A.M. Links: Ron Paul vs. Obama, D.C. Must Pay for Violating Second Amendment, Michele Bachman Continues to Fall

• Ron Paul says Obama's drone attacks provide less due process for terrorism suspects than Nazi war criminals received after World War II.

• Federal judge orders Washington, D.C. to pay $1.1 million in legal fees to Second Amendment hero Dick Heller.

• Pennsylvania town officials require children to wear helmets while sledding.

• Michele Bachmann compares herself to Margaret Thatcher, Iowa voters remain unpersuaded.

• Newt Gingrich supporter files lawsuit to get his man on the ballot in Gingrich's home state of Virginia.

• The Nation: "Is the World Really Safer Without the Soviet Union?"

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: "Nick Gillespie Discusses Ron Paul, Libertarianism, and Iowa on C-SPAN"

Comments

[sloopyinca]

Pre-first!

Suck it, Morning Links!

[oBomber and Newt Paul]

Candidates always promises peace.

Elected officials of the agricultural city-Statist empire always delivers war.

Newt Paul will too.

Why?

War is a staple of civilization. Its mass, rationalized, chronic presence has increased as civilization has spread and deepened.

The Origins of War
by John Zerzan
http://www.scribd.com/doc/62268835/Th…..ohn-Zerzan

Civilization originates in aggression abroad and repression at home.

In Search of the Primitive: A Critique of Civilization
Stanley Diamond
page 1, first sentence

[Newt Paultard]

This time will be different!

[Hopey Changey Stuff]

That’s what we thought voting for O=W.

[Citizen Iroquois]

That’s what I told the Erie tribe. Heh, heh, heh.

[Fletch]

Zerzan received his bachelor’s degree from Stanford University and later received a master’s degree in History from San Francisco State University. He completed his coursework towards a PhD at the University of Southern California but dropped out before completing his dissertation.

Another Gamboler who spent twenty+ years bowing and scraping his way thru the Academy!

He’s better now.

[SIV]

Whatever slapdickinca

[sloopyinca]

It’s a fair cop.

[Bok Sux]

Alert the media, Arduin Grimoire from now on will be known as Bok Sux.

Volokh: Former Confidant Eric Donderoooooooooo on Ron Paul

[John]

If you read the Dondero post, it is pretty interesting and fair. He dismisses the newsletters. And gives this little bit

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.

He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

[Citizen Nothing]

it is pretty interesting and fair

Remember what I said about being a goof, John? Apparently you didn’t listen.

[John]

You don’t agree with it. But Dondero says upfront, Paul is not a racist an the newsletters are a tempest in Tea Pot. He just doesn’t agree with Paul’s foreign policy. Read the post, it doesn’t seem like a hatchet job to me. The only thing in it that is not fair is the whole story about the woman who embezzled all of the money. I can’t see why anyone should care about that but Donderoo is convinced it is a big deal. Other than that, it is pretty informative.

[Citizen Nothing]

But you’re granting that Donderoooooooo is a reliable source. I think the folks who hang here should know better by now.

[John]

They guy worked for Paul. He knows something. Maybe he is lying about everything. But if he is, I would like to hear how and why. And nothing he says in the post is unfair to Paul. You guys just agree with Paul and not Dondero.

[Citizen Nothing]

He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11

You believe that, John? Really? And doesn’t that throw doubt on the rest of the piece?

[John]

CN,

I don’t know it is not true. I have never met Paul. And I don’t know Paul’s demeanor. I am not that expressive myself. So maybe people thought the same of me. Maybe Paul did feel a lot of sympathy and just didn’t show it and Dondero took it wrong. Or maybe Paul is really kind of a nut and didn’t car or felt the whole thing vindicated his blowback theory. I don’t know. But I wouldn’t totally dismiss it.

It is interesting. All of you guys are so quick to believe that people in the Bush administration were happy over 9-11. Yet, you take the idea that Paul was at least not sympathetic to be completely unbelievable. If you believe one, why not that other?

[Joe M]

Stop generalizing and focus on the discussion at hand. Care to name anyone here that stated they thought the Bush administration was “happy” about 9/11? I know Paul said “glee” and I think he overstated it. I don’t disagree that Bush used the post-9/11 sentiments of the nation to forward a pet policy, namely war on Iraq.

[John]

Joe,

We had long threads over the “glee” statement. And fluffy believes it and doesn’t think Paul overstated it at all. I would submit most of the Paul supporters on here feel the same way.

If Bush reacted with “glee” why is it so facially false that Paul reacted with indifference?

And again, maybe overt expressions of sympathy is not how Paul is. I am not saying that Dondero is right, just not obviously lying.

[AlmightyJB]

I actually think that is Pauls number one problem. Even more than the newsletters. When he talks about 9/11 he does not display any sympathy for the victims or outrage at the heinous acts. I’m quite certain Paul does have sympathy for those victims but that is not how he comes off. In fact, he usually comes off sounding more like he’s defending the a**holes who did it. We all know that’s not the case. But that is how it appears to a lot of people. That’s why he gets those looks of disbelief when he discusses it. Before he gets into attaacking our foreign policy (which he still should do) he needs to acknowledge the tradgedy and loss. Maybe he feels like that would be pandering, but not doing it hurts his image way more than those newsletters.

[Joe M]

For real. You’re just going to swallow “no sympathies whatsoever” and say Dondero is worth listening to?

[Appalachian Australian]

I haven’t seen enough sympathies expressed for the 100,000 or so who have died in the war with Iraq from any of the other candidates.

Or the Pakistani baby who had her face burned off.

Dondero is just another worthless warmonger.

[AlmightyJB]

I agree with you. I dont give a rats ass about what dondero says. Pauls problem is with the general publics perception of him. At least it’s a problem if he wants their votes.

[Fluffy]

Considering the fact that we established on these very pages that Dondero wanted the genocide of all Muslims following 9/11, I would tend to take his account of anyone else’s 9/12 demeanor with a grain of salt.

Especially when they’re phrased in such mealy-mouthed ways.

He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq

A statement that was absolutely correct.

He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time.

What exactly does “engaged” mean?

He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11

Since Dondero defined “expressing sympathy” as “demanding genocide of all Muslims everywhere”, I imagine his evaluation of the emotional reaction of others might have been a bit off. Hysterics tend to find other people to be too restrained.

pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

Since the Bush administration ended up soiling the honor of the United States in the years after 9/11, it sounds to me like Paul was prescient in this regard.

If I had driven around with a yellow ribbon on my car, or beaten my chest and wailed in support of the President, I’d have had to feel like a fucking fool later on. I feel bad enough as it is, for the limited support and limited benefit of the doubt I showed for those scumbags.

[John]

A statement that was absolutely correct.

No it wasn’t. Bush didn’t go to the UN about Iraq until nearly a year after 9-11. And when he did, the case was not made about 9-11. It was about the WMDs, Saddam’s kicking out of weapons inspectors, and his repeated violations of the 1991 ceasefire and subsequent UNSC resolutions. 9-11 never entered the conversation.

I wish you would pick of theory and stick with it. Half the time you rave about how Iraq was about WMD lies. The other half you rave that it was done because of 9-11. Which is it?

What exactly does “engaged” mean?

Just what it says. It means he expressed support or speculated that 9-11 was done by the CIA. Sorry, if Paul didn’t think 9-11 justified war on the people who did it in Afghanistan and openly and seriously speculated that it was an inside job, he has no business near any position of power.

If you think Dondero is lying or have any reason to believe this is not true other than you don’t like Dondero, tell us why. If not, just admit you are cultist douchebag who will never admit any fault whatsoever in dear leader.

This is why I increasingly don’t trust Paul. Otherwise reasonable people like you go fucking barking mad at any dissent among the ranks.

[RoboCain]

“Sorry, if Paul didn’t think 9-11 justified war on the people who did it in Afghanistan and openly and seriously speculated that it was an inside job, he has no business near any position of power.”

Except he didn’t do either of those things, and voted for the war against Afghanistan.

And yes, the Bush administration made an obvious effort to sell the idea that Iraq was linked to 9/11.

[John]

“And yes, the Bush administration made an obvious effort to sell the idea that Iraq was linked to 9/11.”

That is not how I remember it. Show me some links where they did.

And according to a guy who worked for Paul, he thought just that. Maybe Dondero is making the whole thing up. If so, explain how we know that other than “we don’t like Dondero”.

[RoboCain]

I base it on Paul’s public statements. If he “openly and seriously speculated” then there would be numerous records of it.

As far as linking Iraq to the War on Terror, “that harbored and supported terrorists” is even listed as a reason in the Iraq Resolution itself. You can go google plenty of links yourself.

[John]

Not if he just did it with his staff there wouldn’t be records. Maybe Paul is smart enough to keep a few things out of his public speeches.

[tarran]

Or maybe Dondero, who seriously thought Al Queda would be launching Scud Missiles from Mexico absent the invasion of Iraq is a bit unhinged…

[John]

Even if he is Tarran, why does that mean he is lying. Again, show me someone else who has reason to know who says Dondero is lying. Until you do that, I see no reason not to take the guy at his word, especially when you consider how he avoided taking the easy shots about race.

[tarran]

Suit yourself… Personally, I have seen Eric Dondero libel and lie so often that I give him 0 credibility. Essentially, if he says ‘A is true’, I treat it as if he said nothing at all.

If other staffers came forward and confirmed what he said, I’d believe it. In the absence of other people testifying in agreement, I see no credible evidence that Paul said those things.

[Fluffy]

John, is has been documented beyond the point of dispute that the Bush administration decided on regime change in Iraq shortly after 9/11.

Every other Iraq action after that point was simply a means to that end.

Paul’s statement is true regardless of the basis of the public case made for going into Iraq. It’s true whether Bush said that we had to go into Iraq because of 9/11, or because of WMD, or because aliens from the planet Lepto ordered him to.

If anyone was watching the events of 9/11 on TV and said, “This means that the Bush administration will end up invading Iraq” that statement would be absolutely true.

Half the time you rave about how Iraq was about WMD lies. The other half you rave that it was done because of 9-11.

That’s absurd. My position is that the Bush administration had a combination of realpolitik reasons and ideological reasons for invading Iraq, and was willing to use any justification that came to hand or that the public would accept. That means that if inflating hysteria about WMD would help, great – they’d do it. If exploiting public outrage over 9/11 would help, great – they’d do that too.

For Paul’s statement to be false, you have to think that if 9/11 never happened, we would still have invaded Iraq on the same timetable that we did. Do you seriously think that?

What exactly does “engaged” mean?

Just what it says.

No, my point is that it doesn’t have to mean that.

Strictly speaking, if I’m a truther and you sit down and talk to me about my truther notions, you’re “engaging” my conspiracy theory. By even discussing it.

Given Dondero’s character, I would absolutely be wary of the potential parsing of any statement of his. I’m pretty sure that if Dondero saw Paul talking to Alex Jones about some conspiracy theory, he’d feel justified in saying that Paul “engaged” that conspiracy theory. By even considering it in conversation with someone else.

That’s why I think it’s a mealy-mouthed accusation. If Dondero gives me a direct Paul quote and then a tape recording proving that quote, maybe I’ll listen to him.

If you think Dondero is lying or have any reason to believe this is not true other than you don’t like Dondero, tell us why.

After Dondero’s time here four years ago I think I have a pretty good bead on Dondero.

And if Dondero was testifying in a trial where I was on the jury, I’d pretty much disregard everything he said unless I could figure out his angle.

In this particular circumstance, “because I don’t like Dondero” is actually a pretty good reason. Would you uncritically accept an account from Eric Holder, or Rahm Emanuel? Or would you try to decode it based on what you know, or think you know, about those two? And we actually know a lot more about Dondero through direct contact than we’ll ever know about Eric Holder.

[John]

“John, is has been documented beyond the point of dispute that the Bush administration decided on regime change in Iraq shortly after 9/11.”

Really? Where?

And I am sorry Dondero touched you or whatever the fuck he did. I can only judge by that post. And that post is pretty balanced. It is a hell of a lot more balanced than anything you have to say about political people you don’t like. Dondero admits Paul is not a racist when he could easily take the cheap shot and claim he was. If Dondero were some lying bitter former employee, why isn’t he saying Paul used to drop the N word every day in the office or something outrageous like that?

Just because you don’t like someone, doesn’t mean they are always lying. And further, sometimes the truth isn’t what you want to hear.

[MNG]

“”John, is has been documented beyond the point of dispute that the Bush administration decided on regime change in Iraq shortly after 9/11.”

Really? Where?”

Heck, they were pushing for regime change before 9/11, 9/11 was the excuse. Richard Clarke detalied this in one of his books.

[John]

Yeah MNG, just because everyone involved called Clarke a liar and Clarke was probably one of those most responsible for the failures that lead to 9-11 is hardly any reason no to believe him.

