A.M. Links: Ron Paul's Post-Iowa Odds, Gingrich Apologizes, U.S. Decreases Troops Along Mexico Border

|

  • Can Ron Paul do as well outside Iowa as inside it? A communications professor interviewed by Reuters says NO

  • Gingrich half-apologizes for saying, "I will be the nominee." 
  • Drones to replace National Guard on the U.S.-Mexico border. 
  • FCC commissioner: "The proponents of Internet freedom and prosperity have been asleep at the switch." 
  • Payroll tax cut fails again. 
  • The end of the world is one year from today

Do you want hot links and other Reason goodies delivered to your inbox twice a day? Sign up here for Reason's morning and afternoon news updates.

New at Reason.tv: "Remy: Grandma Got Indefinitely Detained (A Very TSA Christmas)"

NEXT: Reason Writers on TV: Peter Suderman Talks Light Bulb Bans, Discretionary Spending Cuts on Freedom Watch

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. Punctual!

  2. honestly… I would rather see a Republican dominated Congress and an Obama presidency than Gingrich being elected with a Republican congress.

    1. This may surprise you, but so do many Republicans. Newt is a spendaholic, unprincipled moron.

      Now take Romney and put him in there. He has a proven record of gaining support in partisan situations (take Mass for example), building something from scratch (his companies) and working with both the international community and the guys across the aisle (Olympic bid committee). And again, I may be a Huntsman fan, but Romney gets my vote this time because we need pragmatic cuts that a nervous public can work with and not freak out over.

      1. Romney gets my vote this time because we need pragmatic cuts

        This is some serious cognitive dissonance. Romney won’t cut jack shit. He might, might, marginally reduce some projected increases but he wouldn’t cut a single thing.

      2. But at this point doesn’t bipartisan just mean spending and stealing more in a way that both sides can avoid blame?

        1. He’s already outlined cuts. Look at his platform. And they eventually become large cuts. He is just taking a more deliberate approach, one that will not flood the unemployment ranks with tens of government workers, that have families by the way, and wreck any possible economic growth in the process.

          And Paul’s ideal of government size is an admirable goal, gutting it in the first year will have dire consequences for both the US economy and world stability. It simply cannot be done without pulling the lug on the globe. And while many Libertarians would like to see that, the more cautious and sensible part of America will not let that happen.

          1. I have yet to see an explanation of how severely cutting government spending will completely destroy our economy, much less the world economy. I call bullshit till I get one.

            1. Well, one (mostly undiscussed) explanation is the widespread social unrest triggered by said cuts.

              1. Thank you. Flooding the free market with literally tens of thousands of unemployed people would devastate any growth potential we have. It would decrease overall purchasing power which would cause a death spiral of decreased production and layoffs.

                Not to mention the unrest bringing all of our military home would cause in the economies of our host countries. And the inevitable power vacuum will be filled by someone. Just look at what China is doing with their navy. They are begging people to let them them build bases around the world. Do we want communist China filling our void? I sure hope not, and neither do the families of Chinese dissidents that had their loved ones snatched up in the middle of the night and sent to prison.

                1. Flooding the free market with literally tens of thousands of unemployed people would devastate any growth potential we have increase the supply of labor available for the private sector to compete for.

                  By your logic, we should have seen massive recession/depression cycles every time our economy undergoes structural unemployment.
                  What you’re failing to factor for is that the demand is still there for the services that the gov’t once provided; hint: it’s private businesses filling in the void where regulation once prohibited commerce. In the most likely scenario, you would see more demand for the private sector equivalent of that labor. Hell, the biggest part of the labor force for any government agency is clerical work, and those skills translate into almost any industry. But, the worst-case scenario is that freed-up labor would have a mismatch in skills, which MANY businesses take into account when starved for properly-trained employees.

                  This just isn’t going to turn into the doomsday scenario you’re predicting.

                  1. So what Sy is saying is that the government workers are necessary, it’s just that the work should be done in the private sector?

                    This is at odd with all Libertarian thought that government is a bloated, evil octopus of inefficient, redundant and unnecessary workers.

                    1. So what Sy is saying is that the government workers are necessary, it’s just that the work should be done in the private sector?

                      This is at odd with all Libertarian thought that government is a bloated, evil octopus of inefficient, redundant and unnecessary workers.

                      Some WORK done by government employees — firefighting, protective services — is something that people actually want and would pay for voluntarily.

                      Some disservices done by government employees — the ones who told people who want to build a private hospital on Maui that they can’t do it, that they can’t get a “Certificate of Need”, because they would compete against the state-run hospital there — aren’t good enough to be called unnecessary. They are actively destroying value.

                      Or, to take another example, TSA “workers”. We really don’t need to privatize sexual molestation under the pretense of protecting people, thanks. It is not a “service” many people would voluntarily pay for.

                2. Slappy

                  First off. Those government employees get paid with taxes. If there are less of them, that means taxes can be lowered. More money in my pocket means I have more purchasing power. But I know that’s not important as long as some little bureaucritter keeps their job.

                  Secondly, it is not our fucking job to safeguard the security of the rest of the world. And if you think it is, then go tell each of those countries to start paying us the cost plus profit of each base.

                  You are obviously not for any meaningful reduction in the size and scope of government

            2. Unfortunately, he’s somewhat right, but the impact would only be short term. Lay off the bottom 25% of workers immediately, impose a hiring freeze, tell the workers that the department will close within three years and they should start looking for another job (causing many to leave shortly), next year cut another 25% and throw multiple departments together (the EPA has some valid functions that adhere to the Constitution, for example, but these functions can be rolled into an Environmental division of the Justice Department.)

              You can also merge the national security, defense, intelligence and law enforcement functions into one agency and eliminate massive redundancies. Having distinctions between FBI, CIA, DHS, DoD, etc. was always kind of stupid since they all carry out the same basic goal, yet have difficulty keeping each other in the loop.

              In this way, you make government more efficient while reducing the immediate impact of hundreds of thousands of unemployed government workers by spacing out the timing.

              1. “Not to mention the unrest bringing all of our military home would cause in the economies of our host countries. And the inevitable power vacuum will be filled by someone. Just look at what China is doing with their navy. They are begging people to let them them build bases around the world. Do we want communist China filling our void? I sure hope not, and neither do the families of Chinese dissidents that had their loved ones snatched up in the middle of the night and sent to prison.”

                From a political perspective:
                The “unrest” caused by stationing our own military in our own country doesn’t happen. In fact, it boosts the shit out of the economies around military bases. Whose economy takes priority in your opinion? A foreign one, or ours? If countries like Germany, Japan, and South Korea were to immediately embrace China’s military presence, I would immediately count them out as a reliable ally in the first place.

                From a (former) military perspective: Why do you expect us to be put in danger in foreign countries that are posing no threat to us domestically? How many more sailors, soldiers, Marine, and airmen are you willing to see maimed and butchered for the sake of preventing expansion of a political philosophy? If you care so much, why don’t you volunteer to go over there and fight it out? Why does it always involve sending other people to die?

                1. I’m too old to enlist. And I’m not saying SoKo, Japan or Germany would become Chinese allies. But we have to always pu a real check against their aggressive posture. And by real, I mean it has to be a viable force. The Japanese Navy is not a viable force.

                  As far as whose economy do I care more about: certainly it’s ours. But having said that, you must realize with a collapsed global economy, we cannot survive. And while the cities around military bases will have a boom, it will be at the expense of our trading partners, and that will lead to rising costs for us in the long run.

                  Basically, we move them back, we ultimately lose out economically as well as security-wise. And if you want our first line of defense against those that would kill us to be our shores, then you really are naive or you just do not care one whit about the safety of our allies.

                  1. “you must realize with a collapsed global economy, we cannot survive”

                    Nothing is black and white

                    1. “I’m too old to enlist.”
                      So you’re cool with sending young people in harms way to make you feel better? I’ve got a few dead friends who’d disagree.

                      “But we have to always pu a real check against their aggressive posture.”,

                      What aggressive posture? WE are the ones with an aggressive posture. Being in a constant state of war is your answer to the conceived desire of China to protect its own interests? Fuck ’em. They’re fucking themselves economically anyways. Let them destroy themselves. That’s what you want anyways, right?

                      “But having said that, you must realize with a collapsed global economy, we cannot survive”

                      You’re absolutely right. Lucky for us, nothing of the sort would happen as you’ve predicted.

                      “Basically, we move them back, we ultimately lose out economically as well as security-wise”

                      We don’t lose economically, that money is coming back home. Security? Security for whom? How do we lose national security if we do what multiple CIA, NSA, and FBI reports have recommended we should do for the sake of national security?

                      ‘And if you want our first line of defense against those that would kill us to be our shores, then you really are naive or you just do not care one whit about the safety of our allies.”

                      And this is coming from someone who’s apparently never studied or never served in the military.
                      The amount of weaponry we’ve developed to prevent land/air/sea invasion is insane. Seriously, go take a tour of a carrier sometime in your life. We’re the only country that really has ’em.

                      But hey man, you can scare yourself shitless about the Chinese and vote for Romney if you think it’ll save you, but it won’t make a difference in the end.

                    2. “So what Sy is saying is that the government workers are necessary, it’s just that the work should be done in the private sector?”

                      You didn’t even try to read, did you:

                      “But, the worst-case scenario is that freed-up labor would have a mismatch in skills, which MANY businesses take into account when starved for properly-trained employees.”

                      If there the demand for x labor =/= supply of x labor, then people have to find new careers. Are you advocating that no one should ever have to look for another career?

                    3. Slappy – if hundreds of thousand of American troops overseas spending taxpayer’ money is good, why not send a few million more?

          2. …will not flood the unemployment ranks with tens of government workers.

            Haha, sounds like doomsday, I tells ya!

            1. I meant tens of thousands. Sorry for the typo.

              1. You were right the first time.

                1. Dept of Education: 5,000
                  Dept of Energy: 16,000 (+90,000 contractors)
                  Dept of Commerce: 43,000
                  Department of Agriculture: 105,000.

                  Shall I go on? Just cutting 1/2 of these people (Paul says they’re all gonna go in his first year) would destroy our economy and push the world into a full-on depression. And wars happen when there are depressions.

                  1. How is having less dead weight going to hurt an economy?

                    1. It wont, if we get there gradually. But flooding the market will depress the price of labor, not to mention a huge increase in government expenditures on the unproductive members of society. The lowered cost of labor and the shrinking demand will put a further strain on the manufacturing, agriculture and service industries, causing layoffs, which will start the cycle over again and ultimately end in the death spiral of the American way of life. Next comes inflation and crashed markets.

                      I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to see Americans taking their pay home in wheelbarrows like they did in Weimar Germany.

                    2. But flooding the market will depress the price of labor

                      I think the price of rubber-stamping labor is pretty cheap already.

                  2. 13.3 million people are currently unemployed. Although I think the elimination should be spaced out over a few years, adding 250,000 will not plunge us into another depression. In the long term, these eliminations will create jobs.

                  3. Slappy, that stupid shit again? Those numbers are tiny compared to the number of federal workers after WWII. Your side predicted a double dip depression. Instead we got the biggest boom in American history. You suck; you truly suck, Slappy.

                    1. . . . number of federal workers cut after WWII . .

                    2. Way to compare the largest defense buildup in history with our current situation. That’s the biggest joke I’ve seen yet.

                    3. I meant the largest drawdown from the buildup. Sorry.

                  4. “would destroy our economy and push the world into a full-on depression. And wars happen when there are depressions.”

                    Slapdick,

                    By your own number listed, half of those numbers would be about 132,000 laid off workers, right? Added to the current total unemployed labor force, we would see 26,554,563 total unemployed.

                    Unemployment rate before your doomsday scenario: 8.6%.
                    Unemployment rate AFTER your doomsday scenario: 8.649%

                    So a .049% increase in the unemployment is going to cause war and a massive depression, when there’s been a 3.6% increase in total unemployment between dec 2004 and now?

                    Where the hell are you getting these ideas?

                    1. Oh, I just named a small part of what Paul wants to see abolished. I didn’t even get into the DoD cuts he will propose. Or the massive ripple effect it will have on government contractors, the myriad businesses that are around military towns, the cost of feeding and clothing the spouses and children of let-go government workers, etc., etc., etc.

                      You guys just keep on living in a textbook. Those of us who look at things realistically can’t afford to.

                    2. You really should try to provide some type of economic proof of your claims, Slap.

                      “Or the massive ripple effect it will have on government contractors, the myriad businesses that are around military towns, the cost of feeding and clothing the spouses and children of let-go government workers, etc., etc., etc.”

