Happy 2012: New Year's Day Open Thread


Happy 2012, folks. What's on your minds as we start the new year?


NEXT: The Left-Wing Origins of Newt Gingrich's Attack on the Courts

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

  1. I think I speak for the plurality of us who are largely concerned about the next phase in the career of Matt Damon.

    No, I kid. I kid.

    1. MATT DAMON!

        1. TROGDOR!!!

          1. Homestar Runner references are the perfect way to remember our past while looking forward to a burnination-filled future. Respect.

    2. Open Thread

      Aren’t all threads “open” under anarchy?

      1. Etiquette (such as, for example, the convention of posting under a identifying name) exists in anarchy.

        1. Etiquette exists in anarchy

          How does your comment address mine?


          1. There is no “law” against posting an off-topic comment (in other words, your comment won’t be removed by moderators) in any thread, so they are all technically open, but the etiquette of generally only doing so in specially designated threads has arisen organically. Etiquette exists in the absence of laws, which is anarchy.


            1. Etiquette exists in the absence of laws

              Not here it doesn’t.

      2. Anarchy means never having to say there are rules.

        1. There are no rules here, and standard forum conventions are routinely ignored and broken (e.g., posting links in all the non-Links threads), so…all threads are open under anarchy, and H&R is forum anarchy.

    3. Please read: A thank you
      from Wikimedia Foundation
      Executive Director Sue Gardner
      Read now
      Main PageFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      Jump to: navigation, search
      Welcome to Wikipedia,
      the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
      3,836,985 articles in English
      All portals

      Today’s featured article
      The 2006 Gator Bowl was a college football bowl game between the Louisville Cardinals and the Virginia Tech Hokies in Jacksonville, Florida on January 2, 2006. Virginia Tech was selected as a participant in the 2006 Gator Bowl following a 10?2 regular season; a loss to Florida State in the inaugural ACC Championship Game gave Tech a position in the Gator Bowl instead of the more prestigious Orange Bowl game. Facing the 12th-ranked Hokies were the 15th-ranked Cardinals, who finished 9?2 during the regular season of their first year in the Big East Conference. Louisville led for much of the game, beginning with an 11-yard touchdown pass in the first quarter by backup quarterback Hunter Cantwell. In the second half, however, Virginia Tech’s offense began to have success. Tech earned the only points of the third quarter?a 28-yard field goal from kicker Brandon Pace?to narrow Louisville’s lead to 17?13. In the fourth quarter, the game fully turned in the Hokies’ favor. Though Louisville scored a touchdown early in the quarter, Virginia Tech scored 22 unanswered points in the final 13 minutes of the game to take a 35?24 lead and earn the win. (more…)

      Recently featured: “On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away” ? Typhoon Tip ? Charles Stewart

      Archive ? By email ? More featured articles…
      Did you know…
      From Wikipedia’s newest content:

      … that the Lagan Canal (pictured) was once one of the most successful canals in Ireland but closed in the 1950s after succumbing to competition from road and rail transport?
      … that much of the United States Bill of Rights is devoted to criminal procedure?
      … that in 1884, Louisville Colonels Opening Day starting pitcher Guy Hecker went on to win 52 games, the third-highest total in Major League Baseball history?
      … that the third Sochatchover Rebbe supervised the education of several hundred yeshiva students in the Warsaw Ghetto?
      … that the Ypsilanti Heritage Festival includes a spoof of the Woodward Dream Cruise called the “Nightmare Cruise”?
      … that Viola Thompson, a left-handed pitcher in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League in the 1940s and a consultant for the 1992 film A League of Their Own, turns 90 years old today?

      Archive ? Start a new article ? Nominate an article
      In the news

      Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Morocco, Pakistan, and Togo join the UN Security Council as non-permanent members.
      Scores of people are killed and 20,000 more displaced by inter-tribal fighting in Pibor, South Sudan, despite the presence of UN peacekeepers.
      The People’s National Party, led by Portia Simpson-Miller (pictured), wins a majority in the Jamaican general election.
      Samoa and Tokelau switch to the western side of the International Date Line, skipping 30 December entirely.
      Kim Jong-un is declared the new supreme leader of North Korea.
      The first stage of China’s Compass satellite navigation system becomes operational, covering the China region.
      Wikinews ? Recent deaths ? More current events…
      On this day…
      January 2: Feast Day of Gregory of Nazianzus (Roman Catholic Church)

      366 ? The Alamanni, an alliance of west Germanic tribes, crossed the frozen Rhine in large numbers to invade the Roman Empire.
      1920 ? Under the leadership of U.S. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer (pictured), Department of Justice agents launched a series of raids against radical leftists and anarchists across 30 cities in 23 states.
      1941 ? Second World War: Llandaff Cathedral in Cardiff, Wales, was severely damaged by German bombing during the Cardiff Blitz.
      1971 ? At Ibrox Park in Glasgow, Scotland, 66 people were killed in a stampede during an Old Firm football match.
      2004 ? The Stardust space probe flew by the comet Wild 2 and collected particle samples from its coma, which were later returned to Earth.
      More anniversaries: January 1 ? January 2 ? January 3

      Archive ? By email ? List of historical anniversaries
      It is now January 2, 2012 (UTC) ? Refresh this page

      Today’s featured list
      The Interstate Highways in Texas cover 3,233.4 miles (5,203.7 km) in the state. The freeways are maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) as the state agency responsible for all state highways, including the Interstate Highways in Texas. There are ten primary routes, six auxiliary routes and two branches of Interstate 35 (I-35) as it splits into eastern and western branches near Fort Worth and Dallas. The Interstate Highway with the longest segment in Texas is I-10 (interchange with I-45 pictured) at 878.6 miles (1,414.0 km), making it also the longest continuous untolled freeway under a single authority in North America; the shortest in the state is I-110 at 0.9 miles (1.4 km). The construction of the Interstate Highway System in Texas actually began well before these routes were designated as such. Part of the Gulf Freeway between Galveston and Houston was opened in 1951, eight years before it was designated I-45. The opening of a short section of I-27 in 1992 completed the system. Planning is ongoing for a proposed extension of I-69 southward from its current terminus in Indiana through Texas to the United States?Mexico border, the first segment of which was added in December 2011. (more…)

      Recently featured: UK Singles Chart Christmas number ones ? Chicago Bulls seasons ? Valkyrie names
      Archive ? More featured lists…

      Today’s featured picture
      Two flesh-flies (Sarcophaga ruficornis species pictured) mating. The life cycle of the saprophagic flesh-fly larvae has been well researched and is very predictable. Different species prefer bodies in different states of decomposition, which allows forensic entomologists to extrapolate the time of death.

      Photo: Muhammad Mahdi Karim
      Recently featured: Cloud cover of the Earth ? Times Square at night ? Iron chips and cube

      Archive ? More featured pictures…

      Other areas of WikipediaCommunity portal ? Bulletin board, projects, resources and activities covering a wide range of Wikipedia areas.
      Help desk ? Ask questions about using Wikipedia.
      Local embassy ? For Wikipedia-related communication in languages other than English.
      Reference desk ? Serving as virtual librarians, Wikipedia volunteers tackle your questions on a wide range of subjects.
      Site news ? Announcements, updates, articles and press releases on Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation.
      Village pump ? For discussions about Wikipedia itself, including areas for technical issues and policies.
      Wikipedia’s sister projectsWikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other projects:

      Free media repository Wikiquote
      Collection of quotations Wikiversity
      Free learning materials and activities
      Free textbooks and manuals Wikisource
      Free-content library Wiktionary
      Dictionary and thesaurus
      Free-content news Wikispecies
      Directory of species Meta-Wiki
      Wikimedia project coordination

      Wikipedia languagesThis Wikipedia is written in English. Started in 2001 (2001), it currently contains 3,836,985 articles. Many other Wikipedias are available; some of the largest are listed below.

