me feel more alert. That’s it. If I take a bit more than the usual dose (usually when studying), there’s a bit of a speedy edge to it, but without the jittery feeling I get from caffeine.

              1. when i worked street crimes, i busted a kid for selling that exact pill at one of our local schools. he was mostly selling them (to other kids) but he was giving them away to the especially hawt chix.

                do the math

                i actually pioneered a “pill photo lineup” in order for the purchasers to pick the drug they purchased out of a lineup to make a rock solid case.

                i was also pretty surprised that the pharmacist turned the kid’s prescription records over without a subpoena or warrant. apparently, there aint much of a pharmacist/client privacy rule

                parents were FUCKING PISSED their precious 15 yr olds were tripping on amphetamines because some kid was going around selling them. one chick was wandering the halls, acting completely wacked out and when medics arrived, her pulse rate, etc. was insane. probably took several

                i specifically remember the dexedrine spansule because it was so new it wasn’t in the latest PDR

    4. God, what the fuck–it’s like reading someone’s diary entries.

      This is the result of relativists saying that the spergings of an emotionally broken goon are just as substantial as Tacitus or Plato.

  50. Government Motors is taking the unprecedented step of offering free loaner cars to Volt owners while they try to fix the little problem with their exploding batteries.

    Naturally, the media doesn’t mention that they can easily do this because only about a hundred people or so have bought their stupid overpriced go-kart.

    1. Don’t insult the go-kart. They run on gas and have real engines.

      It’s and overpriced golf cart.

  51. We were hosting town halls every night [in New Hampshire] and basically nobody was showing up.

    So much for the myth that holding early primaries in small states where the voters can meet the candidates in person is some crucial first step in the democratic process of selecting the president. It turns out that if the TV networks arbitrarily decide not to include a particular candidate in the debates and news coverage, no one will show up to campaign events.

  52. Nine out of 10 schools in the UK will close and airline passengers in the country will face delays of 12 hours as roughly 2 million British public sector workers strike in response to austerity measures.

    The unions will then demand a raise for this green energy-saving (non-)activity.

  53. Fulton county sheriff deputies act like decent human beings, refuse to evict 103 yo woman.

    “A 103-year-old woman and her 83-year-old daughter were just moments from being evicted from their home Tuesday, when sheriff’s deputies and the moving company hired by the bank decided not to go through with the action.”

    1. and nothing else happened…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.