Sorry Clark was pretty discredited and only believed because he told some people what they wanted to hear.

[Brandon]

Was that “The Greatest Lie Ever Sold?”

[Fluffy]

Dondero’s problem is that his libertarianrepublican blog for the last seven years is cached out there, so he has to tell a story that jibes with every other story he’s ever told.

His story can’t be that Paul was a crazy racist who talked about niggers all the time because such a story would damn himself too by implication. Because he hung around and worked with Paul for so long.

“Fuck Saddam, we’re taking him out.” – George Bush, March 2002

http://www.time.com/time/cover…..wroad.html

[John]

You SFed the link Fluffy. And that is from March of 2002, fully six months after 9-11. And yeah, there had been an ongoing dispute with Iraq dating back to 1991. It was in all the papers. Maybe you missed it.

And as far as Dondero, you are admitting he is telling the truth about the racism but claim he is lying about everything else. Why is that the case other than you don’t like some of what he has to say?

Seriously, the bad things you guys can come up with about the guy is that you don’t agree with his political views. That may make him stupid. But it doesn’t make him a liar.

[Fluffy]

If Bush was willing to make that statement to three Senators in March of 2002, that means he had made the actual decision at some point prior to that.

It also means that everything you have to say about the public case for the invasion of Iraq – about how it was in 2003 and therefore distant in time from 9/11, about how it was about WMD’s, about how it only occurred because Saddam expelled the inspectors, all of it – doesn’t matter.

The decision was made.

The decision was made at some point between September of 2001 and March of 2002.

It was made independent of all those other factors.

[tarran]

John, again, having had many debates with Dondero, the man has only the most tenous connections w/ reality:

1) He confuses libertarianism w/ libertinism.

2) He thought Al Queda would have had the capability to launch Scud missiles from Mexico into Texas if the U.S. hadn’t invaded Iraq/

3) He, again seriously, accused all the principled anti-war libertarians he was debating of having arrived at that position due to envy of how veterans got more women. It turned out that everyone in the debate were veterans (some of whom had taken part in the armor battles of Desert Storm against Republican Guard T-72’s) in a bit of delicious karma.

4) He claims to have personally converted Wayne Allen Root to libertarianism. When asked about it, Root (who had no incentive to lie) looked blankly at his interlocutor and said I’ve seen the guy hanging around but can’t remember talking to him about anything much.

5) He accused me of being a Neo-nazi – despite the fact that I consistently write that the Neo Nazi’s are bad morally, dumb economically, and silly culturally. His evidence was me asking why sometimes he identified himself as Eric Dondero, and other times as Eric Rittberg. Ans: his bio parent(s) were named Rittberg, his adoptive parents were named Dondero. This is a little thing, but I think it gives great insight into his personality.

Every interaction I have had with Eric Dondero has screamed a lack of
a) understanding of what people are saying
b) a penchant to exagerate or make stuff up
c) a truculent and bellicose insecurity that makes him ascribe evil intentions to anyone who isn’t sufficiently supportive of him.

In other words, he’s about as reliable a witness as Casey Anthony, especially when he has an axe to grind.

[John]

Tarran,

I have been accused of being a neo nazi and worse by most of the people on here. Nothing in that list, except for the part about Root which is verifiable and false, is anything other than typical behavior on Hit and Run.

Again, if none of this stuff is true, I would expect for some other staffer to come forward and call bullshit. And it is not like anything he says doesn’t fit with Paul’s overall views. Yeah, Paul hates Israel and wish it didn’t exist but is not an Anti-Semite personally. Is that surprising or out of character? It is not like he accused Paul of being a communist in private or something.

[tarran]

If paul hates Israel, why did he oppose the resolution that condemned it bombing the Iraqi reactor in the 1980’s?

Paul hates the U.S. govt’s interventions. I don’t think he hates the state of Israel about as much as he hates the states of South Korea, Germany, France, Liberia, Venezuela & Iran.

[tarran]

As to Dondero not saying anything that hasn’t been said to you, I argue that Dondero does it inappopriately… OK that came out wrong 😉

It’s not as if Dondero gets hot on the collar after a long argument and writes intemperate stuff.

Rather, it’s his initial position: a person says the U.S. shouldn’t give foreign aid to Israel, he screams ‘You’re a Jew Hating Nazi!’.

[Maxxx]

John, is has been documented beyond the point of dispute that the Bush administration decided on regime change in Iraq shortly after 9/11.

Fluffy, according to Paul O’Neill that was Bush’s goal before 911

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic “A” 10 days after the inauguration – eight months before Sept. 11.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

The 2000 election was held my senior year of high school. I distinctly remember that those of us who were enlisting after graduation were told that we wanted Gore to win, because Bush was going to send us to Iraq.

The invasion was a campaign issue well before 9/11.

[John]

RVB,

Al Gore was a bigger hawk than Bush on the subject of Iraq in the 1990s. Hell, Clinton bombed Iraq for weeks in 1998 over Saddam’s kicking out of weapons inspectors.

Yes, we were basically in a low intensity war with Iraq for the entire decade before 2001. But that doesn’t mean that Bush used 9-11 as an excuse. It shows just the opposite. They already had excuses well before 9-11.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Al Gore was a bigger hawk than Bush on the subject of Iraq in the 1990s.

But not during the 2000 campaign.

[KDN]

The 2000 election was held my senior year of high school. I distinctly remember that those of us who were enlisting after graduation were told that we wanted Gore to win, because Bush was going to send us to Iraq.

The invasion was a campaign issue well before 9/11.

Same boat. That was the big concern from all of my friends towards those that went into the service.

[John]

Hold it Maxx. If they wanted Saddam all along, then 9-11 wasn’t the excuse. It couldn’t be since they wanted to do it all along. And yes, there was a running dispute with Iraq that pre-dated 9-11. That is exactly why 9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq.

[Maxxx]

If they wanted Saddam all along, then 9-11 wasn’t the excuse.

That’s doesn’t follow at all.

They wanted Saddam from day one but couldn’t just run in there half cocked. O’Neill (in his book) pointed out that looking for a reason / justification for attacking Iraq took up large parts of Bush’s early cabinet and NSC meetings.

911 created the conditions where fear of Saddam giving nukes to terrorists could be created and used to justify attacking Saddam.

Anyone denying that, at this point, is either lying or delusional.

Remember the hundreds of speeches warning of a mushroom cloud over manhattan, the intelligence striptease act with the media, the fact that all of the inspectors said that there were non WoMD (who were proved right btw).

[John]

You are lying and delusional Maxx.

They wanted Saddam all along and had a ten year dispute with him over US inspectors. When Saddam finally kicked those inspectors out and gave them an excuse to go in, they did. 9-11 had nothing to do with it. They would have never invaded Iraq had Saddam not kicked the inspectors out. And they would have still invaded Iraq had 9-11 never happened and Saddam kicked the inspectors out.

Your logic doesn’t follow.

[Maxxx]

You’re lying to yourself.

Without 911 there never would have been public support to attack Saddam.

WTF do you think all of the Saddam will nuke NY & DC bullshit was all about anyway?

I love how neo-cons pretend that they never said the bullshit that they spent years arguing.

[John]

You are lying to yourself Maxx. It is funny, I know tons of people who fought the war. But none of them suffer from as much PTSD as those who stayed home and objected to it.

You guys just can’t think straight about it.

[jj]

Johnderooooooooooooooooooo!

[Citizen Nothing]

Yeah. And so it’s come to this.
Was MNG right, John? Are you gonna go all Romneyite on us when push comes to shove?

[John]

No I am not going to be a Romneyite. But I am not going to deny the obvious about Paul either. Few things are more annoying and reveal more weakness in Paul’s case than his supporters accusing anyone who has anything bad to say about him of just being a GOP shill.

Maybe just maybe it is possible that some people just don’t like Paul or agree with him and do so out of genuine disagreement rather than taking orders from the shadowy GOP conspiracy.

[Citizen Nothing]

Hey — While I support Paul, I’m the biggest Paultard basher out here.
Paul can and should be criticized for many of the things he’s said and done. But many of us believe his foreign policy is a feature, not a bug.

[John]

I look at them as a bug. But that is where I part company with many libertarians. My objection to Paul’s foreign policy views should come as no surprise.

If you think I am nuts for that, that is your prerogative. But the one thing I won’t put up with is someone accusing me of adopting a point of view for political expediency.

[Citizen Nothing]

Well — word to the wise: You’re better off not using Donderoooooo to help support your position.

[John]

I didn’t. I just read the link and said I thought it was a fair peace, which it is. I don’t know Dondero. I can only judge him by what I read. And what I read seemed pretty fair.

[MNG]

“I don’t know Dondero.”

You’re a long time poster and you “don’t know Dondero?” That’s like saying you are a long time poster and you don’t know who Lonewacko is.

[John]

Seriously, I never got into the whole Dondero thing. I remember the name. But I don’t remember a thing he posted. And moreover, I have never met the man and have no idea about his character one way or another.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

No I am not going to be a Romneyite

Ha ha ha.

I plain do not believe you, John.

I guarantee you are going to be nodding along with the influx of Team Red losers who say things like “Voting Third Party is meaningless!” and “This one time, can’t you see that THIS is the most IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER???!” and “Just stop Obama and THEN we can hash out our differences.”

I have heard this line of malarkey ever since I left the GOP from my friends and the goofballs who clog up the threads here, and I know you’re going to be in on it.

[John]

You can go fuck yourself Blue Moon. That is all I can tell you. Even if after the election I tell you I didn’t vote for Romney, you can still call me a liar. There is nothing I can do about that. I know who I support and who I don’t. And know I actually believe the things I say.

If my word is not good enough for you, I don’t know what to tell you other than go fuck yourself.

[PS]

You’re a long time poster and you “don’t know Dondero?” That’s like saying you are a long time poster and you don’t know who Lonewacko is.

While I may not necessarily agree with John I respect his honesty.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Yes, John, in this case, your word is not good enough. Of course, the slippery nature of the concept “Romneyite” might just be enough that you can weasel your way out of your statement here.

[John]

Then in this case RBM you can go fuck yourself. My view are what they are. The last thing I do is apologize for them or change them because some side says so. If you can’t figure that out from my postings on here, that is your problem not mine.

[Sparky]

Way to hold the line John. NEVER GIVE UP! NEVER SURRENDER!

When two sides engaged in debate start off by saying their minds won’t be changed no matter what then it’s not a debate it’s just a shouting match.

[MNG]

The article is a hit piece on Ron Paul, full of the worst kind of hearsay and innuendo, designed to paint Paul as an Israel-hater because he has dared follow his libertarian principles to the logical conclusion that however sympathetic Israel may be vs. their enemies foriegn aid and entanglements are a bad idea. Donderdo, and David Bernstein who posted the piece on VC, are Israel-firsters who don’t like Paul because they want us to keep dumping money to Israel. The only “evidence” Donderdo cites is unverifiable hearsay, and as to that anyone who experienced him on this site knows how reliable that is.

[John]

No. He cites direct evidence. He heard Paul say the things. That is not hearsay. Again, why is Dondero lying about this? You agree with Paul about Israel, Dondero doesn’t. That doesn’t make Dondero a liar it just makes his point unpersuasive to you.

[MNG]

“That is not hearsay.”

It’s the same level of evidence as that about the early accusers of Herman Cain which I dismissed, “he said he heard something in an unverifiable setting.”

“Again, why is Dondero lying about this?”

Anyone with any experience with Dondero knows that he believes 1st and foremost in supporting Israel and 2nd. in hating Muslims. I think he, like most neocons, sees Paul rising in the polls and don’t find him sufficiently slavish to Israel and Muslim-killing and so he’s joined the smear campaign. It’s what neocons do, they lied to get us into war before, why not lie about something like this?

[John]

Sorry MNG, I don’t write the definitions, I just read them. And “I heard Paul say this” is not hearsay if it is offered to prove that Paul did in fact say that.

And once again, so what if Dondero likes Israel? That says noting about the likelyhood of Paul saying these things. And further, if Dondero were lying, why didn’t he just call Paul a racist and make up some quotes about how Paul said bad things about black people? Instead, he dismisses that out of hand. That doesn’t strike me as something someone who were lying about Paul would do.

All I am left with is you and fluffy don’t believe Dondero because you don’t agree with him politically. So what?

[MNG]

“so what if Dondero likes Israel? That says noting about the likelyhood of Paul saying these things.”

It says a lot about why he might be willing to make somthing up (or misremember what was said or the context) about a candidate that he sees as having views dangerous to Israel.

But again, those of us who debated Dondero time after time felt like he was willing to stretch things, willfully ignore some things while highlighting other marginal things, etc., in order to shift our support in ways he wanted. So that fits with this. I consider him an unrealiable source, so when he says X about Paul with no other substantiation it means jack to me.