      More than 700,000 articles: Deutsch ? Espa?ol ? Fran?ais ? Italiano ? Nederlands ? ??? ? Polski ? Portugu?s ? ???????
      More than 150,000 articles: ??????? ? Bahasa Indonesia ? Catal? ? ?esky ? Dansk ? Esperanto ? ????? ? ??? ? Magyar ? ?Norsk (bokm?l)? ? Rom?n? ? ?????? / Srpski ? Suomi ? Svenska ? Ti?ng Vi?t ? T?rk?e ? ?????????? ? ??
      More than 50,000 articles: Bahasa Melayu ? ????????? ? Eesti ? ???????? ? Simple English ? Euskara ? Galego ? ????? ? Hrvatski ? Lietuvi? ? ?Norsk (nynorsk)? ? Sloven?ina ? Sloven??ina ? Srpskohrvatski / ?????????????? ? ???
      Complete list of Wikipedias
      Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=464887589”
      Hidden categories: Article Feedback Blacklist
      Personal toolsLog in / create account NamespacesMain Page Discussion VariantsViewsRead View source View history ActionsSearch NavigationMain page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia InteractionHelp About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact Wikipedia ToolboxWhat links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Permanent link Cite this page Print/exportCreate a bookDownload as PDFPrintable versionLanguagesSimple English ??????? Bahasa Indonesia Bahasa Melayu ????????? Catal? ?esky Dansk Deutsch Eesti ???????? Espa?ol Esperanto Euskara ????? Fran?ais Galego ??? ????? Hrvatski Italiano Lietuvi? Magyar Nederlands ??? ?Norsk (bokm?l)? ?Norsk (nynorsk)? Polski Portugu?s Rom?n? ??????? Sloven?ina Sloven??ina ?????? / Srpski Srpskohrvatski / ?????????????? Suomi Svenska ??? Ti?ng Vi?t T?rk?e ?????????? ?? Complete listThis page was last modified on 9 December 2011 at 03:08.

      Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details.
      Wikipedia? is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

      Contact us
      Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Mobile view

    1. The multi-paragraph dismantling of the Obama presidency in the middle of that was awesome. Perfect for all of the back-patting Obama supporters in your life.

      1. That article was awesome, especially the part where he came * this close * to encouraging Democrats to vote in the primary for Ron Paul:

        But if you don’t believe those things, then you’re going to be searching for ways to change mainstream political discourse and to disrupt the bipartisan consensus which shields these policies from all debate, let alone challenge. As imperfect a vehicle as it is, Ron Paul’s candidacy ? his success within a Republican primary even as he unapologetically challenges these orthodoxies ? is one of the few games in town for achieving any of that

        1. Ron Paul’s (essentially meaningless as president) pro-life stance would give progressives all the excuse they need to shun Ron Paul and pull the lever for more of what we’ve been getting from 1600 PA Ave.

          1. Suicidal demographic policies, suicidal economic policies. Pretty much sums up today’s Left.

            1. Addicted to their welfare.

      2. The take-down is epic.

        Too bad the vast majority of those who read Greenwald, progressives who visit Salon, the entire piece is for naught.

    2. Excellent article, but Greenwald cops out by implying he would still vote for BO because of Paul’s positions on a bunch of issues he would have no chance of changing (SS, Medicare, abortion) and the newsletters which, while definitely a concern, certainly cannot outweigh BO’s horrible policies.

      I’m glad Mr Greenwald thinks it’s good that RP is causing the foreign policy/secrecy/drug war issues to be discussed; but if he and other progressive luminaries are this quick to remind everyone that they’re not going to, and their readers shouldn’t, actually let them influence their vote, then it’s all just a masturbatory exercise.

      BO doesn’t give two shits about discussion. He cares about votes.

    1. I question that study because it claims that women who don’t drink at all were still reporting having sex.

      And that can’t be right.

      1. You’re forgetting chloroform, silly.


      2. I question that study because it claims that women who don’t drink at all were still reporting having sex.

        And that can’t be right.

        You’re projecting, Fluffy. Just because no woman will ever, under any circumstances, have sex with you unless she is blotto drunk enough to not care about her upcoming shame and remorse the next morning for degrading herself that way, does not mean that those women are representative of the 99.999999% of women who adamantly refuse to have sex with you.

        I mean that in the nicest possible way, of course. =)

    2. Better sex… with men? Do Jezebelers HAVE sex with men?

      1. Reread the article. It very carefully avoids mentioning even once the gender of the sexual partners of women.

        1. I drank A Lot last night. Feminists make me want to puke, and I’ve had to fight the urge to puke after my New Years’ Jager Binge as it is.

          1. Oh, I’m sure some of them DO have sex with men… in the “pegging” sense.

            1. My wife likes role-reversal sex.

              1. She has to lick it to find out what’s in it.

              2. When she lets you pretend to be the man?

      2. Do Jezebelers HAVE sex with men?

        Sometimes. But if our consent isn’t enthusiastic enough, it’s rape. For example, I’ve had a long day at work, and I’m tired, and my husband says, “Wanna have sex?”, and I decline. Then, a few minutes, later, he says, “Are you sure?”, and I decide to relent because it’s been a while and he’d leave me alone for the rest of the night if I do him, then it’s rape. I’ve been raped thousands of times.

        Most of us choose to fuck only beta-males, too. It’s harder to feel turned on when he asks permission to do everything, but they’re so easy to bully.

        PS: if you read this, you are a rapist.

        1. Dammit! No spoiler alert?!

          1. Damn, that’s a convincing spoof.

    1. And just about everyone in that excellent post landed squarely on his feet and is hip deep in gravy.

      If the Occutards got one thing right, it’s the incestuous relationship of Wall Street and the Central State. Of course, their solution is to make the relationship stronger by pumping up said State.

      1. It is almost like giving Viagra to STEVE SMITH.

  2. I’d ha e to say my primary concern this year is the multi-pronged, not-so-covert attempts by the would-be aristocracy in Washington to strip us of Constitutional protection. Between the NDAA, SOPA and ProtectIP, the expansion of TSA activity beyond airports, and militarization of the police…it’s beginning to look a lot like the early 1930s here in the USA.

    I think I need more acronyms in this comment.

  3. Terry Branstad is a preening imbecilic hick.

  4. Nervous about the path of liberty… I have a feeling many libertarians are like Leia and believe Ron Paul is Obi Wan. Let’s hope he not our only hope

    1. Darn tootin’. “l”ibertarian candidates should emphasize that they want to move our country in that direction, not quibble over whether a particular stance agrees with Rothbard or complain endlessly about how unconstitutional everything under the sun is. You get into office by talking about what voters care about, ie their daily lives.

      1. Better look out, Ron Paul! Your old buddies at Lew Rockwell’s site agree that if you ever get popular, the government might give you cancer, just like they did to Hugo Chavez!

        1. I’m starting to wonder now. What is it, like four South American leaders with cancer now? Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, Argentina, am I forgetting anyone?

    2. If Ron Paul retires from being the perennial libertarian candidate before he turns into another Lyndon LaRouche in temperment or Alan Cranston in vitality, that’s good. It’s up to libertarians to not drop the ball after that happens or go back to LP hell.

      1. Hopefully Rand Paul will continue his father’s legacy.

      2. On a serious note, the problem is with certain cabal down in Auburn who place Ron Paul upon a quasi-religous pedestal, who will viciously attack any deviation from the Avatar’s brand of libertarianism. To them Ron Paul is not a presidential candidate, but a litmus test they can use to expel people from their impolite libertarian society.

    3. It’s true. If our hope is in the custody of a computer hacker and a gay robot, we’re doomed.

  5. During 2012 I have to ask myself why did I stop using Delicious bookmarking?

  6. I’m just waiting for everything to blow up and fall down. It’s increasingly clear nothing else can possibly come from any of the policies our fool leaders and–more importantly–the fool voters who elected them have pursued. The upside to all this is that those fool voters may finally wise up enough to lose all faith in their government and stop worshiping it.

  7. Doctor Paul did an admirable job of jerking good and hard on Tapper(?)’s leash when he tried to smear him with the Donderooooooooooooooooo bullshit.

    1. Where? When?

  8. I am extremely upset with people like Jake Tapper, who seems a likable guy, but he is either totally cluelss about Ron Paul’s foreign policy views or he is choosing to ignore the truth.

    Why is Ron Paul being called a 9/11 Truther?

    Why do people in Washington not know that lots of people question U.S. foreign policy toward Israel, and whether it’s actually been a good thing for OUR country?

    1. Why is Ron Paul taking truthers seriously? Winning candidates avoid the fringe for a reason: voters who aren’t fools outnumber the fringe, and they don’t mix.

      1. What other candidates do you know that go out of their way to lose supporters?

        1. To be truly honest, I’m not sure how the other candidates have any supporters at all, or how they don’t lose them in droves every time one of them opens his mouth.

          1. Most people are one issuers. Who cares about wall street when the gays are getting married or who cares about personal freedom when Iran is looking scary. Fear and hatred continues it’s winning streak in the American electorate, moderated only slightly as long as people feel they can absolve themselves of the personal responsibility of having voted for misery.

            1. They’re one issuers until a guy, like Ron Paul, is actually in agreement with that issue, then they switch issues.

              Because people don’t care about issues, but their Team.