                      You’re assuming multiple things here.
                      1) There won’t be corresponding cuts to taxes, regulations, and easing of businesses standards.
                      2) These contractors’ skill sets won’t be useful in the private sector.

                      3) This is a textbook Broken Window fallacy.

                      If everything you said was true, then by definition the most logical and efficient thing we could do for our economy is have everyone employed through the government as to avoid frictional unemployment.

                      I’ve lived in several military towns during my time in the service. Their local economies have weathered troop drawdowns, massive deployments, and unemployment among private contractors well enough.

                      “You guys just keep on living in a textbook. Those of us who look at things realistically can’t afford to.”

                      If you’ve studied the economic impact that reducing taxes and regulations do to unemployment, you would understand that these unemployed workers (construction, clerical, plumbing, etc) would have quite an easy time finding gainful employment due to the increased demand for labor that follows.
                      As I’ve stated before, if some people need to seek new specialties and careers, what’s so bad about that? I’m doing exactly that right now. Private aviation has taken a beating during this recession and my previous employer and its competitors have had massive layoffs. Since the business environment sucks right now, I’m getting an education for a new field. If the businesses regulations that you omitted from your claim were to be severely diminished, I would have been in businesses for myself by now.

                      This is the “reality”. Not “war and depression” as you have claimed.

                    3. I am with you on cutting regulations and taxes. And Romney proposes to do both. I’m talking about a massive shock to an already fragile economy and the devastating effects it will have. If you can’t see that happening, you are just kidding yourself.

                      And I’ve been in plenty of military towns that have suffered through drawdowns. They are shells of their former selves. The economy turns to vice and the standard of living goes into the toilet.

                  5. Just cutting 1/2 of these people (Paul says they’re all gonna go in his first year) would destroy our economy and push the world into a full-on depression.

                    Bullshit.

                    1. “Bullshit.”

                      You said in one word what it took a couple hundred for me to say. I don’t think this guy has ever taken a freshman econ course or ever been in business, for that matter.

                    2. Haha. If you guys only knew what I did for a living, your heads would be spinning. Let’s just say I went well past 100-level Econ classes and leave it at that.

                    3. “Haha. If you guys only knew what I did for a living, your heads would be spinning. Let’s just say I went well past 100-level Econ classes and leave it at that.”

                      No one gives a shit what you do for a living; it makes no difference since your claims are ridiculously unfounded and absurd. I’d take you a little more seriously if you could actually provide some type of proof.

                    4. Paul Krugman is that you?

                    5. Haha. If you guys only knew what I did for a living, your heads would be spinning. Let’s just say I went well past 100-level Econ classes and leave it at that.

                      Why do you think that would surprise me at all? The exact aroma of the bullshit that springs from your brainwashed mind is very identifiable. Thank god for real science/engineering classes, they grant one the confidence even as an undergrad to see the stupid for what it really is.

                  6. Actually, he hasn’t said this. He’s said he would reduce government payrolls through attrition.

                    1. “And I’ve been in plenty of military towns that have suffered through drawdowns. They are shells of their former selves. The economy turns to vice and the standard of living goes into the toilet.”

                      So, what you’re saying is, “jobs” and “services” are created that you don’t like. Towns that are built around bases are essentially boom towns anyways. If the local businesses can’t figure out a way to attract non-military business, it wasn’t a stable model to begin with.

                      Everything you said sounds like Cleveland in a nutshell: the leaders are more concerned with the city’s “prestige” than their economy.

                      I’m not worried about a bunch of abandoned buildings and what some people choose to spend their money on. I’m more concerned with seeing people being able to find gainful employment of their choosing, free of the instability that government promises of economic stability bring.

        2. Yep.

          Bipartisan agreement = agreement to further statism.

          1. Oh, Slapdick McGee. Will you ever learn?

            1. (Strangely enough, that’s a phrase I’ve always wanted to type. True story.)

              1. Yeah, we should all be terrified of the Chinese Navy, with their ONE aircraft carrier.

                1. Not even a carrier group, literally ONE carrier. There was an article here highlighting the actual difference in forces of the US and everyone else. Out of the entire world only the US has the ability to project power into another hemisphere at any given moment. It’s absurd to think I should be worried about the Chinese trying to build bases with unsound money, when they can barely patrol their own seas for pirates.

                2. It’s not the size (which will certainly increase once they get overseas bases) so much as it is their increased stature in the world’s eyes at our expense. It’s like “Debt of Honor” by Tom Clancy come to life, except it’s the Chinese instead of the Indians projecting strength and influence at our expense. And we saw how that ended.

                  1. It’s like “Debt of Honor” by Tom Clancy come to life, except it’s the Chinese instead of the Indians projecting strength and influence at our expense. And we saw how that ended.

                    With “The End” and photo of Clancy on the dustjacket?

                  2. —“It’s like “Debt of Honor” by Tom Clancy come to life, except it’s the Chinese instead of the Indians projecting strength and influence at our expense. And we saw how that ended.”—

                    I did not read the book, but surely you are not suggesting we should operate our military and government in general based on a novel.

                    1. “I did not read the book, but surely you are not suggesting we should operate our military and government in general based on a novel.”

                      Hell, I’d pick a movie

                    2. I’m just pointing out the similarities, that’s all.

                      Not that it would be the first time life had imitated art, but whatever.

      3. What were Romney’s accomplishments in MA?

        The cocksucker has been running for office for 17 year now. Give the private sector experience claims a break.

        1. Um, let’s see. Went from startup to multibillion dollar company. Got Salt Lake City the Winter Olympics and cleaned up the mess of a scandal that was there before him. That’s a pretty good start to me.

          1. Romney – Did not get Salt Lake City the Olympics the bis was awarded years before Romney was brought in, and the mess that was supposedly clean up – was a government witch hunt with an eventual acquittal. So what exactly did he clean up? Nothing he used his skills to keep excitement high. He gets way too much credit for the success of the olympics in Salt Lake City.

            1. I noticed you left out his business accomplishments. And you are painting the SLC Olympics situation about as incorrectly as possible. The acquittals came because we were more concerned with saying, “we’re not crooked,” than in getting to the bottom of what happened. Not to mention, he got zero cooperation from the international members who took the bribes in the first place.

              Face it, the IOC is as corrupt as FIFA. It took a man of principle to stand up to them, and Romney did just that. The fact that he was handcuffed by bureaucracy beside the point, he brought about a sea change in the way bids are awarded.

              1. We get it. You’ve chosen the Turd Sandwich. Bully for you.

              2. I noticed you left out his business accomplishments.

                What are his top five business accomplishments since 1994 when he became a crappy wannabe career politician?

    2. Gingrich (or Romney) as the Republican vs Obama?
      Just means once again I’d have no pony in this race. When will the GOP understand they get nowhere by being the Second Democrats?

      1. Once they stop getting places…

  3. Reality shows hit new low: cannibalism!

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/he…..ers-flesh/

    Just kidding, the real low was watching Bear Grylls drink his own urine.

    1. I’d try cannibalism. Although I’m not eating some other guy’s ass, surgically removed or not.

      I would eat Warty’s heart, though. To gain his strength.

      1. No, you idiot. Use it to forge a legendary blade.

        1. I have The Ring of Namira, moron.

          1. Well, you can only use his heart to forge a legendary blade if he’s demonic, so either way you win. You can either eat it, or forge.

            1. So the real question… Is Warty a demon?

              1. Certainly some sort of maleficarum.

                1. An Abomination? Interesting!! Inquiring minds want to know: Pride, Desire, Sloth… ?

                  1. mmm desire demon…

                  2. No way in Hell Warty is the demon of Desire. Now Sloth on the other hand…

        2. I wouldn’t eat Warty’s heart, but I’d replace all the engine valves in my Hummer with his, so my car could get 6.8 skanks to the gallon.

          1. Think of the epic riffs when you start the engine, too.

      2. I heard Warty’s strength was in his ass…

        Conundrum

        1. Corundum, dummy.

          No wonder you can’t figure out how to improve The Mask of Volsung.

          1. Who gives a shit about corundum? I poop ebony ore.

            1. I wish someone in my game pooped it. >:|

              1. Get used to warping around to all the blacksmiths. Even the low-level ones will start having two or three ingots for sale, as will some of the general traders.

                Or take a pickax to the Gloombound Mine.

                1. You only need what, 20? ingots altogether to make a full set of daedric armor, anyway. Just mine iron ore and turn it into ingots, kill wolves and turn them into leather strips, and get a soul trap weapon. Then you can spam iron daggers and enchant them to get your smithing and enchanting up, and make a shitload of money in the process. Then you can afford to buy all the ebony ingots you want.

        2. Conundrum? I never wears one……

  4. Wukan wins against the Chinese. Hooray for not having to see tank guy II.

    “Chief village representative Lin Zuluan emerged from two hours of talks with the first high-ranking Chinese government official to intervene in the three-month long open revolt.

    Guangdong provincial deputy-Communist Party Secretary Zhu Mingguo agreed to a series of demands, said Lin, starting with the release of the villagers. “

  5. Finally… something some Jezebel commenters don’t think government should be paying for…

    1. Is bimbos one of those words that only people who are in the group are allowed to use but is totally offensive if anyone outside the group uses? Because here I thought feminists were against putting down women by calling them sluts, hoes, bimbos, etc.

      1. ‘Bimbo’ is a term used back in the Dean Martin Roasts era.

      2. They were (mendaciously) ascribing that terminology to the French govt. It’s OK to say if you lie about someone else saying it.

    2. Gavagirl @cisum88note
      The thing is, when the government starts regulating something, they’re accepting partial responsibility for the product they’re regulating because they’re stamping it as an acceptably safe product.

      Blind squirrel finds nut, throws it away.

      1. The anguish it must have cost to come that close to seeing reality…

  6. Yes, but what about the newsletters? I need more articles about why they’re important, but Obama gets a pass on Rev. Wright.

    1. Really? A 600+ commented thread yesterday wasn’t enough for you?

      1. More! More! More!

        1. I will provide.

    2. Three years of watching the press lick Obama’s ass wasn’t enough for you?

      1. Looks like somebody has finally hit upon why Paul is unelectable. The newsletters are the last straw. The press will not let them go even though they know they weren’t Paul’s.

        The problem is, they were done in Paul’s name and Paul did nothing to set the record straight when it happened. It would be akin to driving past a rock with “nigger” painted on it day after day after day on property you rented. Yeah, you didn’t do it, but your silence appears as tacit approval.

        Nope. There’s no way Paul can win because of that. Just as there’s no way Newt can overcome the divorce service on the deathbed story, whether totally true or not. Or the Freddie and Fannie money pouring into his pockets.

        Team Red needs somebody clean as a whistle. No skeletons, no nutty affiliations, no string of wives a mile long and no beltway shenanigans. Gee, where do we find such a person? Oh, I know!

        1. Oh, Slapdick McGee. Will you ever learn?

          (For me, it never gets old.)

        2. No beltway shenanigans like putting the US taxpayer at large on the hook for the fiscal shortcomings of Romneycare? You’re a fucking scumbag, you’re pushing a fucking scumbag candidate, and frankly have zero understanding of the views of the posters here or libertarianism in general. You’re blind shilling for team red leads me to believe you’re the new troll to replace WI.

          1. Romney didn’t do that. He just participated in a federal grant program to try new state solutions for their medicare crises. That same federal money went to every state that changed their system. A much larger $$$ amount went to California, Texas, Florida and Illinois. But you don’t hear Libertarians going crazy about those places, do you?

            1. Is my choice for GOP candidates between governors of those aforementioned states? Perry not withstanding since no one here is talking about voting for him.

              1. Of course not. But pointing out one guy that used federal grant money for a state program (states are the “laboratories of democracy” Libertarians are always crowing for) that most other states were accepting as well seems kinda silly. It would be like you saying the state that accepted the most federal highway money is dumber than the state that took the least. Did you ever stop to think that that state needed the money more because their program was more ambitious in trying to solve their health care crisis? It’s the same as the state that has to build more bridges than someone else.

                1. “Did you ever stop to think that that state needed the money more because their program was more ambitious in trying to solve their health care crisis? It’s the same as the state that has to build more bridges than someone else.”

                  Hahahahahahahaha!!!!

                  The ends justify the means!!!

                  1. What a well-constructed retort. Looks like I’m gonna have to rethink my whole life.

                2. —“But pointing out one guy that used federal grant money for a state program (states are the “laboratories of democracy” Libertarians are always crowing for)”—

                  They could have their “laboratories of democracy” on their own dime and not make everybody else pay for it. Just sayin’.