[John]

But again, those of us who debated Dondero time after time felt like he was willing to stretch things, willfully ignore some things while highlighting other marginal things, etc., i

You just described every poster on here. And again, neither one of us were there. Find me someone who was who says Dondero is a liar and we can talk. Surely some former staffer is out there calling him out if none of this stuff is true.

[Fluffy]

Dude, if you go over my critique of Dondero’s piece again, you’ll find that it doesn’t actually require him to be lying.

It requires a couple of things we know to be true:

1. Dondero was hysterical following 9/11

(This would make him naturally find the emotional reaction of anyone not hysterical to be unnaturally cold and unfeeling. That’s just a normal human impulse.)

2. Dondero has to consider it to be “engaging” a conspiracy theory if you chat about it with a friend or colleague who has such a theory.

That’s it. I don’t have to prove him to be a liar or anything else.

Just those two eminently reasonable things.

[John]

First, I have admitted that Dondero could have misinterpreted Paul’s response to 9-11. Maybe Paul doesn’t show a lot of emotions. But that just means Dondero is mistaken not that he is making it up.

Second, I don’t take engaging to mean anything but openly speculating and supporting the probability of such things. There is nothing in that piece that implies Paul just chatted. Dondero is claiming Paul believed or at least considered such things to be a reasonable possibility. That is a serious accusation. And not something to be dismissed as “well that is just Dondero”.

[Fluffy]

Second, I don’t take engaging to mean anything but openly speculating and supporting the probability of such things. There is nothing in that piece that implies Paul just chatted. Dondero is claiming Paul believed or at least considered such things to be a reasonable possibility. That is a serious accusation. And not something to be dismissed as “well that is just Dondero”.

OK, so now we’re down to this final item in dispute.

There is nothing in that piece that implies Paul just chatted. Dondero is claiming Paul believed or at least considered such things to be a reasonable possibility.

That’s the thing, John – there actually isn’t anything in the piece to tell you one way or the other.

If Paul did “just chat”, Dondero can still make this statement. Because he doesn’t supply direct quotes, and just says Paul “engaged”, which is kind of like saying he “entertained”. Strictly speaking, anyone who has ever watched a single frame of Loose Change has done that, even if they completely reject the conclusions Truthers draw.

I think it’s reasonable to say that given what we know of Dondero we should parse a statement of this kind in the most restrictive way possible. “What is the most innocuous thing Paul could have done that would make Dondero think he could get away with making this accusation?” Answer that question for yourself, and I think that’s what Dondero’s statement probably means.

[MNG]

“Find me someone who was who says Dondero is a liar and we can talk.”

Like most conservatives you have always had trouble with this kind of logic. According to you because someone said something about Paul now there must be some better opposing evidence or Paul is guilty of what he is accused of. But finding a person guilty based on the word of one person is terrible logic, and, when you consider that person to be an unreliable source of information as we do about Dondero, it is certainly not necessary to have something exculpatory to refute it. See, we don’t think it established anything to begin with.

[John]

I am not finding anyone guilty MNG. But when someone comes forward and says “this person did this” and they are in a position to have first hand knowledge of the event, that is a good reason to believe that it might be true.

Now, maybe there are other circumstances. Maybe Dondero is a nut. Maybe other people who were there say it is not true. But you have to look at it and consider the accusation. You can’t just say “well that is just his opinion and we don’t like him”

It is not about politics. It is about being a reasonable person. The fact is that when someone who used to work for you says something about you, that creates at least a reasonable inference that such is true. If there is evidence to rebut that inference beyond the accuser’s political views, I am all ears.

[MlR]

For what it’s worth John:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-…..s-1.403946

Halder’s a senior foreign policy fellow at CATO.

Personally, I don’t care that much about Paul’s view of Israel. Israel’s capable enough to take care of itself and we gave more pressing problems as is.

[MlR]

Fuck, that’s Hadar. I should know well enough, having read a number of his books.

[MlR]

Even on its own merits, Paul’s views cut both ways on Israel. On the one hand, you’d see a reduction of foreign aid (as well as to Egypt and other countries) and some diplomatic support. On the other hand, he’d give the Israelis more leeway in protecting themselves – something that’s gone out the window since they got tied into our quixotic regional policy, especially during and following the first Gulf War. Frankly, the Israelis were better off when they weren’t tied to our hip.

[MlR]

Even on its own merits, Paul’s views cut both ways on Israel. On the one hand, you’d see a reduction of foreign aid (as well as to Egypt and other countries) and some diplomatic support. On the other hand, he’d give the Israelis more leeway in protecting themselves – something that’s gone out the window since they got tied into our quixotic regional policy, especially during and following the first Gulf War. Frankly, the Israelis were better off when they weren’t tied to our hip.

[MlR]

Fuck x 2!

[RoboCain]

“He heard Paul say the things. That is not hearsay.”

What the fuck am I reading?

[John]

Let me explain hearsay to you. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Here we have Paul saying “the CIA may have been behind 9-11.” It is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, i.e. that the CIA planned 9-11. It is instead being offered to prove that Paul in fact said it true or not. It is therefore not hearsay but direct evidence.

[Maxxx]

Except that there is no evidence that Paul actually said that, other than the word of a known liar.

[John]

No, the word of someone who actually worked for Paul and has reason to know. Sorry but “we don’t like him” doesn’t cut it. And it would never cut it in defense of any politician not named Paul. You guys are forfeiting your right to ever call anyone a partisan ever again.

[Maxxx]

John, Donderooo repeated lied his ass off here for years, maybe you weren’t around then, but anyone that was knows that he’s a fucking delusional liar.

He has less credibility that Eric Holder. Would you take EH’s word on gunwalker? Exercising judgement does not make anyone a partisan shill. And I’m saying that as someone that is very ambivalent about Ron Paul. I think he’s a very flawed messenger and worry that his flaws will be used by socialists and warmongers to discredit liberty. But Donderoo is a fucking nut.

[John]

I would take EH’s word on FF if there wasn’t a ton of other people saying he was a liar. Again, until someone who is in a position to know stands up and contradicts Dondero, I have to at least consider the possibility he is telling the truth.

[romulus augustus]

Dondi wasn’t the only staffer in RP’s office. What say the others??

[John]

That is a good point Rolulus. And if someone here has a link to the other staffers calling Dondero a liar, then that would be evidence he is one. But saying “we hate that guy” doesn’t cut it.

[MNG]

It’s not “we hate the guy” it’s “we have extensive experience hearing this guy out and he seems obsessed with his WOT/Israel first ideas, obsessed enough to spend a good chunk of a year trying to convince everyone here that Rudy and McCain were great libertarian standard bearers because they would take it to the Muslims.” It has nothing to do with hating the guy, it has to to do with why people here loathe him, because they felt he was full of it.

[John]

Sorry but “we don’t agree with him” therefore he must be a liar doesn’t cut it. It is entirely possible the Dondero is some evil Muslim hater yet in fact did hear Paul say exactly these things. One does not preclude the other.

[MNG]

This is why it is pointless to argue with John. John has latched onto this line which he thinks is cute and Hannity Jr. approved: “Sorry but “we don’t agree with him” therefore he must be a liar” even though I and other people have directly addressed his cute line. Instead of addressing what we said he repeats his cute line. It’s O’Reilly radio translated into the internet, just repeat cute line over and over no matter what is said in reply.

MNG|12.30.11 @ 10:22AM|#
It’s not “we hate the guy” it’s “we have extensive experience hearing this guy out and he seems obsessed with his WOT/Israel first ideas

It has nothing to do with hating the guy, it has to to do with why people here loathe him, because they felt he was full of it.”

MNG|12.30.11 @ 10:31AM|#
But again, those of us who debated Dondero time after time felt like he was willing to stretch things, willfully ignore some things while highlighting other marginal things, etc., in order to shift our support in ways he wanted.

MNG|12.30.11 @ 10:20AM|#
Anyone with any experience with Dondero knows that he believes 1st and foremost in supporting Israel and 2nd. in hating Muslims. I think he, like most neocons, sees Paul rising in the polls and don’t find him sufficiently slavish to Israel and Muslim-killing and so he’s joined the smear campaign.

[John]

Yes MNG just repeat that you think Dondero must be a liar because you think he hates Muslims and pretend it will be persuasive this time.

Basically you think anyone who supports Israel is lying every time they open their mouth. Got it. Sorry but I tend to have a higher standard than that.

[MNG]

John, you have one of the worst grasps of logic of anyone I know. I’ll break it down one more time for you, but then I’m moving on today and letting you do your Hannity Jr. schtick.

It has nothing to do with thinking every Israel supporter lies. That’s your Limbaugh Jr. trick, a gross ad hominen wrapped in a simplistic overgeneralization fallacy. It has to do with this: People who are zealots for a cause often stretch the truth, misremember things, ignore evidence while highlighting dubious conjecture, and yes, sometimes even flat out lie etc., when they think their cause is at stake. I don’t know which Dondero is doing, and it’s possible he may actually be spot on, but given my past experienc with him I think

1. He is a zealot for Isreal and the WOT
2. He sees Paul as a threat to the things he is a zealot for

Given what I think zealots are willing to do with the truth described above that would be enough to find no credit to his unsubstantiated smears. But I have more: my memory of Dondero from his posts here was that I found him unreliable in representing many things related to these issues. So I have not only my general ideas about zealots but specifically my memory of how this particular zealot seemed willing to push Ghouliani and McCain in ways that seemed at odd with his stated principles. So yeah, I credit it zilch.

Now go back to your Hannity Jr. “arguments.”

[John]

MNG,

When you scream about Hannity and Limbaugh, you just make yourself look like a douche. If you have an argument, make it. But spending three paragraphs screaming about two people no one on hear listens too just wastes everyone’s time. At least try to stay on the topic.

[MNG]

Yes John, that post was all about Hannity and Limbaugh. It wasn’t about how it is reasonable to doubt the unsubstantiated word of a zealot on the candidacy of a man whom he admits he sees as a threat to the subject about which he is a zealot about, a man whom we at H&R found to be unreliable on these issues in the past.

Is John’s reading comprehension this bad? No, he’s just using dishonest Keyboard Kommando tactic numner 37 to join his Konservative Komrades in smearing Paul and defending Paul’s smearers.

You’re tiresome John, go play in your sloppy, careless with the facts world.

[sloopyinca]

So, to counter Dondero’s statement (that he cannot corroborate”, Paul’s entire staff at the time has to come out and prove a negative.

John has officially lost his fucking mind.

[John]

No. Someone who was there and has some first hand knowledge unlike all of us, just has to come forward and say “Paul never did that”. It is real easy. Dondero wasn’t the only guy on the staff. And if Paul did the things he said, people on his staff would certainly know about it.

You guys have lost your minds. I know you agree with Paul. Good for you. But that doesn’t make the guy above criticism or anyone who says anything bad automatically a liar.

[Maxxx]

No. Someone who was there and has some first hand knowledge unlike all of us, just has to come forward and say “Paul never did that”

Bullshit, the burden is on the accuser not the accused.

[MNG]

Not in John’s world. This is a pattern with him dude. It’s how conservatives think in general.

[John]

“Not in John’s world. This is a pattern with him dude. It’s how conservatives think in general.”

Ignorant troll is ignorant. There are a whole lot of people in prison in this country on the word of one person. When someone has reason to know and comes forward in public and says “this happened”, they have met their burden. And it is up to the person accused to explain why that person is lying.

This is basic stuff MNG. Are you really this stupid?

[John]

“Bullshit, the burden is on the accuser not the accused.”

Sure it is. And he just met it by saying “I was there and this is what happened”. What proof is he supposed to offer? A videotape?

[Maxxx]

Sure it is. And he just met it by saying “I was there and this is what happened”.

That’s a pretty fucking low bar, don’t you think.

What proof is he supposed to offer? A videotape?

How about another staffer corroborating it. Paul had what, one or two dozen staff members at that time.

[John]

Sure go ask them Maxx. And if one of them calls Dondero a liar, then maybe he is. But if no one ever steps up and does that, I am forced to believe Dondero.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Newt Gingrich supporter files lawsuit to get his man on the ballot in Gingrich’s home state of Virginia.

Who’s his man? I bet it’s Newt Gingrich.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Huh. I just read the article. Turns out his man is Santorum.

[Spiny Norman]

They set you up. It’s not your fault.

[Fist of Etiquette]

It never is.

[Pro Libertate]

Santorum. Wasn’t he the evil wizard in The Lord of the Rings?

[sloopyinca]

No, he was the byproduct of Frodo Baggins’ and Samwise Gamgee’s time on the plains of Mordor.

[Pro Libertate]

That’s not how it happened at all. Frodo was pure. Sam was screwing Gollum, which is why they were so bitchy in the morning.