      2. How is Ron Paul taking truthers seriously? He totally denounced the idea today on ABC.

        1. Failing to disavow == supporting

          particularly when you’re universally disliked by the elites.

          1. And, according to those same elites:

            disavowing the newsletters == supporting

            1. Because disavowing is a tacit admission that at one time you avowed them.

            2. The newsletters are a different story because he let his name be used on them with no other by-lines.

              If your car is seen picking up bank robbers and speeding away from the scene of the crime, you better be forthcoming with details of who was using your car at the time or you’re going to jail.

              1. Not if you were busy delivering babies at the time…

                Since he’s obviously not racist — which would be the only substantive accusation one could misconstrue from the newsletters — it’s a non-issue.

      3. As far as I can tell, about 95% of all voters are on the fringe. I see little sanity out there.

        1. Moreover, ~50% are “undecided”. WTF are they waiting for?

          1. They’re waiting on a frontrunner to establish himself so they can say they support the winner.

            1. OK, then I establish myself as the frontrunner.

              We are so screwed.

              1. It’s not that easy, Binky. You must be annointed with oil by not only FoxNews, but by Rasmussen and Gallup as well.

                1. “Annointed with oil”? OIL?!

                  ** invokes massive volcano **

    2. I thought Paul did well. Tapper lingered a bit too long on the newsletters and Paul was noticeably uncomfortable. But he makes a great point with his opposition to the drug war.

      I also noticed that after Tapper ended the interview by wishing Paul a Happy New Year that Paul did not wish him the same. Ha!

      1. Paul wants to win, that will make Tapper’s year sad, so he cant wish it to him honestly.

    3. Link? Whaddimiss?

      1. Doesn’t appear that the video is up yet.

        1. Video is at the end of that article. Wonder why they didn’t put it on the The Week front page.

    4. Link? Whaddimiss?

    1. Maybe he’s just trying to point out how absurd our fear of Iran is in comparison to the USSR? He’s doing a wonderful job of it.

      1. He’s not helping, anyway. Iran is a danger, though.

        1. Danger to whom? It’s a regional problem. If a certain country who shall remain nameless thinks their existance is threatened by Iranian nukes then they have the means (army, navy, airforce, nukes) to deal with it themselves.

          1. Danger to who? Seriously? Iran has been killing Americans for decades now. Whether that’s ‘regionally’ or not is irrelevant.

            1. Wait, what?

            2. The who killed the what now?

              Any chance you could support this claim?

            3. If China invaded Canada and Mexico and proceeded to start rattling their sabers at the US, I hope you’d be OK with sending some special forces dudes across our borders to kill as many of their occupation force as possible.

              1. Oh those situations are completely analogous?

                1. Analogous != identical

                  Point out a flaw in the analogy if you see one.

                  1. The flaw is that America is a (basically) free country and a benevolent power while China is a totalitarian state. Your comparison is incredibly disturbing as it seems to justify the murder of US soldiers by Qods-trained forces.

                    1. A benevolent power? Dude, occasionally we fuck up and do something nice – but that hardly constitutes benevolence writ large.

        2. Is that pee I smell in your pants?

        3. They sure are a danger what with their advanced proto-space program building viable, reliable, and accurate rockets able to break orbit and land warheads in another hemisphere, their scores of long range bombers and advanced fighter support able to run 36 hour sorties to the other side of the world and their vast and powerful carrier groups able to challenge and best the US 5th and 6th fleets on the high seas then transport to another hemisphere an army large, powerful and advanced enough to invade North America.

          1. I assume the Chef is satiring there…

          2. Ummm, don’t forget that Iran sponsors Hezbollah, which is all over the place, including running used car dealerships in the US. They don’t need missiles or carrier groups to deliver nukes, and they’re not rational actors, either.

            1. Thank you sweet sweet Papaya. Warning: you will now and forever be branded a fear-mongering imperialist baby-eater at HnR.

              1. Right, because after spending a decade or more, billions of dollars, running huge diplomatic and security risks, exposing military officers and scientists to assassination, etc., to develop a nuclear program, the Iranians are just going to hand one of their limited stockpile of resulting weapons to some asshole they meet in a bar.

                You realize this is like a leftist laying awake at night in 1983 worried that Reagan would give a nuke to the Contras, right?

                “Hey, Contras! You guys want a nuke? We got lots!”

                1. You think the probabilities for both situations are the same? A US president giving away nukes or some element of the Iranian regime doing the same are equally as likely?

                2. Not the same thing at all. The Iranians might not “give” it to Hezbollah, just use Hezbollah connections while they sent Quds Force escorts along with the bomb. You, and many others, grant the Iranian regime a degree of rationality I don’t think they deserve. Using Hezbollah to smuggle an Iranian nuke into the US would be suicidal and make just as must strategic sense as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor… yet that happened.

            2. And they’ve used those car dealerships (that they’ve owned for decades, BTW) to do what, exactly? Is their goal to destroy America gradually by getting people with poor credit to pay 21% interest rates on 8 year old BMW 7-series’s?

              1. people with poor credit to pay 21% interest rates on 8 year old BMW 7-series’s?

                I’m callin’ RACISM

                1. If he’d said Cadillacs, that would have been racism. 7-series Beemers would be more along the line of aging former hipsters who got married and have a crappy, low-paying job and are settling down in the seedy boho edges of suburbia.

                  Or something.

              2. Laundering $300 million, plus whatever we don’t know about.

                1. $300 million? Holy shit, that’s like 60% of the money the DoE wasted on Solyndra…and a drop in the bucket what the CIA launders in drug sales annually.

                  And I look at both of them as a bigger threat to my way of life than Hezbollah.

                  1. Except that neither the DoE nor the CIA wants to create a worldwide totalitarian Islamic state through suicidal actions.

                    1. Except that neither the DoE nor the CIA wants to create a worldwide totalitarian Islamic state through suicidal actions.

                      You’re right, of course, that they don’t want to create a totalitarian Islamic state. As for the rest, they’re more into murder than suicide, so you got me there as well.

                    2. I have a better shot at convincing Scarlett Johansson to let me lick peanut butter out of her navel than Iran has at creating a worlwide Islamic theocracy.

                    3. It doesn’t matter whether they have a chance of getting what they want, only that they think they should try. Tojo never had a good chance of defeating the US, but caused a lot of grief anyway.

                    4. So why bother mentioning it?

                      It’s a red herring.

                    5. create a worldwide totalitarian Islamic state through suicidal actions

                      We must kill ourselves into supreme power!

            3. Iran sponsors Hezbollah, which is all over the place, including running used car dealerships in the US.

              When you buy the rustproofing, you ride with Bin Laden.

              They don’t need missiles or carrier groups to deliver nukes, and they’re not rational actors, either.

              If that’s so, why haven’t they delivered any of the conventional weapons or dirty bombs that they already have access to?

              1. They have done done bombings in Buenos Aires and all over in the Middle East, but for the US, I suppose they are biding their time.

                1. So your claim of Iran’s dangerousness is completely unfalsifiable, as usual.

                  1. We’ve already verified it. An Islamic state is unattainable for Iran but they can kill lots of people and violate freedom of speech (Satanic Verses) on the way.

                    The fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran was allowed to exist at all after the Satanic Verses fatwa is a black mark on western civilization.

                    1. We need to re-form the Lincoln Brigade for Cyto and the Iranian Pantswetters. [And yes, that would be a good band name.]

                  2. It’s certainly unfalsifiable by claiming it would be illogical for them to do something, because they’re religious fanatics who don’t act logically. In any case, Iran’s dangerousness is well-established. Your argument seems to be: “Sure, they support terror organizations who have committed many terror attacks, and they hate the US and attack our troops in Iraq, but they haven’t attacked the US on our own soil yet, so why worry?”

                    1. and they hate the US and attack our troops in Iraq,

                      And explain to me how we would not hate the Russians and attack them if they were running around in Canada and constantly telling the world that they would attack us if we didn’t do what we were told.

                      Seriously, do you not see their viewpoint here?

                    2. And for that matter, how many times has Iran meddled in the business of other nations, installed puppet regimes and generally tried to nation-build around the world? And while we may view what we are doing as “spreading democracy,” millions of dead bodies in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and yes, Iran, would probably disagree most vehemently…if they weren’t dead as a consequence of our actions.

    2. He’s echoing Bachmann and Huntsman. Those to are desperate to sink Paul and ingratiate themselves to Romney.

      1. those two, rather

        1. leave me out of this!!

      2. A two-man race against Ron Paul would be Romney’s wet dream. There is literally no chance of RP getting more than 30% support in a GOP primary.