                  1. The federal government helping to fund pilot programs in hopes that there will be a long-term federal solution to our health care crisis is smart money. And while sometimes programs don’t work as planned, the only way to find out is trial and error.

                    I know that’s not what you people want to hear, but it’s the way the real world works sometimes.

                    1. Yup, that’s the way to win libertarians over to Mittens, by saying “intentions matter not outcomes”.

                    2. So the man tried and failed at something. The feds wanted states to try different things. That’s the hand Mitt was dealt and he tried what he thought would work, but it didn’t. He learned from that mistake and will not make it at the federal level. He’s said so a million times over, but you guys just won’t give him the benefit of the doubt. Does one have to be infallible like Jesus Christ to pass muster as a presidential candidate around here? If so, the guy who tolerated racist commentary in his name for years is probably disqualified.

        3. What about if his pastor is a racist America-hater, he held a fundraiser in the house of two unrepentant ex-terrorists…oh, never mind, that was all irrelevant and it’s the people who pointed it out who are the bad guys. Four more years!

          1. The media’s been in the tank for Obama since February 2008. They overlooked it then and they’ll overlook it now. I’m not saying the skewering of Paul is fair, bit it is what it is.

            And your “four more years” comment is what the media’s been saying since inauguration day, not me. I want to see some sanity, but we aren’t going to get it from our media. The best we can do is nominate someone who they can’t destroy on some petty issue. And that guy sure isn’t the fellow who is tied to racist newsletters published in his name, or the guy who tried to sleep with half of the women he met (Cain) or the guy who is a serial philanderer and crony of Freddie and Fannie (Newt).

            1. Only if you assume we are partisan morons that believe winning with a guy that doesn’t hold any of our principles or values is actually winning or if you somehow believe in supply-side wizardry of Reaganomics with is indistinguishable from modern neo-Keynesianism in results.

              You’re completely wrong on your entire premise for posting here. Until you understand basic Austrolibertarian principles you’re not going to be able to frame an argument in a way that will sway anyone here.

              1. Or if you happen to believe that anything is better than what we have now – and you aren’t particularly interested, even if it were possible, to sway anyone here.

                1. That would be great if that’s how the argument was framed, but it is not.

                  1. So basically what you are saying is that you are for Ron Paul, but since he is “unelectable”, your just going to vote for Romney. How bout if everyone that says that they like RP votes for him. We wouldn’t have to worry about dipshits like Romney then?

                    1. Are you responding to me, Rob? I said last night and today, I think, that I am a Huntsman fan but that I’ll support Romney because he will cut government with a scalpel as opposed to a machete (an analogy Dr. Paul should be able to get), will get the sides to agree on smart bipartisan spending restraint, will protect our allies and interests from Iranian nuclear adventurism and will keep us as a beacon of freedom around the world.

              2. Now you bring Reagan up? Wow. I guess you’re going to conveniently omit the fact that Reagan had to face down the Soviet Union, and the only way to accomplish that was by forcing them to make a choice between arming the Red Army or feeding their people.

                1. Now you bring Reagan up? Wow. I guess you’re going to conveniently omit the fact that Reagan had to face down the Soviet Union, and the only way to accomplish that was by forcing them to make a choice between arming the Red Army or feeding their people.

                  Wait!! Let me get this straight? Reagan forced the Russians to make this choice by increasing military spending AND subsidizing grain exports to Russia?

            2. The best we can do is nominate someone who they can’t destroy on some petty issue.

              You underestimate the media.

              And that guy sure isn’t the fellow who is tied to racist newsletters published in his name

              No, it’s the guy that was the leader in a racist church, right?

            3. “The best we can do is nominate someone who they can’t destroy on some petty issue. And that guy sure isn’t the fellow who is tied to racist newsletters published in his name, or the guy who tried to sleep with half of the women he met (Cain) or the guy who is a serial philanderer and crony of Freddie and Fannie (Newt).”

              …or the guy who believes his manpanties are magical and mystical while abusing the shit (literally) out of his family pets? Oh, wait…yeah, your guy is that guy!

              No freaking thank you.

              1. Aaaaand the racial bigotry rears it’s ugly head. It took a little longer than expected, but i had faith we’d get there.

                1. The racial bigotry raised it’s head when God told Joseph Smith that the darkies suck. It’s not my fault if an adult Willard chose to believe that “word of God”

                  1. And is Mitt really out there preaching hate like rac3rx is above? Have you once heard him say anything about blacks? Or has anyone used his name in a newsletter to make racist claims about others?

                    Well there’s one candidate who has that baggage. And it ain’t going away.

                    1. Um what hate did rac3rx preach in that post?

                    2. “his manpanties are magical and mystical” just sounds like the height of tolerance and respect for other beliefs, doesn”t it?

                    3. While it might be juvenile, it certainly isn’t hate speech. I would suggest you get the sand out of your vagina.

        4. Donderoooooo?

    3. He’s a libertarian Republican. Will that play in South Carolina, Georgia and elsewhere?

      Given the stereotypes about Republican voters in those states, the Newsletters[tm] might be an asset!

      A trade war with China would be a tax on low-income Americans.

      I thought Paul’s policy was to treat all trading partners equally, so low income Americans would get to choose goods from places beside China.

    4. I have yet to see a comprehensive list of all the supposedly horrible things said in the newsletters.

    5. Seriously, after all the awful shit that Obama has done in office, why should anyone still care about Rev. Wright?

  7. A Newt Gingrich supporter had some harsh criticism for her candidate of choice today, telling him she was disappointed in a comment he made to ABC’s Jake Tapper earlier this month, when Gingrich said, “I’m going to be the nominee.”

    No one – NO ONE – dislikes Gingrich more than I do, but candidates have been having themselves introduced as “the next President of the United States” since forever. If you’re going to criticize Gingrich, do it because he’s a big government blowhard.

    1. How dare you call into question the rationale of an anonymous Newt Gingrich supporter!

      1. I’ve only met one Newt supporter who wasn’t anonymous.
        I was literally speechless when I found out.

  8. Paul can do great in the Midwest, he should forgo Florida & South Carolina and focus on Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, Minnesota and Michigan.

    1. I’m not convinced he’ll do that bad in FL. At least North Florida. It’s Tea Party central in North Florida, and it’s the only place I’ve seen pretty heavy Ron Paul support anywhere (billboards and such).

      1. I’m considering registering as a Republican after being unaffiliated for the last 4 years to vote for RP. But I may just harden my heart so it doesn’t get stepped on.

        1. There was a local race here that literally came down to one guy winning over the other by one vote.

  9. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..agers.html

    Rebellious Chinese fishing village forces government to release three villagers. Governments callapse in one of three ways. You can be invaded by another country (see Iraq 2003). You can have your army split and give the revolutionaries weapons to fight you on equal or near equal terms (see Libya 2011). Or, you can lose collective will to just kill everyone necessary to stay in power.

    The third case seems to be happening in China. By collective will I mean just that, collective will. The leaders probably want to kill everyone in that village to make an example of them. But they have to have officers and soldiers willing to do it. And it appears China may have run out of that. Once a regime looses the will to do that, it is only a matter of time before its people realize just how many of them hate the government and that the ultimate sanction is no longer on the table. Once that happens, the regime is done.

    1. wish the people here would be that fed up…

    2. I take it as a sign that the Chinese government knows it can’t grow its way out of poverty fast enough to continue their tactics. If perceived progress is your source of popular power, and progress is stalling, you have to back off.

      Of course, once the Telegraph quits reporting live, it will be interesting to see whether the Chinese just learned their PR lesson after Tienamen Square, or whether they intend to follow through with their promises.

      1. It is my understanding that they waited so long to end the Tienamen Square thing because many of the people in that square were the children of the elite. They really didn’t want to shoot their own brats. But this is some fishing village. These are the kinds of people they have been thoughtlessly murdering for decades. It is interesting this has dragged on so long.

    3. The fact that there are local officials and a private company the central government can blame this on helps.

      It gives the central government the opportunity to play the hero and not look like it’s losing face.

      BUT that being said, ten years ago rising up in protest would have trumped anything else and the central government would have crushed these people on principle, without trying to make any fine political calculations.

  10. NYT in talks to sell 16 newspapers.

    Apparently, there are only 15 people who will pay full price for lies. Actually, at $10M/each for local papers, I think the NYT is making out well.

    1. The former CEO got a 4 million dollar buy out. If you had bough 10K worth of stock when she took her job, it would now be worth $1,800 on her exit. Good thing the Times is against excessive executive pay.

  11. A communications professor interviewed by Reuters says NO.

    Hibbert: [chuckles] Your playing days are over, my friend. But, you can always fall back on your degree in…[reads chart] communications!? Oh, dear Lord!
    Lubchenko: I know! Is phony major. Lubchenko learn nothing. Nothing! [cries]

    1. You laugh, but without communications professors, how would we be able to forge a bold new future in communication?

  12. So it looks like the House GOP is really going to scuttle a tax cut. I must say I’m curious as to what the GOPartisan Talking Points are for the party that went to the mat for a temporary tax cut for those making $250,000 a year last Xmas scuttling the payroll tax cut (poor Beloved Moon, I’m guessing the “it’s always been about the tax raises tied to it” dog has finally been put to sleep). It occurred to me if I wanted to hear GOP talking points, H&R is certainly good for that. So what’s the memo making the rounds?

    1. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31…..gulations/

      n Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the “big fish.” But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called “gunwalking,” and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

      ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3”. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

      On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

      “Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

      But it was all just an accident. They didn’t let those guns walk over the border in hopes it could be used to justify gun control. Right?

      1. Damn, John, you’ve had that in holster, haven’t you?

        1. MNG went into hiding when F&F (and Climagegate II) got even worse because he is a pussy.

          1. Well, he clearly locked himself in a room and was repeating his lies to himself enough to continue spouting his public denials of the obvious intention of Fast and Furious.

          2. ClimateGate II? Yeah, boy, that was conclusive. Look, as Huntsman said, I happen to think most of the professional scientists who have weighed in on climate change are not some part of a socialist cabal of groupthinking one worlders trying to decieve the general public, call me crazy.

            1. Your appeal to authority is reduced to Huntsman?!?! Next you’ll be quoting his daughters.

              1. Yes, my point there was obviously based on the authority of John Huntsman, not on his point about the likely probablities between the two scenarios of 1. most scientists are lying to us vs. 2. AGW-deniers are wrong.

                See, it’s the fact that you guys regularly miss even this kind of thing that makes people like me doubt your analysis of Climategate or Climate science in general.

                1. You don’t need most to lie. You dont need 99.99% to lie. You need just a few in the early stages to lie. In science a false starting premise can fuck over all subsequent research. Now, keepping the false premise from being corrected can be done by say deleting data or manipulating statistics that are inconvenient. Just sayin.

      2. What do you think is in that which shows this was not a case of a stupidly planned program?

        1. The dance begins.

        2. This shows it is more than stupidity:

          ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3”.

        3. The last email really is the smoking gun. They didn’t tell Mexico. Told the dealers to sell the guns to gun smugglers. Didn’t try to stop the guns. And then as soon as the guns started showing up told the people down there

          can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.

          I honestly can’t imagine a stronger case than that. There is no other rational conclusion than that is what they are doing.

          Look, there is no evidence Obama knew anything about this. But the people at the DOJ did what they did. And it wasn’t just stupidity. It was cravenly evil.

          1. Girls, girls!

          2. “they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF”

            Notice that last part. INCLUDING. All of this is consistent with the following:

            The ATF is aware of people buying guns in the US for gangs in Mexico. This would cause them to initiate a program to target these people and gather intelligence on them, and yes, it would cause them to use the sales (INCLUDING the ones they allowed [allowed is what they seem to have done, they didn’t call up the Mexicans and ask them to come buy the guns]) to approve other methods.

            This happens all the time.

            1. Consider this. A local sheriff is worried about meth sales in his county. So he starts programs to fight this. One program might be to get undercover cops and informants to arrange and engage in meth sales and to allow this to happen without immediate arrests (like I said, even John had to admit this is pretty unremarkable stuff).

              Now, let’s say the Sheriff then starts to go to the media and the city council pointing to evidence of meth sales, INCLUDING ones he allowed (or even arranged), in order to get support.

              Nothing remarkable about any of that imo. Would you conclude he engaged in the arrangements and the allowances IN ORDER to drum up support?

              1. Nothing remarkable about any of that imo. Would you conclude he engaged in the arrangements and the allowances IN ORDER to drum up support?

                Yes.