[Sparky]

I thought Sam was bitchy because Frodo kept putting on the ring right as he came.

[Pro Libertate]

Like I said, Frodo was virginal. That’s the whole reason Sam picked up Gollum.

[Bok Sux]

Federal judge: Nonpartisan elections are unfair to minorities

[DEM]

Liberals to blacks: you are too stupid to live, but “taking care of you” makes us feel good about ourselves.

[Ice Nine]

This is what you guys fear.

[Pro Libertate]

Wha-at?

[JW]

And people scoffed at this voting machine design.

[Citizen Nothing]

Having to know shapes makes it unfair.

[Pro Libertate]

Shapism!

[bosty]

“the elimination of party affiliation on the ballot will likely reduce the ability of blacks to elect candidates of choice.”

Sounds like something straight out of Ron Paul’s racist newsletters.

[MJ]

Non-partisan elections are stupid (they rely on the fiction that if we do not acknowledge a politician’s affiliations then they do not exist) and should not be, but not for that reason.

[John]

Obama apparently doesn’t like to schmooze.

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

[Barack Obama]

I would like to socialize with my intellectual equals, but haven’t found any. I’m that smart!

[Tim]

What about coffee at the Weathermen’s?

[Juice]

Can’t blame him.

[Bok Sux]

Science Fiction-Themed Brothel Opening Soon

[Bok Sux]

Damn, I SugarFree’ed the link

Science Fiction-Themed Brothel Opening Soon

[Tim]

The Alien Room:

Bend way over and look into the egg capsule, there’s a horny little bastard in there wants to meet you.

[Rich]

In space no one can here you laugh. 😎

[Karl Hungus]

It sounds like a novel idea: you’re catering specifically to a demographic that largely comprises socially inept guys, the sort who aren’t exactly a hit with the ladeez. But then, will these guys actually want to indulge their Star Trek fetish as they lose their virginities? Or wouldn’t they be just as inclined to visit a regular brothel? Will he have World of Warcraft rooms and 24-hour D&D tables available in case his clientele spurn the women? Will he hire Shatner look-alikes, wearing thongs and pasties and carrying drink trays? Questions abound. I just hope this guy did his research and plenty of focus-grouping, because I admire his entrepreneurial ingenuity, and I’d hate to see it go bust.

[MJ]

Rule 34.

It’ll do until holosuites are invented.

[RoboCain]

“The important details regarding the working women are still being hashed out, such as whether or not to paint the women green to resemble Orion Slave Girl characters from Star Trek.”

How is that even a question?

[Tim]

“Honey how did you get all this green paint on your suit?”

[Pro Libertate]

The fact that they even ask shows that they will fail.

[Eduard van Haalen]

What about staging catfights between Princess Lay-Ya and Queen Amygdala?

[Pro Libertate]

If they knew what they were doing, such options would be made available.

I heard once that Yeoman Rand was turning tricks for a while at the bottom of her addiction years. So maybe she could be the madam?

[Fist of Etiquette]

She was already looking pretty spent by Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Even just as madam, she might not be a good choice to be the face you see when you walk in the door.

[Pro Libertate]

She’ll have twin Borgette assistants to entice clients.

[Eduard van Haalen]

On a more serious note, is there some kind of link between women using drugs and turning tricks? Because it sure seems that way – either they stem from a common cause (self-loathing) or one causes the other (earning $ for drugs).

Now I await the backlash.

[RoboCain]

There are women who use prostitution to support a drug habit. But there are also plenty of prostitutes who aren’t drug addicts, and plenty of drug addicts that aren’t prostitutes.

[Xenocles]

Shatner said in his book “Star Trek Memories” that she told him she was “a sex addict,” but he doesn’t go into more detail.

[Pro Libertate]

I could swear that she admitted to doing that some years ago. Of course, when the Shat says something, it’s hard for that statement not to overwhelm all other sources.

[Karl Hungus]

Science Fiction-Themed Brothel Opening Soon

Why does that seem to make about as much sense as opening a BBQ joint in Islamabad?

[JW]

One word: NERDGASM.

[Karl Hungus]

One more word: YUCK.

[Kaon Kristen]

I hope to have one of those this weekend

[JW]

You just have to believe!

[db]

Dude, if you think nerds don’t know how to get it on, you’ve never been to DragonCon.

[Fluffy]

I still think this will fail.

If nerds and hookers mixed, this would already exist.

[Pro Libertate]

Given the huge popularity of science fiction–possibly the single most popular fiction genre in literature and film today–I don’t think their clients will be limited to nerds.

[RoboCain]

I would pay extra for the outfit Gabrielle Drake wore in UFO.

[Karl Hungus]

You sure it would fit you? 😉

[JW]

BTW, my thanks to the pointer of the nude Gabrielle Drake pics yesterday. Wow. That moonbase uniform didn’t do her justice.

But yeah, the purple wig is mandatory.

[RoboCain]

SIV said they were on his site, but I couldn’t find them 🙁

[JW]

Google is your friend. First link.

“Au Pair Girls”

[RoboCain]

Those aren’t the ones on his site though.

[RoboCain]

Or at least that isn’t a link to his site.

[Karl Hungus]

You sure it would fit you? 😉

[Karl Hungus]

Sorry, that reply was meant for RoboCain!

[Lord Humungus]

Despite GOP opposition, light bulb standards will phase in on Jan. 1
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wi…..n-on-jan-1

While Republicans secured inclusion of a measure blocking funding for enforcement of the standards in a year-end spending bill, energy efficiency groups say the provision will have little practical impact. The Energy Department rules will nonetheless go into effect at the start of 2012.

“The [spending bill] cut funding for enforcement, however the law is still in effect,” said Jack Gillis, spokesman for the Consumer Federation of America. “It is our expectation that companies will still comply with the law.”

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Whoever was filling in for Rachel Maddow last night (a man who I temporarily thought actually was Maddow) had, of all people, Ezra Klein on to talk about how Ron Paul is wrong about gold.

Ezra Klein.

Meanwhile, on the other television at the gym, Hannity had Rick Santorum on.

It was a veritable Backpfeifengesicht smorgasbord.

[SugarFree]

And then Klein talked about other subjects he is super-knowledagable about, like ramjet design, fabrication of foamed metal in zero-gravity environments, and sex with women.

[John]

But he went to the right schools, works for the post and tells the viewers what they want to hear. And at MSNBC, that makes you an “expert” on pretty much anything.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Of all people to have on. Couldn’t they at least gotten Pauly Krugnuts or some other pro-printing-press economist on to at least give it a veneer of respectability?

Klein said something to the effect of “the dollar has never been stronger.”

Rage: I has it.

[John]

I agree. It is the low qualifications to be a media hack that bug me. At least Kruginuts is an economist. Who the hell is Klein and what makes him qualified to talk about anything?

[Ezra in early 2007]

Housing has never been stronger!

[Ezra]

I may have never made a non salaried penny in my life, but I know my market!

[Ezra in 2009]

Research in Motion is poised to dominate the smart phone market for decades, buy, buy, buy!

[JW]

Taking Klein seriously is like anyone with a OBAMA 2012 sticker on their car: a litmus test for imbecility.

[Solanum]

And blogging from his roof. Mothafucka is off the hook with that shit.

[Tonio]

Backpfeifengesicht…best word evah. Thank you, RBM, thank you.

[Teenage Girl]

at the gym, Hannity had Santorum on

Eewww!!

[Rev. Blue Moon]

You speak wisdom, Teenage Girl.

[R C Dean]

Ezra Klein on to talk about how Ron Paul is wrong about gold.

I recall that Ron has been in gold mining stocks for the last ten years(?) and therefore has gains that are likely north of 700%, could be north of 1,000%.

What’s your investment performance over the last decade, Ezra?

[Kaon Kristen]

I wish that word began with a K. Dammit.

[RoboCain]

Which word?

[Kaon Kristen]

That longass German thing taht I don’t wanna copy & paste because I’m about to fall asleep at my desk so I can’t be arsed.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Call yourself “Klein Kristen”. Klein is the epitome of backpfeifengesicht, so it’s the same thing, essentially.

[Appalachian Australian]

I really wish I had heeded the advice of the Ron Paul Report and bought lots of gold and junk silver in the early 90s.

[Lord Humungus]

Little Change in Public’s Response to ‘Capitalism,’ ‘Socialism’
A Political Rhetoric Test
http://www.people-press.org/20…..c-headline

The American public’s take on capitalism remains mixed, with just slightly more saying they have a positive (50%) than a negative (40%) reaction to the term. That’s largely unchanged from a 52% to 37% balance of opinion in April 2010.

Socialism is a negative for most Americans, but certainly not all. Six-in-ten (60%) say they have a negative reaction to the word; 31% have a positive reaction. Those numbers are little changed from when the question was last asked in April 2010.

[Maxxx]

Capitalism has always been a slur to denigrate free markets so that poll result means less than what is implied.

[Fist of Etiquette]

The expectations that all of our continent’s problems would be solved by building Europe from the West eastward have not been fulfilled, and in fact they were bound to fail. A truly whole and democratic Europe must be built not only from the West but also from the East, including Russia.

They did try to build a unified Europe from the East. That didn’t work out so well.

[Lord Humungus]

yeah, the eastern European countries are just clamoring to join up with the Russians again.

[Lord Humungus]

Weapons Sales to Iraq Move Ahead Despite U.S. Worries
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12…..l?_r=2&hp;

The Obama administration is moving ahead with the sale of nearly $11 billion worth of arms and training for the Iraqi military despite concerns that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is seeking to consolidate authority, create a one-party Shiite-dominated state and abandon the American-backed power-sharing government.

[mad libertarian guy]

What could go wrong?

I mean it’s not like we’ve ever sold weapons to regimes that have later used them against us or anything.

[Ice Nine]

Could Beaver Borough prohibit me, because I’m a non-BeaverBoroughian, from walking down its main street?

[Ice Nine]

I was hoping for a lawyer answer.

[sarcasmic]

This just in!
Olivia Munn is still hot!

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

[RoboCain]

Yes, but those pictures are lousy quality.

[sarcasmic]

I’m trying to figure out how to watch the movie without my wife getting all pissy at me.

[Restoras]

Wait for the next girls’ night out?

[sarcasmic]

That might work.

[JW]

Mein gott! You linked to a woman with actual curves.

[sarcasmic]

This just in!
Jessica Alba is Queen of the MILFs!

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

[mr simple]

Who names their daughter Haven? So many improper interpretations come to mind that I’m a bit overwhelmed. Put together with the name of her first daughter, Honor, and it sounds like she gets her baby names from a stripper guidebook.

[MJ]

Or she actually is a sci-fi geek and this is role she is dying to play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H…..ton_series

[Troy]

Sarcasmic, you shall forever have my undying fealty, until you say something I don’t agree with. Thanks for the links.

[Sparky]

Meh.

[Ice Nine]

What a porker.

[chris]

You and yer controversial stands. You probably think that fire is hot too.

Oh wait, around these nancys, your taste are controversial!

[Atanarjuat]

‘You know, like, guys always have that one f***ing ‘move’, some stupid sh*t, like putting his thumb in your mouth. And it’s just like, “What are you doing? Who told you this was hot?’

[Lord Humungus]

Barone: Growth, Not Redistribution
Obama (and most academic historians) have learned the wrong lessons from FDR.
http://www.nationalreview.com/…..ael-barone

So why should voters be leery of economic redistribution in times of economic distress?

Perhaps because they realize that they stand to gain much more from a vibrantly growing economy than from redistribution of a stagnant economic pie. A growing economy produces many unanticipated opportunities. Redistribution edges toward a zero-sum game.

They miss growth when it is absent. They don’t appreciate it so much when it is happening.

Roosevelt’s 1934 and 1936 victories were won in periods of growth. After the economy shifted into recession in 1937, New Deal Democrats fared much worse, and Roosevelt won his third and fourth terms as a seasoned wartime leader, not an economic redistributor.

Lesson: If you want redistribution, you’d better first produce growth. Which the Obama Democrats’ policies have failed to do.

[mad libertarian guy]

Lesson: If you want redistribution, you’re a fucking idiot under any economic circumstancesyou’d better first produce growth. Which the Obama Democrats’ policies have failed to do.

FIFY

[R C Dean]

Redistribution edges toward a zero-sum game.

No, redistribution could well be a negative-sum game, by removing assets from the management of those who obviously know how to manage them well, and transferring them to those who apparently don’t.

[sloopyinca]

Tulsa PD answers DV call. Decide to walk down the street and shoot someone’s dog.

[sarcasmic]

If you don’t want the police to kill your dog then don’t have a dog!

[Sparky]

Don’t worry, the shooting is being reviewed for proper procedure.

[sloopyinca]

What’s the over-under on free taxpayer-funded vacation time?