        1. What I’m saying is, sinking Ron Paul at this point would be seriously bad for Romney.

          1. Romney is unlikely to get much more than 30% to 40% of the vote in a head to head matchup with the anyone-but-Romney faction, so he needs to keep 2 or more opponents in the running well into the primary season.

        2. A two man race is the only way another GOP candidate can beat Romney. Romney and his supporters want to keep the “not Mitt” vote split.

          1. The anti-Paul vote is even bigger than the anti-Romney vote, unfortunately. Which is why I don’t think it’s possible for it to come down to Paul v. Romney.

            1. Santorum is on the verge of being this primary season’s Huckabee – setting the hearts of the mouth breathing religious zealots all aflutter and then shredding their hopes into subatomic particles.

        3. From what Im seeing the same is also true of Romney.

          What are the other 40% gonna do.

          1. What are you seeing that leads you to believe this?

        4. Ron Paul running against Barack O’Romney. That’s a dream.

          Obama and Mitt barely differ on anything.

          1. Obama and Mitt barely differ on anything.

            One is Mormon and the other is (allegedly) articulate.

            That’s about it.

    3. King Warns GOP: If Paul Wins, ‘Iranian Nuclear Missiles in Cuba’

      King is wrong.

      If Paul is elected Iran will have nukes under every bed in America.

      1. Cuba? Really? Is it 1961 again?

  9. Look at the sites that Japper is linking to on his Twitter page for people to learn about Ron Paul’s foreign policy views.



  10. I agree that Steve King is off his rocker.

    1. I stopped watching less than 2 minutes in after TWICE trying to convince me that North Korea has nukes that they could use against us or give to terrorists at any moment.

      1. Now take your weapons of mass destruction, and get the fuck outta here!

  11. I hope Ron Paul will be outed at a Gay club with Karl Rove.

    1. I’ll be there to report it!

      1. “Ron Paul gets the LGBT and Log Cabin vote.” Thanks, MaxiPad.

        1. “Enough votes to guarantee Paul victory in November.” Thanks MaxiPad.

    2. Wonder why the Perry rumors never made any headlines.

      1. The media is saving those in case he gets traction later.

    3. A real liberal wouldn’t give a shit if someone were gay.

      1. I’ve been telling my son it’s okay to be who he is, but he’s just such a little fighter! “Full of spunk”, as his therapist put it.

        Oddly enough, when he had that bad tummyache, and I had tot take him to the hospital… the ER doctor said the same thing.

      2. I don’t think it is him

    4. I hope Ron Paul will be outed at a Gay club with Karl Rove.

      Your slashfic just gets weirder and weirder.

    5. What a rude, slanderous insult to fling at Ron Paul! He would never associate with the likes of Karl Rove!

    1. Easily updated for the Mayan crisis, I bet. Nimoy’s probably working on it right now.

  12. I’m continually surprised at how blatantly the political left and right display their fear of Ron Paul. This alone should cause people to vote for him.

    1. I think it just might. What was it Tapper said in the This Week interview about Paul’s support. It was something like, “Mr. Paul, you don’t have much support…”

      Paul was all, “Besides the polls? Besides being elected to Congress 10 times?”

      1. it’s true. He was the only republican presidential primary candidate in 2008 that won an election.

    2. That may be my biggest attraction to him – the fact that he pisses off all the right people on both sides.

      People forget how hated Ronald Reagan was by both sides.

  13. Here’s hoping that this is the year the banks start really getting some of those deadbeat assets off their books.

    The federal government doing the same is probably too much to hope for.

    1. What will actually happen is the feds will rob the taxpayers to enrich even more the deadbeat asses.

  14. It was a good year. We saw a libertarian come dangerously close to winning in Iowa. Kinda sucks how Reason provided all the ammo to derail Paul. People are actually leaving Paul for Romney and Santorum. Too bad how their aren’t any good libertarian arguments against those guys.

    1. I forgot to mention,


    2. I think seeing a crotch-tuggin’, war-mongerin’ so-con like Santorum getting elected would be absolutely hilarious. I might have to send him a contribution. It’d almost be worth it to hear the liberals and cosmos screaming like stuck pigs. He might even persuade a few of them to leave for Canada.

      1. It’d be funny until you sober up and realize a fucktard is running the nation. I’ll vote for gridlock before I vote for santorum.

        1. A vote for Santorum is a vote for a mix of lube and fecal matter.

          Seriously, it is.

          1. I’d prefer lube and feces in the oval office to the shitbag who’s there now.

            1. I’d prefer it just be left vacant if those are our two options.

              Ditto for our current crop of Senators and Congresscretins.

              1. Maybe we should take a page from the OWS people. Didn’t they elect a dog as the leader of one of their camps or something?

                1. Commander in Chimp should be a blueprint for government!

                  1. “Raaaaacist!!”

            2. Truly. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, folks. Literally *any* Republican would be better than Obama, because there would be at least some pressure to reduce spending, nominate judges with at least a passing familiarity with the Constitution, etc.

              1. Literally *any* Republican would be better than Obama, because there would be at least some pressure to reduce spending

                Hahahahaha. That was a good one.

                Oh, you were serious? Even funnier then.

                1. Given that Democrat budget hawks are an extinct species, yes, I’m serious. I’m not saying we’d get fiscal sanity any time soon, but any Republican would be better than Obama. Can you name one who wants to spend more than Obama?

                  1. Well, seeing as every GOP candidate except Paul calls reducing increases “spending cuts,” I’d say just about every fucking one of them.

                    1. Those reduced increases are still less than what Obama wants to spend, which is my point.

                    2. I understand, but that is also what makes them unelectable. Anybody who is stupid enough to go along with a dime of increased spending is an abject moron.

                    3. 1) We may not want to go along with increased spending, but we have to.

                      2) What increased spending? Everybody is cutting spending.

                      3) “Moron”? Fuck you!

                  2. Can you name one who wants to spend more than Obama?

                    Willard and sphinctorum.

              2. Any republican? Really? So you rock yourself to sleep every night Obama is in office?

              3. “Any” Republican is pushing it a mite too far, but only a mite.

                Of the current crop of GOP nominee seekers, only Gingrich getting the nomination would make it difficult to vote for the GOP. I might just write in Chef Ramsay if that happens.

              4. Literally *any* Republican would be better than Obama, because there would be at least some pressure to reduce spending, nominate judges with at least a passing familiarity with the Constitution, etc.


                Willard Romney would do all the same crap that Obama has done, except that he’d get pulled to the left by incessant dem and media bitching and there wouldn’t be a unified opposition to thwart his actions.

                1. Willard Romney would do all the same crap that Obama has done

                  This is what we in the logic industry call a “claim”. I don’t see anything we would call “justification” for it.

                2. Why would Romney get pulled to the left more than Obama has (not)? And Romney wouldn’t nominate a Sotomayor to the Court.

            3. If I absolutely HAD to choose between Santorum and Obama, I’d choose Obama hands down. Santorum makes Bush look libertarian. Better to let the whole thing crash and burn and start from scratch.

        2. As if a fucktard hasn’t been running the nation for…. how long?

          At this point I doubt it’s gonna make a damn bit of difference who’s president. Might as well have as much fun as possible.

          1. At the beginning of this clusterfuck of race, Santorum looked absolutely terrible and I was glad to see him crash and burn fast and hard. Now he…actually looks better in comparison to his rivals. We are so fucked.

            1. Nah, Santorum is just having his moment of “maybe he’s the anti-Romney candi … oh, shit, I almost forgot about THAT”-ness, same as all the other GOP rise-and-crash-and-burners.

              1. Do recall that the stuff we don’t like about Santorum is stuff that the GOP base does like. The only things going against him from their POV are his Papism and his lack of electability.

                1. What’s Papism?

                  1. An anti-Catholic slur.

      2. The right has “Anybody But Obama.”

        The left will have “Anybody Butt Santorum?”

        1. Pretty slick.

      3. You do realize, slappy, that Santorum is against incest and bestiality so he might not be the candidate that you want in office.

          1. I’m sorry, slappy.

            I should of realized that a guy that hangs out with A3P has expertise in all matters relating to santorum. I’ll defer to your expertise in these matters from now on.

        1. I think you mean epi.

          1. No, I don’t. I mean slappy.

  15. My main concern for 2012 is how the hell I’m gonna drive home from Vegas today.
    Jesus, my head is killing me because:
    I’m in Vegas.
    The fucking Guns N’ Roses show was pretty fucking badass last light.
    I’m in Vegas.

    I’ll worry about everything else after I see what happens in Iowa, which Ron Paul will still fucking win.

    Damn, I need to go get something to eat.