                1. Oh, MNG. Will you ever learn?
                  (Meh. It just doesn’t have the same je ne sais quoi.)

                2. If you concluded this it would be because you hate the Sheriff/ATF, not because the evidence forced that conclusion.

                  Look, I hate the ATF too, they have been responsible for slaughter in the past. But there are non-conspiratorial explanations for all of this, as I’ve just described.

              2. You are like a young earther who believes dinosaurs walked the earth with man. It doesn’t matter how many times you show them that fossile. They are not changing their minds.

                The e-mails speak for themselves. There is no defending this. The fact that you are still trying just shows that you will never hold Democrats to any level of accountability no matter how low.

                1. This is why I have’nt missed H&R much, other than for some missed chuckles. I described how all of these facts would be consistent with a non-sensational explanation. And the replies? CN with some point-less snark (CN, like Warty et al., is part of that crew that seemingly never make any points other than some high school level snark) and John just pointing back at the email (which I addressed) and ignoring everything I typed about it…

                  And then accusing me of being close minded!

                  Sigh.

                  1. Is it wrong for me to take pleasure in knowing exactly where MNGs goat is tied?
                    Well, if it’s wrong, I don’t want to feel right, baby!

              3. I would say he should be arrested for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. But then I don’t think the government should be able to break the law in order to enforce the law.

                1. And you know what, I’ve consistenly said that this LE method, while common, is immoral for that reason and others.

                  But you see, I won’t acknowledge “the obvious”, you know, the thing so “obvious” that even most PROFESSIONAL PARTISANS in the Congress looking into this haven’t embraced. So all those times I’ve called out the Dems, Obama and liberals in general, that means nothing, I won’t accept this “obvious” thing so I’m the shill…

                  But in a world, or should I say chatroom, of shills non-shills will of course appear to be shills…

                  What can I say?

                  1. And you know what, I’ve consistenly said that this LE method, while common, is immoral for that reason and others.

                    Except when it supports a leftwing goal and results in dead brown people.

                    Then it’s a great tactic.

                2. You’re not really a “crank” when you can properly identify this place as a chatroom.

    2. Minge, what are your thoughts on Fast and Furious?

      1. Yes. Inquiring minds want to know.

      2. My thoughts are the same. I’ve seen no evidence that it was a program to allow guns to walk to drum up support for gun control. It’s a common LE tactic to allow illegal sales, even John had to finally admit that (after hours of dodging mind you). The argument is that this one MUST have had the political motivation because, why else would they not work with the Mexicans and why would they not make stronger efforts to follow the guns in Mexico? But there’s many perfectly un-conspiratorial answers for that, such as that working with the Mexicans invites problems of coordination and compromising corruption (problems that, iirc, were complained of in the Bush administration version of the problem). It seems the program meant to catch smugglers on this side of the border, and that is still consistent with allowing some guns to walk (the indictments refer to all of this).

        1. I’ve seen no evidence that it was a program to allow guns to walk to drum up support for gun control

          So that’s why you disappeared for a week when that evidence was widely published?

          1. Yes, that was quite the coincidence.

          2. I disappeared for a week because this site has become about 1/2 dishonest LGF and about 1/2 Warty-SF Teen Beat Social Club. I thought I explained this.

            1. I really don’t get why you constantly bring up LGF. Have you been there lately? Were you banned? The site is atrocious and this site is nothing like what LGF was before Charles went off his medication, much less after. If you hate it here so mcuh, just beg Chuckles to reinstate your account – I’m sure he’ll be glad to have another loyal sycophant back in his foild.

              1. Restoras, I don’t know what to tell you. Libertarians have always leaned right more than left, but most of the principled libertarians like J Sub, Thoreau, Ceasar, etc., who populated this board are now dwarfed by an army of thinly (and not so thinly) veiled GOPers, and of course other people who treat this board as the equivalent of a high school locker room.

                It’s boring as fuck to be honest, I was just curious as to what the hacks were thinking about the payrol tax.

                1. No one but you thinks this was anything but a craven attempt to justify gun control. We showed you the damned e-mail where they say as much.

                  It is only boring because you are so incapable of admitting any fault on the part of the Obama administration. You are so insecure in your beliefs that you can never admit that your team is ever wrong or worse than the other team in any way. Just admit the truth and move on.

                  1. “No one but you thinks this was anything but a craven attempt to justify gun control.”

                    Actually, nobody but hyper=partisans with admitted hatred of the administration and the ATF think that. Even Grassley and such are treating this as negligence and a cover-up at best, iirc.

                    1. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that libertarian opposition to the federal government in your opinion went from “principled” to thinly failed GOP talking points sometime around November 2008.

                    2. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that libertarian opposition to the federal government in your opinion went from “principled” to thinly failed GOP talking points sometime around November 2008.

                      Winnah Winnah Chicken Dinnah.

                    3. So everyone on this board is a hyper partisan? The emails say what they say. They wanted anecdotes to support gun control. That is why they let the guns walk.

                      The Democrats literally sold high powered weapons to murderers for political gain and you still defend them. It is just gross. Don’t you have any integrity or intellectual decency?

                    4. “The emails say what they say.”

                      And I explained how easily that would fit with a less sensational explanation. And you simply pointed to the emails again. And then again.

                      This is what you do though.

                      Like I said, even the PROFESSIONAL partisans, the GOP congresscritters looking into this mess, have pretty much stuck to allegations of of incompetence and cover-up at worst on this. It’s only people that hate Obama and the ATF (its very mission) that have come to this conclusion. Just like on ClimateGate, only people who BEFORE ClimateGate ALREADY denied AGW are trumpeting this.

                      Now, point to the email again.

                    5. It doesn’t fit in with any explanation other than “they wanted an anecdotes to provide support for gun control”. They couldn’t say it any planner than that.

                      You are making a complete fool of yourself. Why are you dying on this hill? Are you Eric Holder’s brother or something?

                2. It’s boring as fuck to be honest, I was just curious as to what the hacks were thinking about the payrol tax.

                  Dunno what the “hacks” are thinking. The R members of Congress are voting against this because:

                  a) It is only for two months.

                  b) It is in a bill full of stuff Rs oppose, including tax hikes elsewhere.

        2. I’ve seen no evidence that it was a program to allow guns to walk to drum up support for gun control.

          Read the post just above this one, where the DOJ says just that.

        3. ClimateGate II? Yeah, boy, that was conclusive. Look, as Huntsman said, I happen to think most of the professional scientists who have weighed in on climate change are not some part of a socialist cabal of groupthinking one worlders trying to decieve the general public, call me crazy.

          Stupid? No. But I’ll call you a disingenuous blowhard who, even when presented with CLEAR evidence, says, “well that evidence just isn’t good enough for the likes of me.”

          Like when the scientists who report in their own monthly global temperatures based at UA Huntsville, and have been since the 70s are quoted saying,

          While 0.45 degrees C of warming is noticeable in climate terms, it isn’t obvious that it represents an impending disaster,” said Christy. The climate models produce some aspects of the weather reasonably well, but they have yet to demonstrate an ability to confidently predict climate change in upper air temperatures

          and

          While Earth’s climate has warmed in the last 33 years, the climb has been irregular. There was little or no warming for the first 19 years of satellite data. Clear net warming did not occur until the El Ni?o Pacific Ocean “warming event of the century” in late 1997. Since that upward jump, there has been little or no additional warming

          and finish off with the wholly unambiguous

          How much of [the rise in temperatures] is due to greenhouse gases [when one accounts for volcanos starting their temperature record artificially low, making the ACTUAL rise artificial]? While many scientists believe it is almost entirely due to humans, that view cannot be proved scientifically.

          Yeah. There’s DEFINITELY no evidence that the narrative is fishy as fuck.

          They ADMIT that volcanoes started their record artificially low, which, once their effects had played themselves out globally made the temperature rise appear greater than it otherwise would have been; that any REAL rise in temperatures while they’ve been gathering global temperatures happened during a very short period after an el ni?o in 97, then virtually stopped. They also admit that their models aren’t very good at predicting dick, then openly admit that there is nothing in the alarmist narrative which can be proven scientifically.

          Oh, and they also admit that the models have been woefully wrong and that REALITY, as opposed to what computer models told them would happen, shows that there is no evidence of “impending disaster.”

          Yet you’ll look at the evidence from your own scientists and say “I’m not convinced.” And there’s a reason for that. It was never the science you believed in the first place, but the narrative because it brought you to a warm fuzzy world of mass wealth “redistribution” and the mandated halt of continued economic progress.

        4. There was an internal DoJ email discussing how they could use the sting as justification for increased gun control.

          These guys have been following since day one. Enjoy 130+ posts on f&f.

          The author actually believes that the US government ran guns to arm one cartel against another, not to strengthen gun laws in the US.

    3. Fast and Furious or shut up.

    4. So, wow, even the hacks here can’t defend it.

      Wow.

      I bet everyone here (well, those that work) pay payroll taxes. I bet there are not many here who would have aid more had the $250,000 tax cut renewal failed last year. Hackery aside, are’nt you going to be pissed when your taxes go up?

      1. Fast and Furious, muthafucker! Speak it!

      2. You got us, Congress is actually full of fuckheads. Who knew?

        Now, let’s laugh at you some more for defending F&F.

      3. See below. Both sides are craven and stupid and are needlessly damaging the economy. Set the God damned tax rates and stop playing chicken with the American public.

          1. So John has gone from “the Dems are worse on every single issue” to a “pox on both their houses” over the GOP payroll tax scuttle.

            Gosh, I guess it really is playing badly for the GOP!

            1. The Democrats are worse, but they’re both bad. Is that really so complicated to understand?

              1. Well, on this issue that ain’t so. Look, the Dems hardly support this for any reason a principled libertarian could support. They are always up to silly, craven political games. But, the point is, for whatever reason at THIS time on THIS issue they were going to support a reduction of the government burden on all of us and the GOP, for reasons not even John and the rest of the GOPartisans here are willing to defend, have scuttled it. They deserve ire, and lots of ire.

                1. But, the point is, for whatever reason at THIS time on THIS issue they were going to support a reduction of the government burden on all of us

                  No, they were going to temporarily continue, for just two months, a lower tax rate, then raise it back after the two months were over, and raise other taxes to “pay” for this (i.e., not reduce the government burden), and then do some other stuff that grows government.

                  What you’re doing is the rough equivalent of pointing to a nugget of undigested corn in a pile of shit and saying, “See? See? If you won’t eat that corn, then you aren’t hungry after all!”

            2. The Democrats are much worse. If it were up to the Republicans, we would have a permanent tax cut. The Republicans’ sin is getting played by craven Democrats.

              1. “If it were up to the Republicans, we would have a permanent tax cut.”

                What-the-fuck? As I had to school Beloved on the only party which has had significant portions question the payroll tax cut as an idea (apart from any payment mechanism) is the GOP.

                1. “Republicans, many of whom said just a few weeks ago that they did not want an extension of the tax cut at all, have now pivoted in the opposite direction, saying they would accept a one-year deal or nothing at all, citing the uncertainty of a stopgap plan.”

                  “Mr. Cantor said he preferred a yearlong bill, but, like many of his Republican colleagues, he has in the past also questioned the wisdom of reducing payroll taxes, which feed the Social Security fund.”

                  “Mr. Boehner returned his own televised volley minutes later from the Capitol, where he stood with roughly 150 House Republicans to announce his appointees to a conference committee that is not likely to meet soon. His appointees ? many of them vocal opponents of a payroll tax holiday in the past ? are now set to pass the next days in Washington, awaiting a blink from the Democrats.”

                  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12……html?_r=1

            3. Never let an agreement get in the way of a good argument.

      4. This is why replacing the IRS and tax code with a sales tax is the only sensible solution.

        1. Extending federal theft to every single productive transaction in the U.S. is not a sensible solution.

          At least the income tax, for all its faults, is only a restraint on exchange of labour.

          1. Wow. Inequally confiscating wealth is better than equally taxing expenditures?

            Cookoo! Cookoo!

          2. A tax on the means of production is slavery. Violations of my personal privacy shouldn’t be forced at government gunpoint while being robbed for the privilege of working and saving. The government doesn’t need to know anything about me that I don’t choose to share, including my personal income. I would much rather control the confiscation by only having to pay for consumption, in relative anonymity, during a purchase. People who buy less expensive stuff pay less in taxes than the people who buy more expensive stuff, so the taxation is actually fair. Plus, there are already established mechanisms in all 50 states to accommodate a consumption tax system, a boost for Federalism, as it gives the states greater power over federal revenue.

            1. Look, everybody^^^^ A voice of reason!

              It’s a miracle!

      5. Why is Harry Reid standing in the way of a one year agreement? Why shouldn’t government employees work up till 6 pm on the 24th if it takes that to get the job done?