[Tim]

They had to do it, the dog tried to flea…

[Fist of Etiquette]

Pennsylvania town officials require children to wear helmets while sledding.

That’s kinda near where I live! (Tee hee… “Beaver”.) I messed up my knee sled riding when I was a kid. Where were the helmet laws back then???

[Rev. Blue Moon]

I used to be an Olympic sledder like you…

[John]

Me too. God I feel sorry for kids today.

[Tim]

Next up: Knee Helmets

[SugarFree]

You laugh, but I know a few guy that would still be adventuring like me if they had worn a set.

[Lord Humungus]

I used to sled at a place called “Charlie’s Dump” – which had an abandoned house, a bunch of ignored “Do Not Enter” signs, and a gravel pit in the middle. It was dangerous, and a whole helluva lot of fun piling a bunch of kids on a sled, hitting a bump and end up flying off in different directions. I got the wind knocked out of me, only to climb back up and do it again.

Compared to today, I feel positively Tom Sawyer-ish.

[Citizen Nothing]

We had this great hill in my yard that ended at the street. When it was icy, you could zip right across the street and, if you steered it right, continue down a cross street for about a block. Flexible Flier FTW!

[Trespassers W]

We used to sled down the neighbor’s hill right into the street.

Then a kid at my school did the same thing, right into the path of an oncoming car.

Now that I’m a parent, it makes me even sadder thinking about it now than it did then.

A helmet wouldn’t have helped, though.

[JW]

The best hill I had as a kid was a double hill, with a mean, air-getting plateau in the middle, and dumped onto a frozen lake. The question was always who had the stones to try and get all the way across.

I went back to it years later and they had a NO SLEDDING sign up. Cocksuckers.

[Brett L]

We had a creek at the bottom of our hill. Pile 3 guys on there and play chicken. No one ever ended up in the creek, but the sled did a couple of times.

[John]

I had a great hill about two blocks from my house. It was huge.

[Pro Libertate]

I was Huck Finn, wandering around places I didn’t belong, with a slave named Jim.

[Lord Humungus]

wait, is the beginning of a S&M porn movie?

[Pro Libertate]

Nah, man, I’m not a switch-hitter. Not sure about Jim, though. He did spend a lot of time ensconced with the Duke and the King.

[Eduard van Haalen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..oney.21.22

[sloopyinca]

How pissed were you when you found out “Jim’s” real name was Jerry Sandusky?

[Pro Libertate]

When I was in law school (in Chicago), I told a girl there that people still owned slaves in the rural parts of Mississippi. She believed me. I never told her I was kidding. I like to think that she’s now an advocate for ending slavery in the U.S.

[Tim]

She works at the space brothel.

[Pro Libertate]

Now my work here is done.

[Hank]

I dated a girl who thought (at 17 years old*) that the circus was something made up in movies and stories. Like Never-Neverland or Albania.

*Yes, I was also 17; sorry to disappoint.

[chris]

I remember a story from the late seventies on sixty Minutes about, uhm, ‘unpaid’ black share croppers living on a, uhm, large allotted collective in rural Lousianna. So, you may have been closer to the truth the you realized.

[sarcasmic]

At least it says the law is not enforced.

Where I’m at it is a crime for someone under fifteen to ride a bicycle without a helmet, and they actually enforce the law.

God I hate cops.

[RoboCain]

You can’t blame the law on the police.

[sarcasmic]

I can blame the police for enforcing stupid laws.

[RoboCain]

It is their job.

[sarcasmic]

It’s also their job to have some digression.

[sarcasmic]

*discretion*

[RoboCain]

They do, as all enforcement is selective in practice, but law enforcement shouldn’t be selective in principle.

[Rhywun]

“They do, as all enforcement is selective in practice, but law enforcement shouldn’t be selective in principle.”

This. “Selective” enforcement –> Corruption

[sarcasmic]

Here is an example of cops and prosecutors being complete dicks for no reason other than to be complete and total dicks.

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

Talk about punishing someone for trying to do the right thing.

Did I mention that I hate cops?

[Maxxx]

When she noticed the ‘No guns allowed’ sign at the memorial, she asked a police officer where she could check her weapon.
Instead she was arrested and taken to jail. She faces at least three years in jail.

I bet that same DA has plead murders out for manslaughter with less prison time.

[DEM]

It is the job of police to strictly enforce all laws, no matter what, which is why you see them pull over every car exceeding the speed limit by even one mile per hour.

[DEM]

Liberals to all humans: just stay home already, the world is too dangerous.

[Eduard van Haalen]

Not so fast – you might slip in the bathtub or be suffocated by a pillow from which the tag has been removed.

[CPSC]

We’re re-designing bathtubs to make them slip-proof and soft as rubber. We will make the world a zero-risk proposition or bankrupt society! Or both, whatever.

[Lord Humungus]

I call it “Cosy Prisons” – named after a recent A-ha song btw.

[Rich]

Pennsylvania town officials require children to wear helmets while sledding.

Federal officials should require all occupants of cars to wear helmets. If this simple act saves just one life — and you *know* it will — it will be well worth it.

[Progressives]

If we just had TRAINZ! instead of cars this is yet another problem we wouldn’t havee to worry about.

[Rhywun]

Well, American trainz are hilariously over-engineered compared to everywhere else. Imagine a requirement that all automobiles must be built like Sherman tanks and you get the picture.

[Kaon Kristen]

I spent my childhood skiing the icy slopes of Vermont sans helmet. In fact, I don’t even think they made ski helmets back then, unless you were a World Cup downhiller (did Pirmin Zurbriggen wear a helmet? Can’t remember.)

[Spiny Norman]

And speaking of Ron Paul (which we usually are), there’s this, which mentions Reason.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

A decent read that is so very deeply flawed at the same time.

[Rhywun]

“homoerotically inclined”?! Good grief.

[Lord Humungus]

Politico: Michele Bachmann’s hard fall
http://dyn.politico.com/prints…..28FEFB540B

To underscore her troubles, Bachmann has spent the past 24 hours trying to spin the fallout from her Iowa state campaign chairman’s defection to the Ron Paul camp ? insisting repeatedly that the man in question took a payoff to make the switch. Another longtime staffer, who went public to defend the departed chairman, was gone from the campaign by late Thursday.

All that seems certain, amid a fractured evangelical base and the latest polling data, is that the low-on-cash Bachmann rates as an extreme long shot to win the Iowa caucuses. There’s no comfort back home either: She faces uncertain reelection prospects in her own House seat at the end of the presidential primary season.

[Tim]

Well they might need a “Stella” for that space brothel…

Root would probably dig on that. “Stella shut up!”

[Tonio]

Nice.

[Fist of Etiquette]

“As bad as they were, you know even Adolf Eichmann finally when he was captured he was taken to Israel. Israel gave him a trial. What did we do with the Nazis ? war criminals ? after World War II? They got trials. Yeah, and they got what was deserving: they got hung,” Paul told more than 700 voters during a campaign speech at a convention center in western Iowa.

Kind of a reverse Godwin. (And I think “hanged” would work better there.)

[Drake]

Yes.

Hung = good

Hanged = bad

[John]

Of course they got trials under rules of evidence and procedure I doubt Paul would agree with.

[sloopyinca]

And you support this statement…how?

The evidentiary rules were established and agreed to in accordance with the Geneva Convention as well as recognized international law.

[John]

I will support that with what happened. First, being a member of the Nazi Party a crime. They also tried people retroactively for things that were not crimes at the time they happened. There was no crime of “waging an aggressive war” in 1939.

No way would Paul of 2011 buy into the rules of 1945.

[sloopyinca]

Yeah, and exterminating the Jews was perfectly legal in Germany. How dare those people at Nuremberg try them for such a non-crime!

And just because the Axis powers weren’t signatories to The Hague doesn’t mean they weren’t subject to it’s conditions. They became subject to the laws of the people they attacked when they crossed their borders unprovoked.

[Eduard van Haalen]

The point is that they had trials and weren’t drone-assassinated.

So the relevant comparison is between a trial on one hand and assassination without trial on the other. Why can’t Paul express a preference for the former?

[Eduard van Haalen]

And was the Eichmann trial unfair? That was a civilian tribunal, not military, and the rules of evidence, if I recall, were quite fair by international standards.

[John]

I think it was. But others would claim that since Israel didn’t exist at the time of the trials, it had no jurisdiction over Eichmann.

It is my opinion that the day after 9-11, the US should have opened a international tribunal using the valid rules of the Nuremberg trials and sent every terrorist we captured there. Those rules were much loser and easier to get a conviction under than federal court. But, I don’t think Ron Paul would have liked that since the rules were so stacked against the accused. But since they are valid international law, I don’t think he or anyone else could have said much.

It was one of Bush’s biggest fuckups not doing that.

[Eduard van Haalen]

Re retroactive legislation: That is mainly a problem for legal positivists, because natural law devotees could say that murder (whether massacring civilians or starting unjust wars) is always a crime and cannot be legalized by positive law.

And it’s no problem for positivists, because if murder can be legalized by positive law, it can be un-legalized, even retroactively, by the same means.

I’m guessing Paul is more of a natural-law sort of guy.

[Eduard van Haalen]

The relevant UN tribunal is the International Criminal Court, but they want the power to try Americans. And I doubt they’d be fully impartial, either, if the UN’s history is anything to go by.

[sloopyinca]

Jesus, John. You’re schizo today. You just said in the same subthread that Paul would have been against the Nuremberg rules of evidence and procedure. Now you say he would have no problem with them.

[Fluffy]

The thing about the Nuremberg trials is that people were found not guilty and were released.

That puts them one up on our current process, where we assert openly that even people found not guilty will not be released.

I’m familiar with the arguments against the legality of the Nuremberg trials, and I think you’re right that a “process” guy like Paul might have been sympathetic to at least some of them.

But I think he’s offering them as an example not because of their spotless legality, but because as bad as the Nazis were, they were still given trials where a “not guilty” verdict was at least possible, and where such a verdict had an actual effect – and that contrasts dramatically with our current situation.

[John]

That is a fair point fluffy. As I said above, that was one of Bush’s fuck ups was not doing another Nuremburg. The problem was that Bush and especially Runsfeld were totally ignorant of what Nuremburg actually was and had convinced themselves that no tribunal would ever have worked. They were wrong.

But I think had Bush done that, Paul and those on the Left would have hated the procedures and screamed up a storm about it. In the end, the constant objection to tribunals is part of what has gotten us here. Yeah, if you make impossible to have trials, they will just kill people. If people had insisted that Goering be tried in federal court, we just would have shot him when he surrendered.

[Drake]

I would like to vote for RP, I really would. But fuck can he say some stupid shit.

Sure we put captured Nazi war criminals on trial – the ones not killed on a battlefield or when we firebombed German cities.

What a stupid analogy – that will be used as further proof by the mainstream media to prove his “craziness”.

[Tim]

Irony, now we use batwinged drones that were originally Nazi engineering to assassinate people.

[Eduard van Haalen]

We didn’t single out identified individuals in Dresden. It was a bad scene, but not a targeted assassination, it’s apples and oranges.

[Drake]

Really? What about Yamamoto? Is a P-38 more humane than a drone?

[Pro Libertate]

I find it hard to get uptight about killing generals during a war. If we can bomb random noncombatants, we can assassinate generals, leaders, etc.

[JW]

What war are we in right now? I keep forgetting the name.

[Pro Libertate]

I only meant that war, of course.

There’s a decent argument that a declaration of war (even an AUMF directed at a specific country, if you consider AUMFs inadequate) serves as a kind of due process. You’ve been warned that a state of war exists, and we may kill, detain, or otherwise mess with your people and resources.

This perpetual “war” we’re in now kind of guts that idea. Personally, I don’t think not-quite-state terror is sufficient to change the rules. If it proves so pervasive that we need something new, then create something new. Don’t just treat it as an excuse for anything goes.

[JW]

Don’t just treat it as an excuse for anything goes.

Why do you hate Lee Iaccoca ProL? We’re a nation of Do-ers and Achievers! Not some candy-assed Rule-Followers!

Get out of the way!

[Brett L]

He was in a bomber IIRC. So, seems like a fair target in times of war. Not like he was flying in civilian plane. He was almost certainly armed and wearing a uniform of a country engaged in hostilities with the US.

[Drake]

I believe that the Obama Administration should done it right, documented his participation in a foreign military organization engaged in hostilities against the U.S., and stripped him of his dual citizenship.

The Administration would probably argue the same thing about this guy – armed in a camp of foreign soldiers. Obviously beyond the reach of law-enforcement.

[JW]

Not to mention he actually directed and participated in the hostilities.

But, yeah that’s *exactly* like murder-droning a civilian who talked shit.