    1. Just stay in Vegas. Hell of a lot better than CA.

      1. I second that emotion. Just don’t get caught with weed.

    2. Hie thee to the Hash House (inside the Imperial Palace).

    1. Getting laid.

  16. Everyone, grab your number 2 jar and a tight fitting lid and fart in it. Happy Methane Collecting!

  17. It’s lonely at the top.

    Mr. Obama, in general, does not go out of his way to play the glad-handing, ego-stroking presidential role. While he does sometimes offer a ride on Air Force One to a senator or member of Congress, more often than not, he keeps Congress and official Washington at arm’s length, spending his down time with a small ? and shrinking ? inner circle of aides and old friends.


    1. You know who else spent their down time with a small-and shrinking-inner circle of aides and old friends?

      1. Hitler? or Newt?

        1. I was thinking Johnny Knoxville. Get it?

          1. rimshot

            1. Especially since Michelle’s Barack’s iReggie is gone. Sob.

      2. Mother Teresa?

      3. Andre Delambre?

        1. Someone say “Bocephus”?

      4. Elvis, Nicholas II, Jesus, Ronald Reagan.

        1. Yeah, but their last album was awesome!

  18. Ron Paul Had Accurate Conspiracy Theory: CIA Was Tied To Drug Traffickers
    WASHINGTON — According to a former aide, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has long been drawn toward conspiracy theories. Eric Donderooooooooo, who served Paul off and on from 1987 to 2003, wrote recently that the Texas Republican suspected that George W. Bush may have had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and that Franklin Roosevelt knew in advance about Pearl Harbor. Paul’s writings and speeches spotlight a host of other plots, including the “war on Christmas.”

    But just because not all of Paul’s theories are backed by good evidence doesn’t mean none of them are….

    …Earlier this week, I looked into Paul’s claim in the same speech that the war on drugs had racist origins and that the medical community played a role in lobbying for drug prohibitions. That charge was more or less accurate.

    So is Paul’s claim about the CIA and drug trafficking, a connection I explore in the book “This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America.” (An excerpt of the chapter on the CIA appeared in The Root.) The following is drawn from my book.

    Since at least the 1940s, the American government has organized and supported insurgent armies for the purpose of overthrowing some presumably hostile foreign regime. In Italy, the United States helped pit the Corsican and Sicilian mobs against the Fascists and then the Communists. In China, it aided Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang in its struggle against Mao Zedong’s communist forces. In Afghanistan, it once backed the mujahedeen in their fight against the Soviet Union and today backs warlords in opposition to the mujahedeen.

    All of these and other U.S.-supported groups profited, or still profit, heavily from the drug trade. One of the principal arguments made by the Drug Enforcement Administration in support of the global drug war is that the illegal drug trade funds violent, stateless organizations. The DEA refers specifically to al Qaeda and the Taliban, but the same method of fundraising has long been used by other violent, stateless actors whom the United States befriended….

  19. Today’s lesson in “working backward from your conclusions:

    But come January 1, when a light-bulb law setting new efficiency standards is set to take effect, it’s out with those old incandescents and in with the new. My great grandfather’s 100-watt incandescent will be replaced with new energy-efficient versions, including CFLs, LEDs, and — yes — new and improved incandescent bulbs. When better lighting is fully implemented throughout our country, we’ll be saving $13 billion a year in electricity costs and we’ll eliminate the need for 30 large power plants, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group.


    Edison would have spurned the recent sleight of hand by Congress that leaves the new lighting standard — under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007– on the books but takes away its funding for nine months. How can inventor-entrepreneurs like Edison make a profit if every time they try to make a technological advance some nut in Congress pulls the rug out from under the them and their breakthroughs? And if investors are going to put their bets on more efficient technology, they have to know that a congressional holiday on common sense will not come along to undercut demand for their product.

    Yes, of course.

    Nobody works on new inventions without a government-guaranteed return on their investments! That would be crazy.

    1. I have it on good authority from Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Sam Walton and others that this is so.

      1. What did Sam Walton invent?

        1. A form of retailing.

        2. Modern inventory management. Of course aided by cheap Chinese labor.

    2. The most predominant alternative to the incandescent bulb (CFL) has been around for over 20 years with zero govt intervention in the light bulb market during that time, so the author’s “logic” that govt support is needed for innovation doesn’t really apply there. It’s likely LED lighting would have found a significant market as well even without the incandescent ban.

      1. Stage lighting. LEDs are the new thing.

        1. Good point. I imagine that’s because of the lack of heat output, is that correct?

          1. Lack of mercury, you can turn it on and off without damaging the average life, richer whites (wider spectrum), better power consumption.

          2. I’m not a lighting guy, but cooler is nice, also they are smaller and lighter, which is an advantage both when you’re hanging it from something, and when moving it from show to show each night. I think there are fancy things you can do with color changing and making odd-shaped lights, like flat strips, but not really my area of expertise. Also I would guess that LEDs won’t be completely replacing basic par cans until they’re both cheaper and more reliable, and I’m not sure they’re bright enough to use for spotlights.

    3. We will make CFLs so cheap that only the rich will use incandescents.

      Or we could just regulate them out of existence.

      1. More like they would make the incandescents so expensive…

  20. “TOUCHDOWN DETROIT LIONS!” Dan Miller, Lions announcer via the Siriuses.

    An auspicious start to the new year!

    1. They’re gonna beat the Green Bay Central High School Little Packers?

      This sitting of entire sets of skill players is bullshit for those of us that take gambling seriously.

      1. If they started Rodgers I gurantee that dirty fuck Suh would try to rip his head off. Lions going to get bounced in the first round by Dallas.

        1. …by Dallas.

          Not if coaching has anything to do with it.

        2. Right now it’s looking as if they might go to New Orleans in the first round.

  21. But come January 1, when a light-bulb law setting new efficiency standards is set to take effect,

    I have a lifetime supply of 100W incandescent bulbs. Fuck you, Obama.

    1. ** knock, knock **

  22. California law prohibiting the sell of alcohol at self-service checkout lanes goes into effect. Certainly a pain for people that now have to wait in line behing the family with two shopping carts filled with groceries when they’re just buying a case of beer.

    1. I don’t get this stupid law. I live in California, and every time I go through a self-checkout lane, a person checks my ID when I buy booze.

      Oh, now I get it. It’s because California is full of fucktards.

      1. One more reason to stay in Vegas.

      2. I know, that’s partially my job at the supermarket I work part-time at. What’s more is that the store I work at is right next to a college campus and from 8 o’clock onwards all we sell is liquor.

        But it’s for the children, and by that I mean all the underage college students that are going to drink anyway and not because their overage friends bought the alcohol through self-checkout.

  23. Since this is open thread thought I’d repost this from the Gingrich-TR thread where it didn’t really fit…

    Today is actually Gary Johnson’s Birthday. It’s the holiday season and you might have got some money over the holidays and were wondering about doing some good with it. Donating to the candidacy of a two-time statewide election winning guy who wants unequivocally to end the WOD, pull back from all non-defensive wars and honestly cut the federal budget across the board might be something worth considering. If you’re so inclined, here’s his site:


    1. I do like your consistency, MiNGe. You’ve stayed on the Gary Johnson bandwagon since Day 1, and are still riding it even after his switch to the LP. Kudos.

      1. Though I like Ron Paul, if it were Johnson in his stead, things would be much better for libertarians because he doesn’t have any of the political baggage (relevant or not).

        That is why I think Rand Paul is ACTUALLY the Great Libertarian Hope and not daddy Paul.

        1. Libertarians should support Ron Paul as long as he’s in the GOP primaries and if he were to be the nominee. If he does not win, or if one of his handful of areas where he might break from libertarianism makes him someone you can’t support, then they should support Johnson. It would be nice if in 2016 or 2020 Rand would run.

          Liberals should give Johnson a serious look. Polls show support for ending the WOD, cutting back on the excesses of the WOT, and ending wars has significant support among liberals, but as you can see Dem pols are not giving any satisfaction in that area. Conservatives who prioritize cutting spending should also look at Johnson as he has a proven track record of doing that in NM.

          And thanks for the kind words sloop.

          1. Agreed on all accounts. I’ll support Paul until he’s no longer in the race (if that is the case). Then I’ll move on to Johnson. There’s no fucking way that I vote for any other GOP candidate.

  24. Take heart Americans, you’re not alone in being cowardly pants wetters, the Austrians are right there with you.

    “On their way to their “Sinfonietta Feuerhaus” orchestra practice, clarinettist Caroline and trumpeter Matthias discovered cables and fuses in a dustbin. “We wanted to throw something away and it really frightened us,” explained 26-year-old Caroline.