      6. By payroll taxes you mean FICA the one source of revenue for SS?

      7. Well for those of us who don’t read the Team talking points know that the House passed the version requested by the President, which was a year extension of the reduction. The Senate then only passed the reduction for 2 months. Those who run small businesses and/or pay quarterly income taxes can’t adjust their software systems to account for such a short term so it’s worthless. The House requested a conference with the Senate, which scurried out of town like rats for Christmas. Your Messiah then proceeded to do what he does, read his propaganda TOTUS, which you and all of his other blind followers accept as final gospel.

        The regulatory system in this country has become like Russia’s. They change the rules every so often when they feel like it. A 2 month extension? Really? Legitimate business cannot be properly run in such a hostile & volatile climate.

        In other news, it looks like we’re creeping up on that 1,000 day mark since the Donk-controlled Senate passed a budget. I don’t know if the House has sent 4 or 5 over to them at this point. I do know the entire lot of losers should join the ranks of the unemployed.

      8. Why is the House to Blame, and not the Senate? The house has passed a version that extends it for a year. The Senate just want to extend it for 2 months, right? All tax & spending bills are to originate in the House, so I say the Senate is more to blame.

    5. So it looks like the House GOP is really going to scuttle a tax cut.

      Nice try, but the House democrats don’t support the bill either. Which is a little strange, when you consider that it was a fairly bipartisan vote in the Senate.

      Which leads me to believe that this is all nothing but a big charade; a bunch of typical political kabuki theater.

      1. “Nice try, but the House democrats don’t support the bill either.”

        Didn’t every single Democrat, along with Jeff Flake and several other GOPers, vote to accept the bill from the Senate?

    6. Isn’t the House GOP talking point that they want to extend the tax cut for a year instead of two months?

    7. The tax cuts passed in December of 2010 went to all americans, not just those making more than 250k. Furthermore, your beloved Democrats, still controlling both the house and the senate, as well as occupying the presidency passed the damn thing. So stop trying to pin it on the rethuglicans you fucking hack.

  13. New Iowa poll: Paul 27.5% Gingrich 25.3% Romney 17.5%

    1. Ron Paul Takes Lead in KCRG/Gazette/ISU Poll

      “KCRG/Gazette/ISU Poll”?!

      ** squirts latte out nose **

      1. NEW 2 & HAIF MEN BEST SHOW EVAR
        100% OF ERRYBODY AGREES

    2. These polls are threatening Iowa caucus relevance!

    3. I just hope Ron Paul doesn’t become the Pat Robertson or Mike Huckabee of 2012.

      1. Mike huckabee is a respected fox news pundit. I could think of worse things than Ron getting his own show. I don’t believe it will happen but you never know. As long as Ron does not forbids party, he can become the bellwether of a new group of republicans and the libertarian rebalancing of the GOP can continue.

  14. Only 52 weeks and a day are left before Dec. 21, 2012, when some believe the Maya predicted the end of the world.

    The Mayans were IDIOTS. Did they learn nothing from Y2K? Make doomsday on New Years, that way everyone can have an even kickasser partay on New Year’s Eve. Party like it’s 1999.

    1. What’s the next scary number? 2020? 05-10-20!

      1. Jan 19, 2038. 32-bit unix time ends. Of course, if you havent switched to 64-bit by then, you have other problems.

        26 years away and I expect some problems with embedded systems.

        1. For those wondering, 64-bit unix time lasts until Dec 4, 292277026596 — so Im not worrying about that one, what with the sun and probably the universe gone by then.

          1. I am interested in joining your doomsday cult.

            1. The cult of signed 64-bit time_t. I like it.

              And the prophet spaketh: When the 64 bit clock doth fill up and click over to negative, the universe shall endeth.

    2. Hey, lots of people take off the week before Christmas.

      Also, it’s actually 52 weeks and TWO days. Leap year, sucka.

      1. If you scroll down, you see that they also invented enema porn.

        Mayans, was there anything they couldn’t do?

        1. They were very wise, weren’t they.

        2. Mayans, was there anything they couldn’t do?

          Yeah. Survive.

      2. it is datura.

    3. 1999 was a good party. Not that I remember much of it.

      1. yeah, I ended up passed out in front of a toilet with my shoes missing.

        1. Just your shoes?

  15. leading to a “Balkanization” of the global information network

    As opposed to the way it is now?

    1. Those dirty Serbs are everywhere.

  16. Public Service Announcement*:
    Kate Moss (with the aid of a little air brushing) is still hot!
    *not for the chubby chasers.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..paign.html

    1. It is not so much her body but her eyes. They have a dead look about them. She looks like a junkie.

      1. I’m pretty sure she’s doing more than “looking” like a junkie. She’s a method model.

      2. She has the eyes of Sasha Grey.

        1. Does not.

            1. Totally different.

      3. but junkies need love too!

        1. but junkies need love too!

          Not as much as they need heroin.

      4. The model does her best Brigitte Bardot impression with backcombed, tousled hair and come-to-bed stare.

        In what I’ve seen of her when she’s not on the job, those eyes of hers exude confidence that is almost frightening.
        What can I say? I like confident women.

        1. Being high on smack will do that.

          1. Have you ever known any junkies? They’re not the most confident bunch. Pretty pathetic, really.

          2. It is just that studied insouciance that is de rigeur with models and certain actresses that declares, “I am just so fucking cool that I couldn’t possibly be interested in anything beyond me.” It must be accompanied by that partially open mouth thing. I am led to understand that it is sexy or something.

            1. The indifference in the model’s eyes is just a reflection of the indifference that most of the fashion industry has in sleeping with women.

              1. +1. That and the fact that the parts of the fashion industry that are not run by gay men are run by ugly bitter women. Everyone involved in the fashion industry who is not a model is either, gay, fantastically unattractive, or both.

          3. I thought Moss was a cokehead.

            1. She’s a drunk.

              1. How could stay that thin being a drunk?

                1. How could stay that thin being a drunk?

                  In pics of her I see she’s got a glass of wine in her hand more often than not, or is stumbling around late at night.
                  My conclusion is that she’s a drunk who doesn’t eat very much.

                2. I’ve known a few whip-skinny drunks in my day.

                3. Two words:

                  Wine enemas.

                  1. Are we back to that alcohol soaked tampon thing again?

                4. “How could stay that thin being a drunk?”

                  The coke helps a lot.

              2. Those aren’t mutually exclusive.

  17. “The proponents of Internet freedom and prosperity have been asleep at the switch,” Mr. McDowell, the lone Republican serving at the FCC, told editors and reporters at The Washington Times. “Or maybe I should say asleep at the router.”

    I fell asleep at the router once. My dog ended up with an unfortunate chamfer.

    1. If only Episiarch were here here to discipline you.

      1. Dog lover, is he? Meh, I’m impervious to his criticisms, anyway.

  18. Most opinion polls for South Carolina, the third state to hold a 2012 Republican nominating contest, give a resounding “no” to Paul. The Texan has been polling in single digits in the state, home to many active and retired military personal who may not take kindly to Paul’s non-interventionist military doctrine.

    1) Nice that they finally got the “non-interventionist” part right.
    2) Paul gets more support from military personnel than anyone else, so they got that wrong anyway. They idea that military personnel would object to not being put in harm’s way is odd.

    Anyway, everyone loves a winner, and polls in South Carolina this far ahead don’t mean anything yet.

    1. As an UNretired military member, I will happily support Paul, as will many others I know.

  19. Your intellectual superiors at work:

    ‘Morning Joe’: ‘The press was in the tank for Obama’ [VIDEO]
    …Newsweek/Daily Beast editor Tina Brown agreed with Scarborough’s statement, explaining it partly as the establishment media’s fatigue with the whole Clinton “narrative.”

    “I think a lot of it was about the press wanted a new narrative,” Brown said. “And in the end, Obama’s story of the first black president ? trumped the exceptionalism of her being the first woman president. It was bad luck for her that happened. But it was also a much more fun idea to have this new narrative to write about. Everyone was bored with the Clintons. They didn’t want to have another Clinton story.”…

    1. Words fail. Tina Brown makes the Kardashians seem deep and thoughtful.

      1. Mika is an idiot.

  20. Atlantis was really a neutrino detector

    “An audacious project to construct a vast infrastructure housing a neutrino observatory at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea is being undertaken by a consortium of 40 institutes and universities from ten European countries. The consortium claims that KM3NeT, as it is known, will ‘open a new window on the Universe,’ as its ‘several’ cubic kilometer observatory detects high-energy neutrinos from violent sources in outer space such as gamma-ray bursts, colliding stars and supernovae.”

  21. The [payroll tax] standoff was sowing confusion in business, running out of days to adapt to any new payroll tax regimen. Even the Senate’s proposed two-month extension was creating headaches because it contained a two-tiered system geared to ensuring that higher-income earners paid a higher rate on some of their wages, according to a trade group.

    The government creating confusion for businesses already struggling to comply with labyrinthian regulation? Well, maybe businesses should have thought about that before becoming the 1%.

    1. I know you were being sarcastic, but the large majority of business owners are clearly in the 99%.

    2. The whole thing is just silly anyway. If they want to cut taxes, cut taxes. Just doing these short term extensions does more harm than good. It keeps businesses from being able to plan and have a reliable projection of their tax burden. It would be better to leave the taxes where they are than do this.

    3. Again: get rid of the tax code and replace it with a national sales tax. Heck, tie it to a balanced budget amendment and repeal of the 16A and it sails through the states.

      By the way, this is what Romney is proposing behind the scenes. And it is getting pretty good bipartisan support with people who aren’t too closed-minded to listen.

      1. get rid of the tax code and replace it with a national sales tax single land tax. Heck, tie it to a balanced budget amendment and repeal of the 16A and it sails through the states.

        FTFY

        1. Can I get any help with this?

        2. Single land tax? So you then get to pay taxes year after year after year even though the use of your land changes? This sounds like a terrible idea.

          Nope, a national sales tax with a balanced budget ties the government’s ability to spend with the health of the overall economy. A land tax just continues to unequally tax the producers.

            1. Fine.
              Oh Slapdick McGee, will you ever learn?
              See the beauty part is the finger play associated, appropriately enough, in typing the words “Slapdick McGee”.
              Left ring, right ring; left pinky, right pinky, left middle, right middle twice.
              Then, with “McGee,” the right index comes into play, followed by a little left hand pas de deux between the index and pointer.
              A thing of beauty, really, at least if you’re a touch typist.
              Slapdick McGee. Wheeee!

          1. And the chances of Romney backing any part of that are… zero. So why are you a fan?

            1. Romney has supported a National Sales Tax and ultimately will come out with that as a major plank on his platform when it comes time for the General Election.

              The fact that this is a surprise to you makes me wonder how much you know of any candidates outside of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

              1. Please. VAT + Income Tax != National Sales Tax. Pull my other one.

          2. SLT has NO tax on production at all. Producers get 100% of the fruits of their labors. Its one of the defining characteristics of it, why George originally proposed it. So what the fuck are you talking about?

            1. They get all of the fruits of their labor in a sales tax system as well. Only, they aren’t taxed year after year after year on their land purchase. They get taxed once. And they can minimize their taxes by purchasing overseas. With a land tax, you get hammered every year.

              Not to mention, the state will set the values on your land wherever they want to collect what they see fit. With a sales tax only, the free market sets the price and the tax is based off of that. What could be more fair?

              1. They get all of the fruits of their labor in a sales tax system as well.

                Bullshit. By definition a sales tax prevents 100% from going to the producer.

                1. They get 100%. Then they get to decide what to spend it on, or even if they will spend it for that matter.

                  Your crazy land tax scheme puts control of property values (and therefore the amount you get taxed) in government hands. Mine puts it in the free market’s ability to determine real worth of property, be it an iPod, a bar of soap or a new Benz.

          3. A head tax is the only way to go. But that discriminates against men.

          4. Extending federal theft to every single productive transaction in the U.S. is not a sensible solution.

            At least the income tax, for all its faults, is only a restraint on exchange of labour.

            1. Darn it, double post.

              What I meant to say was that when doing business under a 15% GST or a 25% VAT, it became apparent that a significant part of the economy was either underground, or lobbied for various exemptions from GST or VAT.

              A land value tax is a lot less unjust, as squatting on land is not productive. Engaging in trade is.

              The most just tax is a head tax, but that would make me a racist or something. Can’t we all agree that taxes are bad like cancer and should be avoided?

      2. Wow, anybody who claims that a national sales tax will work hasn’t done any research on the movement to put a national income tax into place back in the late 19th century.