[Maxxx]

We didn’t single out identified individuals in Dresden. It was a bad scene, but not a targeted assassination

So destroying cities and killing tens of thousands in the process is ok

but killing a few dozen alleged perpetrators is out of bounds.

Got it.

[sloopyinca]

Kalamazoo Kop goes all Plaxico Burress at a party. Fills out false police report.

Faces no charges and gets a two-week vacation!

[Drake]

Do you want a list of how this was different?

[sloopyinca]

I’ll list the first difference: Plaxico Burress did not make a false sworn statement to officers.

[Tim]

Who is Plexiglass Burritos?

[Fist of Etiquette]

He went by the name NoCatchico when he played for Pittsburgh.

[RoboCain]

He was great when he played for the Giants.

[Tim]

Are you thinking of Placido Domingo?

[Fist of Etiquette]

NoSingido.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Meanwhile, Boyea, when interviewed by Thomas on Nov. 15, said Clinton Township police had submitted their investigation to the Macomb County Prosecutor’s Office and he was “waiting to see if they charge him with anything.”

Prosecutors are waiting to see if Boyea follows through on his plan to go into law enforcement first, at which time they wouldn’t really want to charge a member of the brotherhood with a crime.

PSO Reidenbach, on the other hand, I am not sure how he can be trusted to give testimony in court appearances now.

[Drake]

1. Plaxico actually pulled the trigger, cop didn’t.
2. Plaxico not authorized to have gun – cop was.
3. Palxico in public place, cop in private residence.
4. Clinton Township is in Michigan, New York City is in New York – they have different laws.
5. Plaxico actually shot himself, nobody shot in this incident.

[sloopyinca]

1. No he didn’t. Accidental discharge.
2. Ever heard of the Second Amendment
3. Plaxico in private business. Cop in private residence
4. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
5. Plaxico injured as many other people as the cop did.

Try again.

[Drake]

1. He “accidentally” pulled the trigger – the only way a Glock fires. Stupid shit should have used a holster instead of tucked in sweatpants. “Never try to catch a dropped weapon” is a good rule with modern guns.

2. I love the 2nd and avoid NYC because of it.

3. A Club is a public place.

4. Yes

5. Yes – and if he hadn’t hurt himself the guys at the club would have covered it up and sent him home.

[sloopyinca]

And on #2. Was the cop allowed to have a loaded gun on his person while inebriated? Was he allowed to have his service pistol loaded and on his person while inebriated?

[Drake]

The gun wasn’t on his person.

[sloopyinca]

And we know this, how exactly? When he changed his sworn statement to honestly reflect what had happened?

And FWIW, the bullet went through a wall and into another apartment. Has either man been charged yet with the property damage? The reckless endangerment? The disregard for public safety?

And if a parent can be charged when their kid finds their gun and shoots it, why is the cop not held to the same standard for leaving his gun unsecured?

[Drake]

That is one of the things he was disciplined for.

[Brett L]

Making a false report to LEOs is a felony everywhere. End of Argument.

[P Brooks]

The ban on friends and relatives from other communities and non-residents using Roosevelt Park, says Brady, was recommended by the borough’s insurance company.

“We are keeping the taxpayers dollars in the community by asking that only taxpayers sled ride in the community.”

WTF?

Where’s Warty? I need somebody to explain this YinzerLogic to me.

[John]

I don’t think you can disbar non-residents. That whole privileges and immunities thing.

[gaijin]

and slightly off-topic…what is it with yingling beer making it’s way westward? It should stay in Pa where someone might actually think it’s good beer.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Not everyone drinks $9 per six-pack Super-Double Hopped IPAs all day long. Sometimes you want a drink, not a friggin’ meal in a glass.

[Tonio]

Yuengling.

Prior to the craft beer revolution, Yuengling was some of the best beer available on the east coast. It’s still a good cost-effective crowd pleaser.

[Warty]

Yuengling is tolerable at its price level.

[Citizen Booth]

Fuck that shit. Pabst Blue Ribbon!

[sloopyinca]

Sweet!

Oh, can you answer a couple of questions: how do you people stop your fixed-gear bikes? do Wayfarers give you x-ray vision?

[Pro Libertate]

To be fair, Blue Velvet well predates the formal rise of the hipster, as predicted by Nostradamus.

[Citizen Nothing]

Oh, Slapdick McGee. Will you ever learn?

[Kaon Kristen]

Yeah. Fuckin hipster.

[DEM]

Since I doubt any 8 year olds are paying taxes, they’re shit out of luck come first snow.

[Warty]

“We are keeping the taxpayers dollars in the community by asking that only taxpayers sled ride in the community.”

“He continued, ‘Here we go Stillers, here we go! Here we go Stillers, here we go!'”

Yinzers are too stupid to have coherent thoughts, P Brooks. That’s all that’s going on here.

[Lord Humungus]

“I’m Ostracized For Keeping My Maiden Name”
http://dearwendy.com/columns/i…..iden-name/

My husband and I have been married a little under a year and we’re starting to actually feel married. However, in all of the adjustments I’ve made, there’s still one giving me a hard time: telling people that I’ve kept my maiden name. It’s a decision I made long before I met my husband; we discussed it at length before we even got engaged, and now he and our immediate friends and families are completely, 100% comfortable with it.

The problem actually arises around other married women. I’ve gotten pretty good at introducing us: “Hi, I’m Carolyn Asaurus and this is my husband, John Smith.” Sometimes the responses are along the lines of, “Well, that’s, um, modern of you?” followed by a shunning for the rest of the evening. Or they suddenly ask questions, like if I have children from a previous relationship, so I have to defend my decision. Or worse, they feel they need to defend their decision to take their husband’s name as if I’m somehow insulting them. No matter how it goes, usually after learning I kept my last name, most of these women become very icy toward me.

[SugarFree]

Act like a ball-breaker and people don’t want to be around you.

Violin’s in the car, BRB.

[Citizen Nothing]

That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard this morning. My wife (Ms. Something) kept her maiden name when we married 15 years ago, and I guarantee she’s never gotten this reaction. Where does this chick live? Iran?

[Fist of Etiquette]

You know who else’s wife kept her maiden name?

[R C Dean]

John Kerry?

[sloopyinca]

Rosie O’Donnell?

[mad libertarian guy]

She lives in a world entirely confined to her head.

[BakedPenguin]

My brother’s wife kept her name at the advice of my brother, who remembered what a chore it was when his first wife changed hers. Amazingly, the fact that she still has her maiden name is not the first thing she tells people when she meets them. AFAIK, she is not shunned.

[sloopyinca]

Dear Wendy,

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

What should I do?

Signed,
Carolyn Assclownarus

[Rich]

Actually, it’s “Asaurus”, pronounced “Ass Sore Ass”. No wonder she kept it.

[Tim]

Must be related to Heather Butthurt.

[sloopyinca]

Which one kept her maiden name?

[Devil's Advocate]

If I had to guess, the social iciness isn’t because she kept her maiden name, it’s because she comes across as a smug holier-than-thou jerk when she is discussing it. I have a number of friends who have kept their maiden name, and frankly it is NBD: no one could give a shit. But then, they they are not assholes either.

[JW]

The wife kept her maiden name and as you say, NBD. It did, however, have the effect of confusing the shit out of the hospital and insurance co. when the kids were born. You’d think, by now, that DC-area hospitals would be used to dealing with birthin’ women who have 4 kids, each with a different last name (OK, mine have the same last name, but you get the idea).

Vendors call me by her last name when she sets up the appt and vice versa. Meh.

[Devil's Advocate]

DC-area hospitals would be used to dealing with birthin’ women who have 4 kids, each with a different last name (OK, mine have the same last name, but you get the idea).

I laughed, because I live in Baltimore, and yeah. I do find it odd that the hospitals were confused by this, more so than the vendors. It is still the norm for women to take the husband’s name, so they are making a (wrong) assumption. My friends, referenced above, usually get called by their husband’s name anyway, regardless of their actual names, I think perhaps because the kids also have the husband’s name, so people assume it’s theirs as well. I am sure it is pretty irritating for them.

[R C Dean]

I think the reason the hospital is confused (and I work in one) is that, while they are certainly used to women who have four kids by different fathers, they are probably surprised when the mother (a) knows who the father(s) are and (b) gives the kids any last name other than her own.

It is amazing to me how many “women” have kids these days who actually don’t care, and in many cases don’t even seem to know, who the sperm donor was.

[Citizen Nothing]

I know if I answer the phone and somebody asks for Mr. Something or for Mrs. Nothing, I can immediately hang up.

[sloopyinca]

I do the same when they ask for Mr. McGee.

[Citizen Nothing]

Oh, Slapdick McGee. Will you ever learn?
That’s never gonna get old.

[JW]

My friends, referenced above, usually get called by their husband’s name anyway, regardless of their actual names, I think perhaps because the kids also have the husband’s name, so people assume it’s theirs as well. I am sure it is pretty irritating for them.

Oh, it’s a perfectly reasonable assumption. She didn’t change hers because there are no male siblings to carry the name onward. The kids still have my name, so yeah, moot point, but it appears that I’m only here on this planet to humor her.

[SugarFree]

My wife kept her last name because she had already established herself professional. I wasn’t a fan of the idea, and still am not, but it’s not anything that impacts our daily life or anything.

But woe to the poor fucker who calls me Mr. [wifeslastname].

[JW]

She went pro, eh? She a go’re? KnowwadImean? Eh?

[SugarFree]

When my wife slap your cock off at the first annual Axis of Glib conference, I’m going to point and laugh.

[JW]

I don’t see any orgy on the agenda. Is this a last minute addition?

[Citizen Nothing]

Wait. Slapdick McGee is SF’s wife? My head is spinning.

[Spoonman.]

Yeah, I imagine it’s how she says it, not that she’s done it. It’s not a big deal at all unless you make it one.

[Lord Humungus]

I don’t introduce my wife using my last name. Who does?

“Hello, I’m Mr. Lord Humungus. Have you met my wife, Lady Humungus?”

[Pro Libertate]

You know, I want a title. I was telling my wife during a yogurt commercial that Jamie Lee Curtis is also the Lady Haden-Guest (by virtue of being married to the Lord Haden-Guest aka Nigel Tufnel). If a scream queen can have a title (along with a guy from SNL), why can’t I?

[JW]

Hey, you’re the “King of Takingthefuckingtrastothecurb.” What more do you want?

[Pro Libertate]

Lord Indignant-Pisst sounds nice.

[JW]

“Baron Von Dinkle-Wizzer and companion.”

[Pro Libertate]

The Duke of Urko.

[Fluffy]

If the arguments one would consider before choosing to keep one’s maiden name are true, then you are, in fact, insulting the people who don’t keep their maiden name.

Whether you like it or not, every choice you make disparages all other choices and (by definition) the people who make those other choices. There is no dream of pluralism that can make that untrue.

“I don’t want to subordinate myself to the patriarchy by taking my husband’s name.” This statement means that you think that all women who take their husband’s name are weak-willed slaves who have knuckled under the evil domineering men. Sorry. There’s no way around that. There is no “Well, this was the right decision for me, but maybe not for everyone.” It doesn’t work that way.

[Devil's Advocate]

Not really. Some women keep their maiden name because they like the way it sounds better with their first name. Some keep it for business reasons. Some keep it because they’ve had that name for their entire life and they don’t feel like changing it. There are lots of reasons why a woman might choose to keep her maiden name other than because of the patriarchy. None of those choices disparage anyone else. The only one that does is the patriarchy argument.

[Spoonman.]

My sister kept her maiden name because having two Dr. [unusual name]s at the same hospital would have caused confusion.

[John]

No. Maybe you just don’t want to go through the bother of changing your name and feel this is one tradition that you don’t need to follow? I don’t think everyone who keeps their maiden name does so out of some rejection of the patriarchy.

[Citizen Nothing]

Agreed. The Flufster is way wrong on this one. Gotta be a first time, I guess.

[Citizen Nothing]

It does kind of irritate me, I must admit, when women in my office retain their maiden name professionally but change it legally when they get married (which I usually forget they’ve done.)
I mean, how the fuck am I supposed to address the Christmas cards? Can’t anyone think of my needs?

[Pro Libertate]

I think some think they have to do it or give up their feminist credibility. Which, of course, is nonsense. It’s just a tradition and a useful one at that.

If they feel strongly about it, then keep the maiden name, but they shouldn’t do it because they think others will disapprove. Fuck ’em.

[John]

Maybe Dondero insisted on keeping his maiden name.

[Fluffy]

OK, that’s fair.

I would have to modify my original statement to include “If I know your reason for doing this is…etc.”

[BakedPenguin]

As I mentioned above, my brother’s wife kept her name on the advice of my brother – mainly to avoid the hassle of changing all her legal documents.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

There’s also the women who keep their married name after the divorce, for much the same reason–because it would be a headache to go back to their maiden name, or they didn’t like their maiden name to begin with.