    Police reacted immediately, raising the bomb-alarm and clearing Keinergasse before specialist explosive teams arrived. The experts cautiously approached the bin with a sniffer dog who discovered the “dynamite sticks”.

    1. As a EE, this scares the crap out of me. I’m just waiting for the day when people look in the back of car and see circuit boards, fuses, wire, power supplies, etc.

      “Dynamite sticks?” really? People have been watching too many Road Runner cartoons.

    2. I used to throw dead fuses, pretending they were pipebombs when I was a little kid. Of course, I was 7 and knew the difference.

  25. I think one thing we can all come together today for is hoping the Bills beat the Patriots.

  26. I hate the Bills, but not as much as I hate Tom Brady.

  27. ????????

    The challenge is that access to college has become more limited. At a time when degrees are so important to income potential, they are going increasingly to privileged and affluent young people. As the 2010 book “Rewarding Strivers” points out, among those who scored in the highest quartile of a national standardized test, those from affluent families were twice as likely to attend college as those from poorer families.

    Is it just my imagination, or is this complete and utter bullshit?

    1. Why would you take anything printed at CNN.com seriously. They’re like a more mainstream version of Cracked.

    2. He’s writing about Russia, right? Or England? Somewhere where they haven’t added a million seats for college in the last 25 years? In Tallahassee, if the community college starts offering 4 year degrees like the 8 or 10 in the state pilot program we would have 3 public and 2 private schools (not counting U of Phoenix) offering 4 year degrees. Throughput north of 20k/year.

  28. Get rid of threaded comments!

    That is all.

    1. What is ^^this^^ in response to?

      1. exactly. i can never read a damn thing on this site. its why i never post anything anymore.

        good to see you’re still around btw

  29. Hoping the Occupy movement gets off to a rousing start for 2012 with thousands of protectors showing up for the Rose Parade this morning.

    1. Are they taking time away from their busy arson schedule?

    2. Ha. Occupy Empty Colorado Boulevard! We are 99% (Retarded)!

      1. Occupiers get more violent. Show their true colors.

        1. We can give some pointers to you Occupiers…

    3. Rose Parade is tomorrow.

      1. Hint about my comment: I knew that.

  30. What job is more dangerous, Texans QB or Lindsey Lohan’s ob-gyn?

    1. Good Lord. Is Yates hurt now?

      Is it Jake Delhomme time?

      1. Ball sack and forced fumble for the Titans leads to a TD.*

        *Always wanted to say that.

        1. I do like Kubiak going all or nothing on the final score. Fuckit. Win or go home. I also hope he doesn’t do this in the playoffs.

  31. So I’m taking the Cowboys to beat the Giants. Don’t understand why Jerry Jones is sticking with Garrett since Garrett has repeatedly proven his incompetence and utter inability to manage what should be a pretty good football team. Get Bill Cowher in there.

    And I like the Broncos to win and think Tebow will play a good enough game to win. The NFL wants a Tim Tebow playoff run.

    1. You’re dreaming. Eli isn’t his brother, but there’s no way the Cowboys beat Eli and the Giants.

      And I hope the Broncos lose, with prejudice.

      1. Oh, I want the Broncos to win, just to keep the Raiders out of the playoffs. Because if there’s anything worse than Tebowmania, it’s the way Raiders fans act on a daily basis…with their gold chains outside of turtlenecks with Raiders charms, their willingness to fight with anyone when the Raiders lose, and their persistent hanging-on to glory days long gone.

        Besides, that way the Broncos can get thumped by either the Steelers or Ravens in the Wild Card round.

      2. The Cowboys should have at least 3 more wins, and by that I mean I can count three games with which they had no business losing: the two games where they lost on a missed field goal after icing the kicker(one of which was against the Giants) and a game against the Patriots where they lost on a last second drive when the Patriots should never have had enough time to do so if Garrett had managed the clock properly.

        I think they are due for a game where they play well and nothing goes bizarrley wrong at the last second to screw it up.

        1. Look, all that matters is that either the Packers or the Saints will be in the Superbowl, and whichever one of them is there will win. Whether they crush the Broncos, the Patriots, or the Raiders, I don’t care.

          Personally, I’m for the Saints at this point, but I don’t really care that much.

          1. If the Steelers somehow manage to get the #1 seed in the AFC, they will be give either of those teams all they want. And don’t discount the 49ers chances to win the NFC. They are better suited to beat the Packers or Saints than anybody out there.

            But I’m making my pick now: Steelers vs Saints in the Super Bowl.

            1. I believe NE has the #1 seed locked up, no?

              1. Never mind, forgot about the Steelers beating them earlier.

            2. Your hatred of the Patriots blinds you. Feel the hate. Let it flow through you, young sloopwalker. Strike Tom Brady down. He will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

              1. Your combining of the Obi-Wan quotes with Palpatine’s is both confusing and mildly arousing.

                1. Your erection serves you well. Bury your arousal deep down, sloopy. Your choad does you credit, but it could be made to serve the Patriots.

                  1. That’s not true. That’s unpossible!

            3. Or we could have a Titans-Lions SB to kill the ratings.

              1. A Titans-Lions SB would be a ratings bonanza…for The Simpsons and Family Guy.

          2. *nods in approval at Epi’s comment*

          3. I’ve always been a Packer fan, and the way Payton is still having Brees throw in an attempt to get him the MVP makes me root against the Saints even more.

    2. I don’t follow football..

      …but I’m not gay. (NTTAWWT)

  32. My prediction: get ready for a geopolitical shitstorm 2012. Egypt will begin to go hungry and Islamist, Syria will continue to blow up, Hezbollah and Hamas feel threatened and desperate, Iran is on the brink of doing something stupid, Israel doesn’t want Iran to have nukes, China’s bubble is popping and has massive amounts of civil unrest, North Korea continues to go hungry while increasingly realizing their leaders are lying fools, Europe is going bankrupt, and various bad guys await their chance to pounce. Plus all our domestic troubles.

    It’s all a bunch of quivering dominoes waiting to topple.

    1. Plus Europe is increasingly unstable. Who knows what that continent will turn to in desperation I just don’t think it will be pretty. Hungary’s Fidesz party is just the beginning methinks.

      1. Indeed. The bankruptcy will lead to instability. Too many people on the public teat, and they won’t want to have their benefits reduced.

      2. The truly sad thing about the EU (and the US to a lesser extent) is that their societies and institutions are fundamentally stable and conducive to prosperity, if only they’d take their medicine. We’re not talking Afghanistan or Zimbabwe here.

        Unfortunately the medicine would be especially vomitous to banking, labor, and government elites, so it’s contraindicated until it’s too late.

        1. It’s also contrary to what’s taught in (nearly all) schools and what the mainstream media endlessly repeats, so for at least a third of the population, it challenges their basic beliefs.

        2. I think you got EU and US mixed up in that first sentence Tulpa. Remember the ’30s? America got FDR, Europe did much worse.

          1. Germany did worse, you mean. In 1929, the fascists were already in charge in Italy and the Commies in the USSR.

            And of course Germany had issues beyond economic troubles at the time.

          2. Oh, I see what you mean. I intended to say that the medicine the US needs is less severe than that the EU needs, but that’s not how it reads.

      3. Plus Europe is increasingly unstable. Who knows what that continent will turn to in desperation I just don’t think it will be pretty.

        Keep in mind that in times of famine and inflation, the Europeans default to tyranny and mass murder.

        1. Reason does like to talk about the long-term decline in murder crime and war we’re in. I think that will take a…break. Not the ‘end of the world’, but a lot more volatile.

        2. BUY fertilizer stocks.


      1. and *barf*

        1. It’s not good, but it’s quirky. Not exactly an atrocity, just silly. Why all the hate about rather?

          1. From my wordpress 2011 stats:

            “The concert hall at the Syndey Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 50,000 times in 2011. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 19 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.”

            Hmm, people like quirky 😉

            1. Hey rather, I’m an education bot! I’ve come to your website to educate you about how the internet works.

  33. Principles of Constitutional liberty in permanent regression as long as new world order Repubs & Dumocrats Leftists continue to feed gargantuan unaccountable bureaucracies that arbitrarily limit Bill of Rights while transfering all the liabilities and responsibilities onto an ambivalent, ignorant, and passive citizenry.

  34. In the olden times, Speedvision would run the entire season’s WRC broadcasts back to back to back on New Year’s Day; AWESOME.

    Today we get reruns of the Barret Jackson auction, complete with butthurt whining about “OMG, what sort of depraved monster would customize a 1963 Corvette??!