        The sales tax will have the same social effects of tarrifs that were levied 100+ years ago. They’ll have the same impact on the working poor that tarrifs had 100+ years ago. They’ll be seen as tying the hands of the government as was done 100+ years ago.

        Not having solved any of the issues that caused the pressure to install an income tax, the sales-taxers will have established a situation that will inevitably lead to sales and income taxes.

        God save us from ahistorical ignoramuses like the Romney described by ol’ Slapdick.

        1. Totally different as tariffs had been the status quo for so long at that time. The income tax wil have to be stricken from the books for the national sales tax to work. A Constitutional Amendment locking the sales tax in at a certain rate, repeal of 16A and a balanced budget all rolled into one. It’s the best of both worlds. We get a balanced budget and replace the crazy and inequitable tax code. I can’t believe you Libertarians can’t see how this is infinitely better than what we have.

  22. Vivid new Battle of the Bulge photos offer never-before-seen look at the war-weary soldiers braving the frigid weather as they fight off Nazi Germany’s last major offensive of World War II
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ar-II.html

    1. Last picture is fake, chemtrails didnt exist in 1945.

      Good God, it must be hard to hold onto a crazy compiracy theory.

      1. Contrails did. German fighters would fly up behind the bombers in the contrails and surprise the tail gunners.

    2. That top picture of the tank is just amazing. It is this weird contrast. That pink late afternoon light in the snow is just gorgeous. It is a winter wonderland turned into hell on earth. The contrast between the scene and the beauty of the lighting is just amazing.

      1. Great pix. I was in Bastogne in ’84 right before the 40th anniversary events. Sat in the town square and chatted with some old 10th Armored Division guys. That was pretty special. Their great beef was that the 101st is credited with saving Bastogne when their outfit were the first ones there to hold off the German onslaught.

        1. I went there in 2004. The Ardennes are just amazing.

          1. I am thinking of going to Belgium in 2015 for the 200th anniversary of Waterloo, and seeing Bastgone while I’m there. Is public transportation possible to use, or do I need to rent a car?

            1. I still want to visit the Somme, Ypres, Verdun…

              1. The Somme is very interesting. The countryside is beautiful but the experience is, as you might imagine, somber. There are many very interesting unit memorials, cemeteries and battlefield markers. I saw a muddy arty shell in a furrow right beside the road in a freshly-plowed field. Imagine farming there!

                1. I really want to see the Somme. Sorry I didn’t get to do it when there were veterans still alive.

            2. Rent a car. The trains are good and will get you to any town. But you then want to get out in the countryside. The roads are good. I would totally rent a car if I were you. But rent a really small one. The parking garages are really small. A good small car like a focus or a MB A class is perfect.

              And Belgium is a surprisingly fun country. Great food, great beer, beautiful towns and scenery.

            3. Rent a car. The Bastogne “battlefield” is somewhat vast and you will want to drive around it. Not that there is that much to see but (when I was there) they had different key outposts marked and there were interesting photos at each. There is a good museum. Driving around Belgium is very pleasant anyway.

              The Waterloo battlefield is more compact and can be easily viewed from the observation point on the Lion Hill. Read up on the battle again before you go; as always, it will greatly enhance your visit.

              1. Totally agree with Ice Nine about reading before you go. Buy a good battlefield guide. Without a good guide any battlefield is just some nice scenery.

                1. Excellent advice, thanks. Driving in Belgium is ok?

                  Ice, I beleive the farmers in Belgium still routinley plow up artillery shells and leave them on the side of the road for disposal?

                  1. I beleive the farmers in Belgium still routinley plow up artillery shells and leave them on the side of the road for disposal?

                    This documentary talks about the artillery problem in France, among other things. I’d imagine it’s even more of a problem in Belgium.

                    1. Thanks, I’ll check it out. It’s an interesting subject.When I did volunteer medical work in Kosovo for a few months after the war one of our problems was cluster bomb units lying around. The individual CBUs were brightly-colored and little kids were attracted to them and were blowing themselves up. Mercifully this was short-lived. We had educational posters up everywhere and word got around pretty quickly. One of my roommates was with Halo Trust, a British mine clearance NGO. These guys volunteered to do this and they were, IMO, mad men. I still have on my bookshelf a (now deactivated) unexploded Serb motor shell that he dug out of some hill. Unreal.

                  2. There are of course thousands and thousands of them and they find them regularly. The wise ones probably don’t touch them, however. Driving in Belgium is fine. You’ll have to get the hang of roundabouts and driving in cities can be a bit daunting but no biggy.

                    1. There are a number of ‘battlefield archaeology’ sites that have photos of WWI shells and casings found.
                      http://www.greatwar.co.uk/arti…..-front.htm

    3. Color photos help to prove that the whole thing really happened. Some of those are just beautiful.

    4. My grandaddy was supposed to get on a ship to go to Europe, but the boat was too full to fit his entire unit. So he and 13 other guys got sent to Hawaii instead. And then the unit he was supposed to be in got annihilated in the Battle of the Bulge.

        1. Or so the story goes. I should figure out what unit that was and see what the Army records say.

      1. My grandfather was there, burning Nazis alive with a flamethrower.

        He hated FDR until the day he died.

        1. Everyone on that side of the family hated the shit out of FDR. I’m glad I get my name from them.

        2. When I was in college I had a class taught by former govenor of Oklahoma Henry Belmon. Bellmon had been severely wounded at Iwo Jima. He tells this great story about being at a meet and great while campaigning for some office back in the early 50s. He had this guy who just kept harassing him telling him that that the last time a Republican was president we had a depression. Finally they guy confronted him in the bathroom. So Bellmon, a little fed up and a bit drunk, ligts up his shirt and shows the guy this huge wound scar on his side and says “well this is what happened to me during with the current Democrat in office”. The guy was speechless.

      2. One of my grandfather was a POW guard in the Philippines. Somewhere at my parent’s house, there is a number of sketches made by a captured Japanese soldier. They were drawings – based on photos – of my mother (when she was a little girl) that the soldier made in trade for cigarettes.

  23. Which race-bating is worse, this or Ron Paul’s newsletters. Go!

    Justice Dept. blames critics for noticing Holder’s race-card play
    Under fire for leveling a racially charged attack at his critics, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has neither backed down nor revised his remarks, appearing instead to restate them.

    In a front page New York Times story on Sunday, Holder alleged that some of his critics ? a group he referred to as the “more extreme segment” ? are motivated by racism. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” Holder said of criticism he has received for the Fast and Furious scandal, among other things. “Both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”…

    1. race-bating

      I believe you meant “race-‘bating”.

      And, of course, Holder is much worse.

      1. Maybe I just want to club some white people w/ baseball bats.

        1. Or assault rifles.

    2. No Eric, it’s because you’re a traitor.

    3. The odd thing is, until he accused his critics of racism, I had no clue Holder was black.

      1. You mean he’s not Mexican?

  24. The 5 worst economic ideas of 2011 (and 12 great ones for 2012)
    http://blog.american.com/2011/…..-for-2012/

    The longer the Great Stagnation/Long Recession/New Normal continues, the greater the risk that some profoundly terrible ideas ? spawned by economic desperation and political opportunism ? will pop up, gain a foothold and start to spread. Indeed, the past twelve months evidence the risk of a devastating policy error by Washington is escalating.

    Here are the worst economic ideas of 2011, in reverse order:

    5. The “People’s Budget” from House Democrats.
    4. The Brandeis inequality tax.
    3. Doubling U.S. income tax rates
    2. The Osawatomie Speech
    1. The Occupy movement.

    more details in the link

  25. Are you high risk for HIV? Want to volunteer for a vaccine trial?

    “A clinical trial on 40 HIV-positive volunteers will begin next month.

    Those trials will be followed by tests on 6,600 HIV-negative but high-risk-category volunteers, testing immune responses and effectiveness of the vaccine in two more phases.”

    Remember kids, these will be double blind, so don’t go rawdoggin’ your way through every junkie whore in your town until the trial period ends and you find out which group you’re in.

  26. Want Growth? Try Stable Tax Policy
    The payroll tax cut is one of 84 tax provisions expiring this year, 10 times as many as expired in 1999.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..on_LEADTop

    Like the one-time rebate of 2001, the temporary tax cut of 2008, the cash-for-clunkers and stimulus payments of 2009, or similar policies tried back in the 1970s, these temporary policies consistently fail to stimulate sustainable recoveries. And as this history shows, extending the temporary reduction from two months to six months or even to 12 months would be at best a marginal improvement.

    1. Both sides are craven and stupid. Unpredictable taxes are worse than high taxes. And unpredictable and high taxes is a recipe for disaster. Pass a permanent cut out of the House and let the Democrats kill it and then campaign on it in the fall. But for sake’s stop introducing needless uncertainty in the economy for cheap political talking points.

    2. Regulatory uncertainty causes investment to freeze. How hard is this to understand. Also, no one I know is talking about the resonance time of legislation. If it takes 18 months for new legislation’s effects to come through, and we’re regulating every 8, we have no idea what will and won’t work because we’re just changing shit without being able to know its effects.

  27. ‘Lost’ republicans
    The perils of Ron Paul’s rise
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/o…..QZGwZcSFXK

    If Gingrich fades away and Paul sticks around, the GOP will come to the convention with a flake as the No. 2 vote-getter. And don’t think the Obama-friendly media, which has treated Paul with kid gloves until now, won’t leap on his extremism when it suits them, and turn him into a poster child for the caricature of the GOP they’ve been drawing for years.

    1. A non-interventionist, freedom loving drug war ending charactiture they’ve been cultivating over all these years? I don’t think the author knows who Paul is.

  28. A Slashdot article is spam? Really, squirrels?

    1. The squirrels are whimsical in their hate.

  29. The end of the world is one year from today.

    Thank the fuck christ, because I’m friggin tired.

    1. Me, too. Let’s just get it over with.

  30. Most opinion polls for South Carolina, the third state to hold a 2012 Republican nominating contest, give a resounding “no” to Paul. The Texan has been polling in single digits in the state, home to many active and retired military personal who may not take kindly to Paul’s non-interventionist military doctrine.

    Working for Reuters means never having to challenge your assumptions.

    1. If you’re not a libertarian when you’re active duty then you have no brain, and if you’re not an interventionist when you’re separated from service then you have no heart.

  31. If the world is going to end on Dec 21st 2012 I hope the world is destroyed by a giant asteroid hitting the Yellowstone caldera, simultaneously the Large Hadron Collider creates an uncontrollable black hole and some distant star that went super-nova has its gamma rays hit the earth. All of it has to happen at the same time.
    I think it will be on a Friday so I am hoping for some really good happy hour specials.

    1. You’ll only survive if you eat Warty’s heart.

    2. I’m thinking a small moon crashes into the east coast, wiping it out, and destabilizing the caldera, setting off an eruption. Then angry lizardpeople invade to seal the deal.

  32. Somehow Wired was more disappointed by DNF than DAII.

    I don’t know why anyone would have expecations for a game that has been owned by 3 companies and in development for 12 years. It was bound to be a kludgy piece of shit. Now Dragon’s Age had potential.

    1. I rather liked DA II. That is, I very much liked the characters, and of course the rags-to-riches storyline is a classic. I even liked the ideas behind a number of the side quests (e.g. a city that has been horribly and irredeemably tainted by the atrocities that have taken place in the past). But the railroading, and lack of agency (even such as it is in a computer game), and worst of all the realization that most choices didn’t matter one iota– not so much. By the end of the game, my Hawke wanted to take her Elf and her Dwarf and leave the city to rot in its own toxic wastes, rather than engage in the final “epic” battles. I am really hoping any xpacs are an improvement in the meaningful choice area. The two DLCs are fribbles, but fun.

      Can’t comment on DNF as it isn’t my cuppa, but I do know it was delayed and crapped up even back when I was posting on USENET, so people should have known it wasn’t going to be all that.

  33. Secret document reveals why BMW drivers are asshats
    http://jalopnik.com/5869734/se…..re-asshats

    obviously humor – but I always thought it was Pontiac owners who got the special rewards for being asshats.

    1. The seven series drivers I have seen have been universally asshats.

    2. BMW drivers are the worst. Really in that class of cars BMW only offers speed and high reving engines. They don’t ride as well and are not as nice as a Benz. They are not as reliable or as boring as an Acura or a Lexus. And they are not as technically advanced as an Audi. But what they are is really fast for their class. So they attract a lot of asshats.

      1. I was driving home the other day and saw a really nice M3 driven by a younger guy. I said, watch out, here comes trouble. But to my surprise, he actually drove really mellow and was letting people pass him.