A former friend of mine did this, until she got married again and took on her new husband’s name.

[Just Dropping By]

Where does this woman live, rural Utah or something?

[Brett L]

Nah. Rural people wouldn’t have any problem with it. Marriage is still not universally associated with cohabitation even in the buckle of the Bible Belt. What you don’t get to do in these areas is hide it. Jim and Sue can live together without getting married, or get married and not change names, and people at church might care for two or three months until the next “scandal” arupts. After that, they’re just Jim and Sue again.

[Kaon Kristen]

If I were to get married (bwahahahaha!) I’d keep my birth name (I ain’t been a maiden for a while now) because it’s fucking awesome and only a few people on earth have it.

[El Commentariosa]

Don’t you people hyphenate last names when you wed?

[Fist of Etiquette]

The Thatcher comparison comes as the former British leader is back in the headlines with the release of a biographical movie about her starring Meryl Streep.

Maybe she should try comparing herself to Julia Child or Karen Silkwood, one of the other characters Streep has played. How about the ant queen?

[Lord Humungus]

QUEEN OF THE HARPIES! QUEEN OF THE HARPIES!

[Mr. Chartreuse]

Here’s your crown your majesty!!!

[Ice Nine]

Bachmann did not compare herself to Thatcher. It is highly unlikely that she could ever ultimately match Thatcher’s greatness but, at equivalent stages of career, a comparison would not be completely far-fetched.

[RoboCain]

Oh noes anything but candles!

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c…..more-90939

[P Brooks]

“You need to download the latest version of Flash”

No, I don’t.

[RoboCain]

Time to elevate the public discourse about sexual assault

http://falserapesociety.blogsp……html#more

[Steven Smith, MSW, Therapist]

We all need to talk about our feelings.

[Appalachian Australian]

Gun assaults tend to trump sexual assaults.

But I haven’t seen Jez or feministing posting links to area gun classes lately.

[Fist of Etiquette]

The six attorneys for plaintiff Dick A. Heller in the historic gun-control litigation had asked the judge to order the city, which lost the case, to pay legal fees totaling $3,126,397. The office of D.C. Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan argued the city should be required to pay $840,166.

The Heller attorneys can bank the difference off of the prestige of winning a landmark Supreme Court case that seemed to change practically nothing.

[RoboCain]

What change were you expecting?

[Fist of Etiquette]

Cities and suburbs throughout the land to be alight with the gunfire of the criminal class while the law abiding cower defenseless.

No, wait…

[Juice]

Did Dick Heller get any compensation for his time? Or just the lawyers?

[RoboCain]

Ron Paul Hates Hot Asian Chicks

http://kathryndelong.blogspot.com/

[Appalachian Australian]

Austro-Libertarian. Anarcho-capitalist. Student at SUNY Buffalo. Advocate for peace, sound money, and individual liberty. I support Ron Paul.

It must be awful to life in Buffalo and have sensible views like that. Buffalo almost held the honour of having the highest sales tax in the nation, whilst the area also has some of the highest property and income taxes in the nation.

[Appalachian Australian]

Careful?the paleocons are concerned that Ms Delong is a Chinese spy.

[Just Dropping By]

That’s basically the only argument that could convince me not to vote for Paul. Except I don’t believe it. Even stone cold neo-nazis don’t hate them.

[P Brooks]

You can’t blame the law on the police.

Yeah, because the fucking pigs NEVER go to the legislature and lobby for more laws and expansion of their power.

[RoboCain]

So it was the police who lobbied for child helmets?

[Tim]

Pip?

[sarcasmic]

Nor do they lobby to restrict the right of law abiding people to defend themselves from people who ignore the law, while of course exempting themselves.

[Anti-Cop Bigot Tonio]

I don’t see the po-po lobbying for this kind of nonsense. This screams “hysterical moms” to me. Or vendors of helmets. Or a collusion between those two groups.

[Spoonman.]

I saw Dick Heller speak once. He is a crazy man (believes in poisoning of the water supply and so forth).

Doesn’t diminish what he did with the case, but never think it’s a good idea to put him out there. Wow.

[John]

You would have to be a little nuts to live in DC and take them on over gun rights. Most people just tell them to fuck off and move to Virginia or Maryland. I am not surprised that the guy who actually was enough of a gadfly to go to the Supreme Court over it is more than a little nuts.

[sloopyinca]

Did you just say that someone would have to be nuts to stand up for their Constitutional Rights if they live in DC?

Did you and MiNGe do a mind-meld before he bailed out?

[sarcasmic]

John is really Tony.

[John]

No. I am just telling you how life works. Most people don’t have time to sue DC. Most people don’t really want to break the law and run afoul with the cops. Most people just say to hell with it and move to Virginia, which is nicer anyway. The people who don’t and really do go to the wall on such things, tend to be a little crazy. Good for them and they do a lot of good. But most people don’t do that for rational and self interested reasons.

[Troy]

Whatever Joe.

[John]

After you spend several years of your life suing a city over an ordinance call me. I know I haven’t. And I suspect most people haven’t either. It is easier just to move or ignore it. That is just life.

[Troy]

Thanks Joe. I didn’t have a fucking clue about life until you came along an explained it all.

[sloopyinca]

It’s so much easier to move away when your rights get trampled on by authority, isn’t it John?

I can’t believe you’re peddling that shit here. You’d be much more at home on a FoxNews blog.

[John]

How many law suits have you filed in your life Sloopy? I am not saying it is right. In an ideal world we would be out every day suing for our rights rather than working and living our lives. But this is not an ideal world.

[sloopyinca]

I’ve yet to file a lawsuit. I tend to seek standing by allowing myself to be arrested for bullshit offenses, only to have charges dropped by the DA or the case dismissed by the Judge. And actually, I’ve done this on multiple occasions in VA, GA and CA, at both personal and professional risk.

Funny, when the absurdity of a law is actually shown to a DA, they tend to drop charges rather than push for the repeal of the law. The system wants to keep laws on the books so they can use them to charge the naive or poorly-defended. When a smart and well-defended person calls the law out, they drop the charges for fear it will affect their conviction rate.

So don’t give me this “in an ideal world” bullshit. The power is in our hands every day. But only some of us have the balls to use it.

[John]

Sloopy,

All I am saying is the actual people who have the balls and the tenacity to file these kinds of law suits and fight it out with a city for years on end, tend to be a little nuts. Most sane people say fuck it and move away. That is just reality. Would it be a better world if more people other than gadflies filed such suits? Sure. But it wouldn’t be the world we live in.

[Tonio]

Balls, tenacity, money and standing.

[Tonio]

You are my hero in this regard, Sloopy. Accepting personal risk to prove a bigger point is truly heroic.

[Appalachian Australian]

What’s wrong with John? My forays into defending my liberties are paltry (speeding tickets), but it’s still worth spending the time and money to prove your innocence to the state.

And, hey, I won, too.

[John]

Good for you AA. I am not saying there is anything wrong with it. I am just saying most of us are too lazy to do it. And those that aren’t tend to be a bit eccentric in my experience.

[Brett L]

General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk… ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children’s ice cream.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: [very nervous] Lord, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I… no, no. I don’t, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It’s incredibly obvious, isn’t it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That’s the way your hard-core Commie works.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen… tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first… become… well, develop this theory?
General Jack D. Ripper: [somewhat embarassed] Well, I, uh… I… I… first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue… a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I… I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh… women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh… I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.
General Jack D. Ripper: But I… I do deny them my essence.

[sloopyinca]

Police Chief in NC does something so bad, he gets suspended for a month without pay.

Salary paid by the public, but the public apparently has no right to know why he was suspended.

[Rich]

“Clyde, NC”? “Joy Garland”? “Dereck Dendy”? You can’t fool *me*, sloopy, ….

[sloopyinca]

Cops beat and taze paranoid schizophrenic man into coma. Get a sweet-ass paid Christmas vacation.

Once the guy dies, it will be the second tazer-related death in Fayette-nam. The department suspended use of them after the first guy was killed, went back to using them recently after making sure they “work properly.”

[Pro Libertate]

Do these guys get together, decide they want some time off, then go do something like this?

[R C Dean]

How there aren’t multiple first-degree murder charges out of that is a fucking tragedy.

And, for once, the electric chair would be poetic justice, no?

[Troy]

When i am king, these cocksuckers will be the first against the wall.

[Brett L]

I’ve got a lot of firsts against the wall. I’m going to need to borrow the Great Wall and several machine guns.

[Troy]

I’ve read all the comments in this thread today…. and I wonder… How many links did Sugarfree have to fuck up before he became a verb?

By the way, I started drinking at 9:00 a.m. this morning.

That is all.

[Citizen Nothing]

I envy you. That is all.

[R C Dean]

How many links did Sugarfree have to fuck up before he became a verb?

84. But who’s counting?

[Tim]

Sugar’s in semi-retirment now.

[SugarFree]

Lies! All lies! Made up by my enemies in the media!

But, seriously… I probably never made on average more bad links than most before reasonable, but I posted a lot more links, and so had a higher aggregate number of bad links.

The verbing happened after the spectacular fuck-up of mal-linking the same address three times in a row.

[Troy]

Stop projecting Sugar. go take a 100 level HTML level class at your local community college.

[JW]

Haha! I made you a verb, biotch!

[SugarFree]

You won’t be laughing after I tell everyone what “jwing” means.

[JW]

Is that anything like a “Rusty Venture?”

[SugarFree]

It’s basically a reverse Rusty Venture with a bloodkakke flouish at the end..

[sloopyinca]

What asshole started th…

Oh, nevermind.

[Pro Libertate]

None. It’s a Hit & Run myth. He’s actually considered one of the leading experts in HTML in the world. I heard him speak at an INET conference, after which Vint Cerf stood up and applauded.

[Troy]

What the fuck I want to know is where are Sarcasmic’s morning hot chick links?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[Kaon Kristen]

Olivia Munn doesn’t do it for ya?

[Troy]

Fuck yea!!!!

[MNG]

The attacks on Paul by the GOP are awful but to be expected, they couldn’t marginalize him like they did Johnson so they have to smear him like last time, but what I can’t stand is the media’s complicity with this. Today on the Washington Post they discussed the latest NBC Marist Poll, it was couched in Romney is the confident frontrunner but Santorum is rising, it went on to say of the actual fricking results that Santorum had risen from 6 to 15% and that “Romney was leading (with Ron Paul closely behind)” Just like that, with Paul relegated into parentheses. Later in the article it said the actual numbers and guess what, Romney had 23% and Paul had 23%! WTF? When does 23 mean “closely behind” 23?

[sloopyinca]

Is this really MiNGe? If so, cue up the F&F questionnaire.

[Citizen Nothing]

If we’re gonna give Paul a break on the newsletters, isn’t it time to give MNG a pass on F&F? I understand that Rockwell actually was writing his posts back then.

[MNG]

Look, nothing has changed on F&F. I’m not for rehashing it, if you want you can go back and re-read old threads on it, because that is all that a discussion now would yeild.

But I’ve always liked Paul, and I hate to see the smear campaign going on him now. But it was to be expected the moment he rose in the polls.

[MNG]

I actually think it is entirely plausible that a busy Congressperson like Paul might not be aware of everything that was going into literature his staff and supporters were putting out in his name. Most people who say they’ve talked to him over time, from Wolf Blitzer to Reason staffers, will readily say that stuff doesn’t sound like something Paul thinks or would say. Should he have been more diligent in keeping up with what was said in association with his name? Yeah, I guess, but I find this to be pretty tenuous stuff.

The important thing about Paul is he can be a “debate changer”, he’s offering an alternative on issues like spending, federal power, war and foriegn policy and most importantly to me on the WOD that a lot of Americans agree with but have no real political outlet for.

[Old Mexican]

Re: MNG,

The important thing about Paul is he can be a “debate changer”, he’s offering an alternative on issues like spending, federal power, war and foriegn policy and most importantly to me on the WOD that a lot of Americans agree with but have no real political outlet for.

Not only a debate changer inside the GOP universe, MNG. His alternative ideas shines a totally different light on the Dems as well. Bill Maher was interviewing Sen. Chris Dodd back in 2007 and asked him straight “why aren’t Democrats saying the same things about the wars that Rep. Paul is saying?”

The Dems will attack Paul mercilessly because he will steal their carefully built mojo.

[sloopyinca]

And now that Paul is relevant, what will Maher bring up first:
1. Newsletters.
2. Fundie Xian beliefs.
3. Some made-up shit.

[MNG]

There are a lot of liberals who think liberalism is the same as government giveaways, and they will attack Paul when he threatens that as crazedly as the GOP does when he threatens their warmongering. But a lot of liberals will like the alternative that Paul gives them on issues like war and drugs, issues that currently liberal pols offer little if no alternative too.