    At least TCM had the Marx Brothers marathon binge yesterday.

    “He can sing loud, but he can’t sing THAT loud.”

    1. I for one don’t like the Marx Brothers.

      On the other hand, I liked last night’s lineup, including the excellent Panic in the Streets. It was especially fun seeing people on the TCM boards bitch and moan about the movies selected for last night (as well as the lack of TCM’s showing The Cocoanuts for the Marx Bros. marathon).

      1. I’m all over Stooges marathons, but have never liked the Marx Bros, or Laurel and Hardy for that matter.

        I digs me some W.C. Fields now and then, though.

  35. Do you realize that Ron Paul is seventy-six? Soon he’ll be too old to be the great libertarian hope on the national stage. Who will take his place?

    1. Your mom?

      1. Nancy Pelosi is pretty much the same age, Max. Do you want HER to stay in office? Of course you do.

        1. Re: Mr. FIFY,

          Don’t talk to Max about facts. He disdains facts – he’s a trooper!

          1. He’s been beating the anti-Paul drum for how many years, now?

            His mom must be proud.

      2. Of course not his mom, don’t be silly? Who will be there to give him his Thorazine and clean the “stains” he leaves on his bed sheets?

    2. No, we don’t realize that, MaxPads.

  36. Ron Paul in retirement:


    1. Max’s link fail: ^^

    2. Why a picture of yourself, Max?

  37. Thx for all u do Reason to increase awareness, promote clear thinking, and confound the absence of objectivity in the msm.

    1. But you have improved spelling or punctuation.

  38. I kinda don’t want a Paul presidency because it could offer the complacency of success. Better to remain the rabble hammering on the walls…but the rest of the field is so shitty it becomes a necessary risk.

    1. Let me see if I get you. You think winning wouldn’t help our cause as much as being outsiders would?

      OK, I’m gonna ask you to put down the crack pipe.

      1. I don’t believe enough of the body electorate has realized the importance of what The Man has spent thirty years explaining, and will get lazy at the state and local level after the election, only to blame the IDEAS (and the leading proponent) should implementation fail, opening the door for the upteenth stage of WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot.

        The average schputzo [non-believers] may claim success, accept malaise, and externalize failure. I still want him to win-I doubt enough Americans are strong to maintain the pressure needed to challenge collective perception and change the the paradigm. My doubts are not about The Man, but the residents of a country he is trying to lead.

        1. If Ron Paul wins and his popularity grows, the GOP will go wherever he goes. Remember, it’s not about ideology for these people. It’s about getting reelected and keeping the lifestyle they’ve grown accustomed to that’s important.

          1. Yeah-the posers will spew rhetoric rather than sentiment. The state legislatures will look like Michelle Bachmann & Rick Perry, the localities won’t have people to oppose smaller forms of graft and those who have become accustomed to a regular handy will keep buying the lube [G] uses to screw everyone else.

            1. Doubtful. libertarian-minded candidates across the nation will have the chance to run against spending, period. And I see that as a watershed moment. People will look at the nation’s financial health improve and will want to translate that into their screwy city councils and state legislatures.

              1. Right now Paul is the opposition candidate for a growing number of people (hopefully). Adoption at the state & local level will require some measure of success at the national level before the followers break ranks/go rogue.

                Incidentally, I recently exploited a “weakness [the local newspaper in a community of 25k]” to argue against advancement of a capital improvement plan devised pre-2007, questioning the city manager [a G lover if there ever was one] system, excess spending for non-essentials, the impact on housing values etc. I say this only to bring up the idea of busting the ‘either/or’ GWB mindset of most voters. If the average guy could appreciate libertarian thinking as easily as ‘lesser of two evils’ voting…

    2. You will get your wish.

    3. Re: Lloyd,

      I kinda don’t want a Paul presidency because it could offer the complacency of success.

      I don’t want the Patriots to win the Superbowl because it would make them too cocky.

      It’s Stupid Arguments Thread Day in H&R, it would seem.

    4. There is a strong strain of loser in the Libertarian community. “Let’s make sure we never win so we never have to compromise or otherwise taint our purity.”

    5. I don’t know if the danger is complacency as much as the risk of being blamed for the coming disasters that the statists have set up for us.

      If Ron Paul wins and implements half of his policies there is going to be some serious pain in the short term. As dunderheaded as the electorate is, the GOP would probably get drubbed in the 2014 midterm elections unless they revolted against Paul.

      The fact that this short-term pain staves off long-term disaster will be forgotten if it is ever recognized. 80 years of history textbooks have successfully blamed Hoover’s supposedly laissez-faire economics for the Depression; how much more hay would the statists make over economic pain accompanying actual laissez-faire policies?

      1. Precisely why no politicians ever propose real retrenchment. But better to solve structural problems than go ostrich.

  39. Did the Bills only show up for one quarter, or did Belichik not break into their locker room and steal their playbook until the end of the 1st Quarter.

    1. Let me taste your tears, sloopy! Your tears are so yummy and sweet.

      1. Yeah, they probably taste like gin.

        1. Actually, you get a reprieve as I’ll be licking Rex Ryan’s face at the press conference (no homo).

          1. I’m so glad that my Dolphins were able to shut that fat fuck up.

            At least until next year when they’ll be the preseason SB champs. Again.

  40. Here are the three Paul interviews. Notice how the CNN interview had any real substance, the others were an utter waste of time for both the interviewer and the interviewee.


    1. You posted only two interviews, stupid.

      1. Re: Maxipad,

        You posted only two interviews, stupid.

        H&R only let’s you post up to two links only, you stupid piece of dog crap. Fuck you.

        1. He knows that, OM. He’s just wrapped up in irrational Paul hate to see clearly.

        2. and happy new year too

          you forgot OM;-)

          1. Remember to fart in a jar!

        3. ARF! WHIMPER! YIP! SNAP! NIP!

    2. FOX with Chis Wallace:

      By the way, MSNBC reported that Paul was in favor of the Jim Crow laws by editing out the part where he said he wasn’t.

      1. I suppose they had Woodrow Wilson against them?

      2. I caught the FNC appearance on the radio and it seemed like it went fairly well. Surprisingly so, actually.

  41. I’m not arguing against electing him-I love the guy. His 07/08 campaign inspired a decision against PMC after advertising during the GWOT.

    I don’t believe Americans are smart, responsible, & motivated enough to emulate the ideas in all aspects of their lives-especially the local and state levels. When the asstard brigade doesn’t have a daddy around, they’ll shit their pants just to look at all the pretty colors.

  42. I don’t believe Americans are smart, responsible, & motivated enough

    So, you’re a Dempublican, then.

    “Stupid Americans; we must lead them around by the nose.”

    1. Doggone it, I really like Americans!

      1. I do not. they are fat and stupid.

    2. Yeah-WE will have to lead them around by the nose for some time, while the ‘one-termers, strictly-an-anomaly, elected by the conditions of the race, not his ideas’ plot for a return to corporo-statist management.

  43. I’d prefer lube and feces in the oval office to the shitbag who’s there now.

    Mitt! Mitt! Mitt!

    1. I’d prefer lube and feces in the oval office

      Been there, done that.

  44. Well, Sanchez might be looking for a job tomorrow. I know Rex Ryan should be.

    1. I wonder when it is that NYJ fans will realize that Sanchez fucking sucks, and that jumping up to pick #5 to get him was a particularly stupid move?

  45. When the asstard brigade doesn’t have a daddy around, they’ll shit their pants just to look at all the pretty colors.

    I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, but I know I don’t like you.

    1. I don’t like me either-which one of us is the lucky one?

      My point is that the voters Paul needs to attract to win the nomination & presidency will chant the talking points offered by Statists when they don’t have a war to understand “patriotism”, for example. The Man is the messenger, and success puts the message in the spotlight for people who are primarily followers needing familiar, convenient explanations. But even four years would seriously change the world stage.

      1. Enough with the crap, Lloyd. I’ll be seeing you in the parking loot.

        1. Fuck the parking lot-too cold. Stop by-you can have a cigar and Mexi-Coke [real sugar]. We can outline the pitfalls of lasting success and devise ways to overcome/avoid them.

  46. At least the Dolphins finish their crap season with a win.

    1. It’s more than just a win. It’s a win against the Jets to keep them from the playoffs. If you don’t see the huge significance in that as a fan, well, you’re hopeless.

  47. Finally, some sensible postings:


    Amazing how many Team Blue cheerleaders are upset over Obama signing the detention bill… maybe now they’ll wake up.