        A friend of mine has a newer 545 and doesn’t drive like an idiot, but he’s used to fast cars – his dad has a Nissan GT-R.

      2. I test drove a 5 series years ago, and the salesman yelled at me because I slowed down on a cloverleaf.

        “This isn’t a Honda!” he shouted. “You keep this car on the curve by PUNCHING IT!”

        I figured if that was true I would end up killing someone as soon as I got used to the handling, so I went with the 3 series instead.

        1. They can absolutely fly. But their ride and handling are for sport not comfort.

        2. This. You just keep on the throttle and the BMW suspension sets just right to whip you around the corner. It sticks like glue.

          1. Like most modern cars, the computer keeps you on the road. Do something like that in an old lotus and you’ll be spinning.

            Old porsches are an exception. They’ve killed more drivers from lift throttle oversteer than regular oversteer.

            1. No, turn off the dynamic stability control and it still sticks, it just takes more skill.

              1. Haha, you think DSC is the only nanny on board. Cute.

                I’m not saying the car isn’t very well balanced and handles well, but ham fisted drivers powering through turns are saved by the fact that modern cars are electronic whizzes at managing driver incompetence.

                The most well balanced car pre-computers would be all over the place the way people talk about driving nowadays

      3. Bullshit. I have owned Acuras and BMWs and the BMWs handle like a dream. Nothing sticks to the road the same way. The bimmers are way more than straight line speed.

        1. I didn’t say the didn’t handle. I said just the opposite. I said they ride like a sports car not a luxury car. Their main advantage is they are the best car to buy if you want to drive like an assclown.

          1. OK, i just cant figure out why someone would *want* a car that rides like a luxury car. To each his own I guess.

            1. Michigan roads are one need for a luxury car… my old air-shock Roadmaster could take bumps better than any other car I’ve owned.

              hell, everytime I see a reviewer complain about ‘sloppy steering/suspension’ in an American car, I think to myself – so you’ve never driven in Detroit,eh?

              1. I suppose all the test tracks should be maintained by surly union laborers who enjoy watching cars get destroyed by potholes then. That’s the worst excuse for crappy American car handling I’ve heard yet.

                1. if you enjoy suffering when you drive, that’s your right.

                2. and derp, we all drive on perfectly graded tracks all day long. Jeesus, that’s a load of stupid right there.

            2. Because I drive the car long distances and I like getting out of the car without my back hurting.

              1. John,

                Mercedes will be the first to introduced the completely self driving car. Mercedes enthusiasts will love it.

    3. ACURA

      A
      Car
      Undoubtedly
      Relocating
      Assholes.

  34. Notice that last part. INCLUDING. All of this is consistent with the following:

    The ATF is aware of people buying guns in the US for gangs in Mexico. This would cause them to initiate a program to target these people and gather intelligence on them, and yes, it would cause them to use the sales (INCLUDING the ones they allowed [allowed is what they seem to have done, they didn’t call up the Mexicans and ask them to come buy the guns]) to approve other methods.

    So MNG’s defense of Lord Obama’s administration hangs on a single word in the latest smoking gun: the weasel word “including”. Way to suck cock for the team, MNG.

    1. I think it is a result of things going so badly for Obama and liberalism in general. MNG has gotten so insecure that he feels he can never admit any fault whatsoever by liberals. And that leaves him denying the obvious.

      1. “MNG has gotten so insecure that he feels he can never admit any fault whatsoever by liberals”

        This is part of what I’m tired of. I constantly call out liberals for things they did wrong. Constantly. That’s why back when this site was not so chock full of Obama hate people used to say “MNG is one of those good liberals.”

        Liberals are wrong, and have caused actual harm, on gun control, affirmative action, immigration, living wage…I’ve said over and over again that the Obama administration has reneged on its pledge to reign in the DEA over medical marijuana, passed an immoral and stupid health care bill, pushed an immoral and stupid cap and trade bill, violated the War Powers Act in Libya and engaged in crony capitalism.

        But of course, yeah, I never, NEVER criticize liberals over anything.

        Jesus Christ.

        1. It is called lip service. You are still denying the obvious on fast and furious. And you only admit fault on things where you can say “The Republicans are just as bad”.

          If you want people to believe you about these things, stop denying the obvious on fast and furious. It would go a long ways to restoring your credibility.

          1. “And you only admit fault on things where you can say “The Republicans are just as bad”.”

            Absolutely wrong. On immigration, gun control and affirmative action the GOP is immeasurably better. And I’ve said that numerous times here. I’ve also criticized Obama without referencing the GOP at all many times. This, like much of what you say, is DEMONSTRABLY incorrect.

            This is, of course, what you do. The fact that people here don’t call you out on it says a lot about the current composition of this board. When Donderdo used to come on here with the same schtick it was different, but of course the composition of the board was different.

            1. Let’s remember, while I have a long, demonstrable record of criticizing the Dems, Obama and liberals and acknowledging where the GOP and conservatives are better, when pressed John said the GOP is “better on every issue” than the Dems.

              And then he calls ME partisan. And noone here calls him on that? WTF? And you wonder why your board has become LGF lite…

              1. They are not better on every issue. But since Obama took office I can’t think of one they are worse on. Obama has managed to combine the worst parts of both parties.

                They used to at least be better on civil rights and such. But this is no longer your fathers DNC.

              2. I don’t know about anybody else, but I’ve called him on it before. But I’m too stupid to know anything about anything.

            2. And again. Admit the obvious on fast and furious and the other things you say might be believable.

  35. Paul’s Waterloo will come in SC and FL.

  36. There are not many actual libertarians left, but to those I would note that it seems Gary Johnson has accepted that the GOP is just not that into him and his libertarian ideas and is going to run for Prez.

    That’s good news. I plan to vote for him, if he’s with the LP he’ll be on the ballot here.

    Surely all of these professed libertarians who are not really GOPers will join me in rejecting Romney or Gingrich and voting for Johnson.

    Surely.

    1. I would imagine most will. But you won’t believe them. And you are only voting for Johnson because you live in Maryland and you know your vote doesn’t count. If you lived in Virginia or a swing state I might believe you.

      1. Don’t you live in Maryland? You come on here and pander to the libertarians here. Are you going to support Johnson? Will I see you at his rallies here in the Land of Mary?

        Or are you full of shit with all of your libertarian talk?

        1. I don’t like Johnson. And the Libertarian party is full of crackpots. At this point I will probably not vote.

            1. slightly fewer and less entertaining crackpots than the GOP. Unless and until the Libertarians throw out the Rothbardites, I will pass.

              1. What makes you hate Rothbardites?

              2. Ah, you’d rather belong to a party that includes David Frum. Well, that’s your prerogative.

            2. slightly fewer and less entertaining crackpots than the GOP. Unless and until the Libertarians throw out the Rothbardites, I will pass.

              1. This is rich. A non-libertarian trying to tell purity-obsessed libertarians how to purify their own party.

                1. No. I am saying I don’t like Rothbard. And I won’t be associated with a Party that seems to worship him. It is no different than you saying you won’t join the GOP until they throw the SOCONs over the side.

          1. John, vote and write in ‘None of the Above’

            It drives down the eventual winner’s vote totals.

    2. You would hope so, yes.

    3. Since Paul will not be the GOP nominee, I will vote for Johnson.

      I hope Romney picks Santorum as a running mate. That way I’ll have yet another election to root against Santorum in.

      1. I read that Santorum may make a comeback. People are getting desperate for a not Romney candidate and it might be his turn.

        1. Santorum is, technically, a comeback.

          1. The fact that anyone would even write such a thing with a straight face is a testament to how bad things are. They need a brokered convention and a compromise candidate.

            1. Nothing would do my heart better than to watch a brokered convention overtaken by Ronulans.

      2. Since Paul will not be the GOP nominee

        [citation needed]

        1. (Fluffy points to reality extending into apparent infinity in all directions around him.)

    4. If Paul is not the nominee you can take it to the bank that I will vote for the Libertarian candidate. And I live in PA which is going to be a very important state for the GOP this time.

    5. Of course. I’m voting LP unless Paul gets the GOP nomination.

  37. The ATF is aware of people buying guns in the US for gangs in Mexico.

    This doesn’t even make sense.

    We’re talking about people with the wherewithal to tunnel under an international border and move TONS of highly profitable contraband into this country. They have submarines and an air freight fleet.

    There is no reason to believe they cannot go anywhere in the world and buy full-auto arms in shipping container -sized lots. Why would they send some jumpy, sniffling yahoo to Tucson to buy a couple of half-assed AK knockoffs which don’t even fire in full auto mode?

    Of course, the most likely source of weapons to the cartel is our very own government, via the Mexican Army and various LEO recipients of drug war aid.

    1. Exactly. It is not like the Iranians, Russians, Chinese, Norks, Venezuelans or any of about twenty different rogue countries wouldn’t and don’t gladly sell them whatever arms they want. And yes, the own the fucking police department in many places. The idea that they would go to the US to buy guns is absurd.

  38. Hybrid bus “a marvel of British engineering”. Breaks down immediately. Definitely Britgineered.

    “According to the Evening Standard, the bus ran out of juice on the M1 motorway. A spokesman for the transit agency said a battery warning light prompted the driver to pull to the shoulder and recharge. At that point, another warning light came on, so TfL decided to investigate further. Authorities summoned a tow truck, but it ultimately was not needed.”

    1. British communists do not have a good track record of building reliable vehicles. See. e.g. British Leyland.

    2. “the latest, greatest masterpiece of British engineering.”

      They really said that? Really, really?

      1. Mama Mia!

      2. It is calling down the Universe’s sense of irony to say that about a motor vehicle designed and manufactured in England.

    3. C’mon, it’s not a British car if the battery isn’t somehow directly shorted.

  39. “Most opinion polls for South Carolina, the third state to hold a 2012 Republican nominating contest, give a resounding “no” to Paul. The Texan has been polling in single digits in the state, home to many active and retired military personal who may not take kindly to Paul’s non-interventionist military doctrine.”

    WHAT? WHAT? Are these idiots for real? Some of Paul’s most ardent supporters are military. NOBODY hates war more than a soldier!

    They are grasping at straws, looking for ANY excuse to undermine his chances.

    “…but his libertarian and isolationist message may to be too much for Republican voters”

    GOD I’m sick of this! This is the biggest obstacle to the nomination. I can’t even guess how many times I’ve needed to explain the difference between a non-interventionist and an isolationist in the past month.

  40. MNGGGGGGGG….. Come out and plaaaaaaaayyyyy…. *clink*clink*clink*

    Climategate Bombshell: Did U.S. Gov’t Help Hide Climate Data?
    …Making that case in 2009, the then-head of the Research Unit, Dr. Phil Jones, told colleagues repeatedly that the U.S. Department of Energy was funding his data collection — and that officials there agreed that he should not have to release the data.

    “Work on the land station data has been funded by the U.S. Dept of Energy, and I have their agreement that the data needn’t be passed on. I got this [agreement] in 2007,” Jones wrote in a May 13, 2009, email to British officials, before listing reasons he did not want them to release data.

    Two months later, Jones reiterated that sentiment to colleagues, saying that the data “has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

    A third email from Jones written in 2007 echoes the idea: “They are happy with me not passing on the station data,” he wrote….

    1. Just trust them.

    2. More and more, it looks like to me like NASA GISS, NOAA, and the Department of Energy may well be a part of this criminal conspiracy to falsify and manipulate data for political purposes and monetary gain.

      I believe that whoever ends up succeeding Obama should consider a full Justice Department investigation of these agencies.

      1. Unless it’s Ron Paul or a theocrat, I would plan to expect precisely jack and shit. The entire technocracy wants this to continue, Republican or Democrat.

  41. Breaks down immediately.

    Lucas; Prince of Darkness.

  42. DOJ indicts gundealer for Fast&Furious;-like sales
    The Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a complaint requesting “forfeiture of property” belonging to a New Mexico gun dealer charged with knowingly selling weapons to straw purchasers operating on behalf of Mexican drug cartels. This crime occurred during the same time frame in which DOJ conducted its own gunwalking scheme, Operation Fast and Furious, encouraging other gun dealers to do exactly the same thing….

    1. But he wasn’t on their payroll.

    2. “So, wait, if we do his jobe we’re the bad guys, and if we do our job, we’re the good guys?”