But maybe not. I’ve been disappointed before.

[R C Dean]

Look, nothing has changed on F&F. I’m not for rehashing it,

I bet you’re not.

[Appalachian Australian]

Nice to have you back, MNG.

[Kaon Kristen]

After our meat-a-palooza at Fogo de Chao last night, we drove by Occupy DC in Freedom Plaza on our way home. It was only 8pm and they were all either in their tents or at Busboys & Poets, because not a soul was to be seen anywhere. Lame-os.

[RoboCain]

How cold is it in DC?

[Kaon Kristen]

Last night was so-so. Maybe 45?

I’ll admit I did closely look to see if any of the tents were a-rockin (I didn’t see any).

[Troy]

meat-a-palooza

That sounds like a music fest run by Warty.

[Appalachian Australian]

Are you sure they weren’t gamboling in a nearby convenience store in order to forage for food?

[P Brooks]

Maybe the Occuturds went to Hawaii.

[RoboCain]

Occupy Palm Springs!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/t…..320604252/

[Lord Humungus]

since I’m here at work (out of vacation days) – I’ll give my predictions for 2012

(1) Romney wins the nomination

(2) Romney wins the presidency, though it will be the nastiest campaign since the French retreated from Moscow. But I’ll only give this a 60/40 chance.

(3) The term Liberaltarian come back, as hatred for the new big-government bosses rises as the power-hungry GOP takes over.

(4) It’s discovered that John and MNG live together in a condo on the Potomac.

(5) The stock market continues to rise… then fall… then rise… then fall…

(6) The Euro crisis gets worse, the can gets kicked further down the road, and everyone breaths a sigh of relief – again.

(7) The Lions lose their first playoff game since 1999.

(8) Government spending continues to rise… and rise…

(9) More and more laws are enacted, the majority of them limiting freedom.

(10) A new political movement arises, dedicated to tupperware and fondue accessories.

[John]

All probably right sadly. I think John Derbyshire had probably the best predictions, which were similar to yours.

Barack Obama will lose the U.S. presidential election in November. The GOP will win a record share of the non-Hispanic white vote.

Vladimir Putin will win the Russian presidential election in March. Among opposition parties, the Communists will poll exceptionally well.

The following things will get worse: public protests in advanced countries, inflation, weather, unemployment, Somali piracy, and the state finances of California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York.

The following things will get better: e-book formats, firearm sales, political corruption, access to TV programs without TV sets, job opportunities for auditors, Islamic terrorism, North Dakota.

The following things will become less popular in the advanced world: free trade, mass immigration, welfare, foreign aid, abortion, college education, ethnic diversity, politicians, helping the U.S. fight open-ended wars of choice.

The following things will become more popular in the advanced world: in-sourcing, border controls, jails, family life, vocational training, ethnic disaggregation, entrepreneurs, minding your own national business.

One or more of the following canoes will arrive at the lip of Niagara: the euro, the North Korean government, the finances of a major U.S. state or municipality, the student-loan system, Eric Holder, book publishing, China’s banking system.

? John Derbyshire is the author of Unknown Quantity: A Real And Imaginary History of Algebra.

[Troy]

All probably right sadly

So that is a tacit admission that you are shacking up with MNG? Tell me John, are you the pitcher or the catcher?

[John]

What does that even mean?

And for the record, I am a pitcher and my dick is so big that when I shove it up your ass you will feel it in your throat.

You got a problem with that?

[Troy]

Awwwww, John is getting all butthurt. Fucking whiner. Next time tell MNG to use some lube.

[John]

I am not butthurt at all. I am just bragging. Can’t I do that?

[MNG]

“So that is a tacit admission that you are shacking up with MNG?”

No, John is a very poor reader. He browsed that, agreed with some of it that caught his eye, and so he declared agreement to it all. Careless, yes, but hey, it’s what he does.

[John]

What about it do I not agree with? I think LH says pretty reasonable stuff.

I am sorry MNG you are such unhappy person. Really I am. I am sorry I get under your skin so badly. I am sorry I make you so miserable you have to shout insults and scream the names of talk show hosts in response.

But at some point you have to let it go. I get under your skin. I make you defend the indefensible. You don’t always have a good answer for me. Honestly, if I were a better person I would stop picking on you. But sometimes I am not. So just let it go.

[MNG]

Holy shit you are stupid.

“What about it do I not agree with? I think LH says pretty reasonable stuff.”

“(4) It’s discovered that John and MNG live together in a condo on the Potomac.”

“So that is a tacit admission that you are shacking up with MNG?”

You are so fucking careless and sloppy that here we are four posts down from the original and you don’t even know what you agreed to. Your too busy into your “I’m getting under your skin now” schtick (anyone with the stomach with it can go back in the archives and see how much John has repeated this; it’s a tiresome tactic that probably came with his Jr. Hannity Keyboard Kommando Kit) to realize you missed it.

That’s John for ya. Details, who needs ’em? Reload and charge, dumber and dumber!

[John]

I saw that. And who says it is not true. I have a sense of humor MNG. And thus wasn’t really concerned about it.

[R C Dean]

Derb does have what must be the euphemism of the decade:

ethnic disaggregation

Why do I suspect this will involve violence, refugees, confiscation/theft, etc.?

[John]

I suspect it will involve all of those things.

[RoboCain]

Ron Paul Hates Black People

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4

[RoboCain]

Rick Perry Blanks Out Buttsex

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po…..ourt-case/

[Kaon Kristen]

Hey – are there any ATC (air traffic control) nerds in da house? I was listening to JFK last night and I swear I heard an ATC and pilot refer to a flight as “extra heavy” instead the usual “heavy” or “super” (for the A380).

WTF does “extra heavy” mean? Or was I still drunk from the two-manhattan dinner I had?

[sloopyinca]

You were listening to JFK’s Air Traffic Control last night?

I thought you said you finally had a boyfriend. This is not the way to ensure he sticks around.

[Kaon Kristen]

Yeah, boyfriend was in B-more dog sitting. I was at Fogo de Chao consuming large quatities of red meat. We ain’t attached at the fricken hip.

[JW]

We ain’t attached at the fricken hip.

Well, there’s your problem. Nudge, nudge.

[Kaon Kristen]

Also, boyfriend spends coutless hours developing role play characters and scenarios, so I’m entitled to a little ATC now & again.

[Brett L]

Do you have a single sister?

[Tonio]

IANAATC (but my father was). I’m guessing extra-heavy means all seats full, cargo hold full and carrying a full load of fuel.

[J_L_B]

Ron Paul says Obama’s drone attacks provide less due process for terrorism suspects than Nazi war criminals received after World War II.

In politics, arguments are often won based on perception. This is a situation where being perceived as defending those poor terrorists might hurt Ron Paul.

I love Ron Paul because he’s not the usual politician, concurrently, the price of being different is making these types of campaign mistakes a regular politician would not.

[Old Mexican]

Ron Paul says Obama’s drone attacks provide less due process for terrorism suspects than Nazi war criminals received after World War II.

Considering the effects of the actrions of these war criminals, it was evident for many the extension of their crimes. Instead, we only have the Obama administration to trust when it says that the people being bombed by robots are “terrorists.”

Paul is spot on in his criticism. The bloodthirsty hawks are totally wrong when arguing that Paul is comparing two different things. No, you assholes: YOU are committing a special pleading fallacy: “These are different because they’re terrorists.”

[John]

No. The problem is that Paul wouldn’t be happy with the Nuremberg trials either. Now if Paul were pushing for that result, that would be one thing. But he is not. So since he would bitch either way, why pay attention to him?

And it would be nice if it would occur to Paul that if him and other peaceniks had been more reasonable about tribunals perhaps two Presidents now wouldn’t have both said fuck it just kill them.

[Old Mexican]

Re: John,

No. The problem is that Paul wouldn’t be happy with the Nuremberg trials either.

Oh? Are you now a mind reader, John?

[John]

I don’t have to read his mind. I just have to know that Paul has repeatedly demanded that terrorists be tried in the federal criminal system and has repeatedly objected to trying terrorists under the UCMJ. And I also know that the Nuremberg trials were nothing like federal court or the UCMJ. Thus, there is every reason to believe he would have gone ape shit over a Nuremberg like tribunal.

[Old Mexican]

Re: John,

I just have to know that Paul has repeatedly demanded that terrorists be tried in the federal criminal system and has repeatedly objected to trying terrorists under the UCMJ.[…]

Yes, the man should be horsewhipped!

Except that the Constitution does not have any provision that indicates common criminals and pirates are to be tried by the military. As Paul sagely pointed out, the US Civilian Courts tried several terrorists including those responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing.

Thus, there is every reason to believe he would have gone ape shit over a Nuremberg like tribunal.
No, John. Non sequitur.

But let’s say that, for the sake of argument, you’re right and Paul would prefer to try war criminals in federal courts. Tell me, honestly, WHAT WOULD’VE THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE? Would the result be any different?

You’re arguing for the wrong thing, John. The point Paul makes is that even the worst criminals have to be tried so people can know the evidence and the extension of their crimes. If a person is guilty, his fate is sealed. I don’t understand then why would a Paul policy be less palatable, unless you like the idea of having a government with supra-constitutional powers to wield around.

[Old Mexican]

Sorry: What would be the …

[John]

Why is that a non sequiter?

1. Paul objects to forms of trial (military tribunals and trial under the UCMJ) that offer more protection to the accused than the rules under Nuremberg.

2. Paul therefore would object to the rules under Nuremberg.

It follows perfectly. And Paul’s points only apply if we find the guy in the US. In those cases sure. But where we find him on the battlefield, it should be international tribunal. But Paul would never agree to that. But what he doesn’t understand is that no President will ever let these guys go. You can’t run a civilian trial when the government won’t ever let the guy go. So instead, they just kill the guy.

[J_L_B]

And it would be nice if it would occur to Paul that if him and other peaceniks had been more reasonable about tribunals perhaps two Presidents now wouldn’t have both said fuck it just kill them.

Before the 2008 election, many people said Obama might try but will definitely fail in closing Guantanamo or trying terror suspects here in the US because politics would stand in his way.

Some advisor must have laid out this scenario for him: if a civilian court acquits terrorist x of crime x, and he then returns to Afghanistan and orchastrates a successful terrorist attack on the US, both yours and the Democratic party’s political prospects for the next two decades could be easily described as: game over.

Note: that advisor apparently hasn’t spoken to Holder either.

[John]

That is the problem. How would you try Bin Ladin in federal court without it looking like a show trial? Would any judge ever let him go?

[J_L_B]

The political ramifications of another attack that even remotely results from even the slightest perception of leniency towards terrorists are staggering. Any politician worth their weight in BS should know this.

[John]

They do know it. And that is why obama changed his tune when he got in office.

[Tonio]

Well, rule of law is tricky like that. You can’t just make up laws as you go along. I’m not an expert, but I don’t believe the Nuremburg trials comported with RoL.

Those Nazi bastards deserved death or imprisonment, though.

I think there’s a general consensus to look the other way (about RoL) on this one.

dunphy, take note of my defense of RoL.

[Pip]

I just like this headline:

Iowa’s evangelicals moving to Santorum…

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/iowas…..27190.html

[Old Mexican]

Former Gary Johnson NH Staffers Grab The Lifeboat First

Gary Johnson’s five former New Hampshire staffers announced Friday that they are now endorsing Ron Paul for president.

“Like many political observers, we see clear and compelling differences between Congressman Ron Paul and the other candidates who will garner significant support in New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary,” the five former staffers said in a statement.

The five staffers include Brinck Slattery, Johnson’s former state coordinator; Matt Simon, his former communications director; Nick Murray, his former Seacoast field coordinator and college coordinator; Andy Hauger, his former Merrimack Valley field coordinator; and Eric Jackman, his former Southwestern New Hampshire field coordinator. All five quit the Johnson team earlier this year due to frustration with the national campaign.

“we must do something! Quick: Balko! Man the guns, fire when ready! Nick, to the ack-acks! Matt, release the torpedoes! This ship will die fighting!”

[Rev. Blue Moon]

You are at troll level, Old Mexican.

[Old Mexican]

Whatever turns you on, Rev.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Troll.

It really doesn’t interest me at all that we agree on 99% of things. You are such a demagogic moron that I would rather have a conversation with Tony.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

You are such a demagogic moron[…]

“Demagogic”?

[cynical]

Typo. He meant to call you Demogorgon.

[Citizen Nothing]

Old Mex once caught a gigantic fish — after 84 days alone in a small skiff in the Gulf Stream. But before he could sail his small boat to shore, the fish, which he had tied to the skiff, was devoured by the Kochtopus. True story.

[Brett L]

All this group needs is Mike Bloomberg to join it to be the re-incarnation of that third-way group from 2010.