  43. MythBuster Adam Savage: SOPA Could Destroy the Internet as We Know It
    …Make no mistake: These bills aren’t simply unconstitutional, they are anticonstitutional. They would allow for the wholesale elimination of entire websites, domain names, and chunks of the DNS (the underlying structure of the whole Internet), based on nothing more than the “good faith” assertion by a single party that the website is infringing on a copyright of the complainant. The accused doesn’t even have to be aware that the complaint has been made. …

    DeMaura and Segal: All Candidates Should Be Concerned About SOPA
    During the waning days of the 2008 presidential race, there was an important but overlooked occurrence on the John McCain campaign. In mid-October, the McCain campaign awoke to find that its Web videos and online advertisements were disappearing from its YouTube page.

    The culprit turned out to be a major television network claiming they owned portions of the videos and that posting the clips was a violation of copyright law. Even though the campaign, and many others in the online community, believed the content to be privileged under the “Fair Use Doctrine,” the videos were pulled down.
    Fast-forward more than three years, and a new piece of legislation is making its way through Congress that would make it easier for online campaign content and websites to be taken down. Even more concerning, if passed, this bill would allow opposing campaigns or campaign committees ? not just the original content provider ? to pull down websites harboring “infringing content.”…

  44. Yesterday, Bloomberg’s resident geniuses were busily gloating about how wrong Meredith Whitney’s warning about muni bonds has proved to be.

    I kept waiting for somebody to at least *mention* the Stimulus, and how it was used to plaster up the cracks in state and local budgets. Oddly enough, nobody did.

    1. Whitney simply made the classic mistake of underestimating how long the markets can stay irrational.

      Harrisburg, PA went broke, and other major cities like Providence, RI and Detroit are in such dire shape, they are right on the verge of being taken over by their respective states. The idea that the municipalities are in good shape is laughable.

  45. Election over! Why even have the primaries? Berkovitz has 0 bias in his assessment.

    “Berkovitz has consulted on campaigns in over 25 states. His clients have included Senators John Glenn, Carl Levin, Patrick Leahy and Tom Harkin.”

    Sure Romney looks like a lock, but you never know.

  46. In mid-October, the McCain campaign awoke to find that its Web videos and online advertisements were disappearing from its YouTube page.

    It’s tempting to think of this as justice; poetic, or otherwise.

    1. On a personal level it is. On a larger level it is pretty fucking scary. If they can fuck with a senior Senator and Presidential nominee like that, who can’t they fuck with?

      1. There ought to be a law.

        1. What does that even mean?

    1. Yay!

  47. John|12.21.11 @ 10:12AM|#

    It is called lip service…you only admit fault on things where you can say “The Republicans are just as bad”.

    Oh irony.

    1. Seriously, other than gay rights what are the Dems not just as bad about? I can’t see how anything changed for the better under Obama. But I am open for suggestions if you have them. And I won’t play MNG and deny the obvious.

      1. I doubt you consider this a pro, but Democrats support abortion rights. Where I part ways with them, of course, is in their desire to have government funding and providing said abortions.

        Also, in theory, there is a larger percentage of Dems who oppose drug laws, although they are pretty scared of making much noise about it.

      2. Irony, how does it work?

        I am guessing you don’t even see how your response increases the irony.

        1. That was for John, not Joe M.

        2. No. I am asking a simple question. If the Dems are better than Republicans in some ways, tell me what they are. I am not saying such things don’t exist. I am saying I don’t know of any but am open for suggestions.

          You just don’t have any because Obama really has been that bad. So rather than admit that, you just write some douchy comment. Either name the ways Democrats are better and I will admit I am mistake or shut the fuck up.

          1. Re: John,

            the Dems are better than Republicans in some ways, tell me what they are.

            They are equally good at thieving. My guess is that Neu prefers that the loot be allocated as graft among the politically useful instead of being used to break things overseas, but I don’t see the difference: Thieving is still thieving.

            1. They are certainly equally good at that. But Obama has pretty much put lie to the idea that Democrats will improve anything.

            2. They are equally good at thieving. My guess is that Neu prefers that the loot be allocated as graft among the politically useful to progams that help US citizens instead of being used to break things overseas,

              Yeah, I do prefer that.

              but I don’t see the difference: Thieving is still thieving.

              We knew you couldn’t.

          2. Me, earlier: I am guessing you don’t even see how your response increases the irony.

            John|12.21.11 @ 12:01PM|#

            No. Clearly, as I just said.

            I am asking a simple question. If the Dems are better than Republicans in some ways, tell me what they are.

            That is off topic from my comment. The comment was not about the relative merits of Dems versus the GOP. It was about you.

            I am not saying such things don’t exist. I am saying I don’t know of any but am open for suggestions.

            Hence my comment about the irony…

            You just don’t have any because Obama really has been that bad. So rather than admit that, you just write some douchy comment. Either name the ways Democrats are better and I will admit I am mistake or shut the fuck up.

            And John doubles down on this position. He pretends that his inability to think of ways the Dems are better than the GOP has something to do with objective reality, rather than his subjective impression of the two parties.

        3. I see you have no answer NM. Can’t say I am surprised.

          1. Yeah, I was actually getting some work done. It shouldn’t be surprising.

  48. Holy shit

    The prosecutors who charged Mr. Heicklen said that “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.” The prosecutors in this case are wrong. The First Amendment exists to protect speech like this ? honest information that the government prefers citizens not know.

    Laws against jury tampering are intended to deter people from threatening or intimidating jurors. To contort these laws to justify punishing Mr. Heicklen, whose court-appointed counsel describe him as “a shabby old man distributing his silly leaflets from the sidewalk outside a courthouse,” is not only unconstitutional but unpatriotic. Jury nullification is not new; its proponents have included John Hancock and John Adams.

    The doctrine is premised on the idea that ordinary citizens, not government officials, should have the final say as to whether a person should be punished. As Adams put it, it is each juror’s “duty” to vote based on his or her “own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

    NYT, getting it right for a change. Or, more properly, lending their forum to somebody who gets it right.

  49. Hey guys! Newsletters!

    The real story here is that boingboing.net has a challenger for Whitest Thing on the Internet?, and you’ve shared it with us.

    YTMND

  50. http://www.examiner.com/gun-ri…..unts-on-it

    Holder still believes U.S. a ‘nation of cowards,’ counts on it

    … “[Holder’s charge of racism] was in large part a response to the heavy and increasingly intense criticism of Holder’s culpability in the ‘Project Gunwalker’ scandal. In other words, Holder (and evidently the New York Times, or at least Charlie Savage) would like Americans who demand accountability for the endeavor on the part of Holder’s Department of ‘Justice’ to arm brutal drug cartel gunmen, to be branded as ‘racist.’ Never mind the casual, monstrous bigotry inherent to a policy that deliberately contributed to and exploited the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens as a tool with which to advance the administration’s agenda–it’s we who excoriate those behind that policy who are to be seen as ‘racists.'” …

  51. http://abclocal.go.com/wls/sto…..id=8473268

    IL: New claims of police brutality in North Chicago (video available)

    “A videotape of an alleged incident of police brutality in North Chicago was played during a packed city council meeting in the north suburb Monday night.”

    “The video — in which an officer is seen striking a man and sending his face into a wall — was shown to aldermen by Ralph Peterson, a cousin of Darrin Hanna, who died last month after being arrested by North Chicago police. State police are investigating his death.”

    “Aldermen confirm that the place where the officer was caught on camera hitting a man in custody is in fact the North Chicago Police Department’s booking room. …” …

  52. I agree with the Democrats on the payroll tax cut. I’d eliminate the payroll tax altogether, as it’s amongst the most regressive taxes around and trickle-down economics is idiotic. I’d rather increase income tax rates to pay for Social Security and Medicare, assuming a tax code overhaul (replace with FairTax, land value tax, etc) is not possible. If that means the poorest quintile pays a 2% income tax rate instead of a 0% rate, they’re still keeping far more money than they do today.

  53. http://www.itemlive.com/articl…..news04.txt

    Massachusetts: Anthony McKay, 29, pleaded not guilty to a charge of aggravated assault and battery on Nov. 17 in Lynn District Court, after he broke the jaw of a man who was allegedly trying to break into his truck. The truck was parked outside of Anthony McKay’s home in Swampscott.

    Swampscott police also arrested and charged the alleged thief, Christian Johnson, 30, with carrying a dangerous weapon, disorderly conduct, attempt to commit a crime, possession of a knife over 2? inches and a subsequent offense of possession of a Class A substance.

    ———–

    What a fucking shithole.

    1. “I know this individual probably feels that the freedom of speech is being trampled on,” Kelly acknowledged. “But there are limits to freedom of speech ? you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater ? and the Mass. Legislature decided that Massachusetts courthouses should be above the fray of people trying to picket.”

      Yeah, protesting an injustice is the same as yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Who the **** is this moron?!

  54. http://www.canadafreepress.com…..icle/43352

    No Newt, Now or Ever

    Obamacare is an example of social engineering and all the wasted billions on Green or renewable energy is another. The pathetic efforts to stamp out the use of the word “terrorism” from government pronouncements as well as the idiotic “Fast and Furious” gun-running program to undermine the Second Amendment are two more. So far as the federal government is concerned, there is no aspect of our lives in which it does not want to interfere or require obedience. Incandescent light bulbs anyone? The volume of water in a toilet? Nutritional standards? It is endless!

  55. Mother Teresa is still hot.

  56. Libertarians have always leaned right more than left, but most of the principled libertarians like J Sub, Thoreau, Ceasar, etc., who populated this board are now dwarfed by an army of thinly (and not so thinly) veiled GOPers, and of course other people who treat this board as the equivalent of a high school locker room.

    I know, MNG, wasn’t it great when we could all get our collective hate-on over the Bush Administration?

    But then you had to go and stick with TEAM BLUE and be an Obama apologist…

    1. All the serious commentators bailed years ago. All that’s left are lifers, lonely anarchists, trolls and narcissists.

    2. Tell me, how thin is my veil. I don’t want to violate sharia law or anything…

  57. Can Ron Paul do as well outside Iowa as inside it? A communications professor interviewed by Reuters says NO.

    That’s what they said about a little-known senator from Illinois…

    1. This communications professor seems legit. We should trust his opinion.

      1. Everyone knows New England communications-studies professors are The Last Word on everything!

      2. Re: Joe M,

        This communications professor seems legit. We should trust his opinion.

        Considering what a game changer is communications (especially the college version) for the whole of civilization… Yeah, he’s to be trusted with something.

  58. It’s morons all the way down.

    The T.S.A. took another small step toward speeding up the security process in September when it stopped requiring most children under 12 to take off their shoes while going through the checkpoints. It also said it had modified its procedures to reduce the likelihood that children would be subjected to a pat-down if they set off the metal detector.

    The agency has also begun a test at some airports of exempting airline pilots, a low-risk group by definition, from going through security. (Flight attendants, though, must still follow the same drill as regular passengers.) Uniformed members of the military can keep their boots on, though they, too, still must go through security.

    Critics argue that while such programs help ease the pain for millions of air passengers, they are not foolproof.

    “I don’t believe that we can rely on people who have a clean history, because that can be abused,” said Mr. Shanks, the consultant in London. “Either by a terrorist sleeper who builds up a long travel record to escape suspicion, or by some innocent person who is forced to carry something through because their family is being held hostage by terrorists.”

    1. “I don’t believe that we can rely on people who have a clean history, because that can be abused,” said Mr. Shanks, the consultant in London. “Either by a terrorist sleeper who builds up a long travel record to escape suspicion, or by some innocent person who is forced to carry something through because their family is being held hostage by terrorists.”

      Why don’t we just make airline travel illegal already and solve this problem?

      1. if airline travel is illegal, then only illegals will use airline travel…or something like that.

    2. “I don’t believe that we can rely on people who have a clean history, because that can be abused,” said Mr. Shanks, the consultant in London. “Either by a terrorist sleeper who builds up a long travel record to escape suspicion, or by some innocent person who is forced to carry something through because their family is being held hostage by terrorists.”

      Damn those frequent flier terrorists and people that have been terrorized by terrorists.

      1. Also, as if “some innocent person who is forced to carry something through because their family is being held hostage by terrorists” would have a chance in hell of keeping their shit together carrying a bomb or whatever. It’s beyond ridiculous.

  59. Lucas; Prince of Darkness.

    That’s why the British make their motorcycles so fast. So you can get home before sunset.

  60. you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater

    You can if there’s a fire.

    1. And it doesn’t even have to be crowded.

  61. On immigration, gun control and affirmative action the GOP is immeasurably better.

    Immigration?
    Really?

    http://www.p2012.org/issues/platformimmig.html

    Both do a lot of pandering and have positions that are pretty similar and pretty useless…on the margins, the English-only thing is a crock and the xenophobia seems a bit more palpable from the GOP.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.