    1. Imagine how bad it’s going to be when he signs SOPA.

      Dude, read the comments of the Greenwald column linked above. They’ll vote for Obama no matter what because of “reproductive rights”. As if anyone running(like say Ron Paul) could single handily overturn RvW.

      1. I read the piece, and know full well many Team Blue’ers would pretty much give up every other right if it meant keeping “reproductive” rights (still find it odd there’s no male equivalent in that realm)…

        I guess I get a tad more optimistic when Team Blue starts getting agitated over their own Team members in Congress.

        1. Males have the right to pay child support if named as the father oppressor-parent figure.

          1. I meant something comparable to a woman deciding to have an abortion solely out of the sake of convenience.

            Then again, there is no direct comparison, so men should get TWO rights all to their own.

            1. I should have not constructed that sentence that way. women who are genuinely at risk of death, should have that choice.

              Then being said, it should be up to the states to set their own policies, not the FedGov.

              1. “Then again, there is no direct comparison, so men should get TWO rights all to their own.”

                I agree. You have the right two keep your two balls

                1. Uh, yeah. Whatever.

                  1. but I could use a new set of earings

                    1. And a gross of number 2 jars. They just opened a Taco Bell down the street and I need to be ready.

                    2. I’d like your balls for earrings.

                    3. He doesn’t have any; otherwise he’d use his own handle and link

                      women just don’t play dirty

                    4. Even when we fart in jars, we do it cleanly.

      2. Paul has a plan on RvW: Devolving it to state courts. Enlightened state courts will then be able to abandon that awful decision, and if they adhere to it, the voters can fire them.

        So if “reproductive rights” is their big issue – they should probably vote for Johnson.

        I mean, since they have a “prochoice” candidate who opposes Obama’s civil-liberties abuses, why would they vote to re-elect Obama? Surely they would never do that! 🙂

        1. Team Blue hates states’ rights. How many times have they compared it to “gosh, wouldn’t it be swell if we could own slaves again?”-style rhetoric?

          1. They hate me? *sniffle*

            1. Point is, whoever you are… those who hate the idea of states setting their own policies, are the kind of people who want centralized one-stop government from one huge, overly-powerful central state.

              Fuck. That.

              1. I always like to point out to those people that there’s an organized, serious secessionist movement in Vermont, that is eco-socialist. They believe the rest of the US is too conservative, so they want out. And no, I don’t think they’re crypto-slavers.

                1. I’m not going to the extreme of secession in the states’ rights argument, but that IS a good example, Gojira. Had no idea it was happening.

                  Wonder what Team Blue thinks of it?

        2. Paul has a plan on RvW: Devolving it to state courts.

          How does he plan to do that? While I think RvW and invented-rights jurisprudence in general is flawed, the president and Congress don’t have the power to take Bill of Rights matters away from SCOTUS.

          1. How do you interpret this part of Article III, US Constitution: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, *with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.*” [emphasis added]

            1. Even if we interpret that as giving Congress the ability to keep cases away from SCOTUS, it doesn’t give them the authority to keep cases out of the federal judiciary entirely.

              Considering that interpretation would lead to absurd results (eg circuit splits that SCOTUS can’t resolve) it would appear to be faulty.

              1. Why would it be so horrible?

                It used to be that state courts could give broader interpretations to U.S. constitutional rights than federal courts – and the federal courts couldn’t do anything about it.

                For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court said black people couldn’t be citizens, the Maine Supreme Court said they could and they could even vote. There was no way to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to enforce the will of the Supremes.

                That sort of thing went on until 1914, when some state courts were supposedly going too far in defending business rights and Congress wanted the U.S. Supreme Court to stop them.

                But we survived somehow from 1789 to 1914 – even though state courts were able to recognize black citizenship in defiance of the feds.

            2. Before the text you quote we have

              The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

              So original jurisdiction for “other Cases” must be somewhere within the federal judiciary; only appelate jurisdiction is regulatable by Congress.

              1. There are professors who say exactly this. But consider:

                Congress has *never* accepted this interpretation. Starting in 1789, when the federal courts were first established, up to the present, there are cases where *all* the federal courts are denied jurisdiction by statute even though Article III would allow it. I’ve given an example above, another is disputes over state-law where the amount in controversy is less than the statutory minimum – no federal court can handle those cases, even though Art. III mentions controversies “between a State and Citizens of another State.”

                1. Note that the 11th amendment removes certain cases from federal judiciary jurisdiction also.

          2. I just re-ran through the BoR, and I swear I can’t find the one that guarantees the right to take the life of an unborn person. Can you tell me which one addresses it, please?

            1. It’s in the penumbras and emanations. Unfortunately, you can’t see the penumbras and emanations without lighting up some interstate commerce, which is illegal thanks to those same penumbras and emanations.

            2. It’s supposed to be the 9th. Of course some libertarians are just as guilty of treating that amendment as a Rorschach test as liberals are. Like the back of the magazine usually says, “IJ Economic liberty litigation”, which argues that there are rights to conduct business embedded in the 9th.

              It was not intended to insert any more rights in the BoR, but rather to prevent the existence of the BoR from being interpreted as a grant of power to the feds.

              1. I would certainly agree.

                But the Supremes have invoked the “right to choose” against the states.

                And on the federal level, I’m not aware of any right to abortion which could have been “retained by the people” since no such right was recognized at the time of the Bill of Rights. Even if it’s an unwritten right, it has to come from some legitimate source, and a judge’s butt isn’t a legitimate source.

    2. Indefinite military detention of Americans became the law of the land Saturday, as President Barack Obama signed a defense bill that codified that authority, even as he said he would not use it.

      Let me be clear.

      I would not use the authority I have made law, but one of my Republican opponents might. Re-elect me for a secure future.

  48. This is like the worst chat room ever.

    1. How ya doin’?

    2. Wow, there are at least a couple of chat rooms that suck more than this one does.

  49. The World Wildlife Fund wants you to save the polar bears. They (or some as yet undetermined portion of the population) will be extinct soon, if you don’t send your money to WWF TODAY!


    1. I haven’t cared about the WWF since they dropped their wrestling format and started this whole nature thing. Fick Vince McMahon.

      1. notsureifserious.jpg

    2. It’s their fault for not being more delicious.

  50. Gary Kubiak is an idiot.

    1. You play for the tie at home.

    2. You definitely play for the tie when the conversion attempt is from the 7.

    1. They’re ravaged by injuries. The game didn’t matter to their positioning in the playoffs.

      I understand the decision, but after the penalty, you kick it and go to OT.

      The NFL needs to levy fines when teams do shit like that. It could cost someone else a playoff spot (The Ben-gals)if things go a certain way today.

      1. Prevent out of town scores being relayed to the teams in situations like this.

        1. But how do you stop fans from chanting, “Titans by 6. Titans by 6.”?

          1. Dunno. But if the Lions win, the Falcons stop trying.

          2. The NFL needs to learn a thing or two from North Korea.

      2. Well, if it’s done to intentionally corrupt the playoff seeding, then that should be fineable, but if it’s done to avoid injuries or test new players etc. I don’t think it should be.

        And I can’t imagine how you’d police the difference between the two situations. Luck is a part of the game in so many other ways that I don’t have a problem with the playoff status of your Week 17 opponent entering into it.

        1. More rules? How liberating!

          1. The NFL is a private, voluntary organization, so the standard libertarian disclaimer applies.

  51. I haven’t read the other 290+ comments.
    Who is winning?
    Pertinent links?


    1. Who’s winning?

      The terrorists.

  52. If the WWF involved Hulk Hogan (or Rachel Maddow) wrestling a polar bear, I’d watch.

    1. Hogan? Pshaw! It’d have to be a cage match with the Four Horsemen vs 2 Polar Bears, a Cheetah and some other “endangered” animal. Perhaps a baboon.

      1. Have the Bushwackers and Legion of Doom run out and ruin the match in a special appearance.

        1. Is Superfly still available?

          1. If it doesn’t involve zombie Andre the Giant, it isn’t the Match of the Millenium.

  53. Rebecca Rosen of the Atlantic is on NPR right now about what’s wrong with Internet comment sections.

    1. If this is wrong, then I don’t ever want to be right.

    2. Conversations on these comment sections are rarely very good, she says. “Some kind of human editing” is needed – either an official editor or a “like/unlike” features.

      But members of an online community can develop “cultural touchstones and jokes.”

      Now it’s a co-blogger at the Atlantic (didn’t get his name) praising his comment board. He edits out the trolls, and “very smart people” remain.

      Rude commentary and trolling “the bane of all comment sections” – like insulting guests at a dinner party at his house.

      It’s only “totalitarian” and “anti-democratic” on his comment section – there’s the rest of the Web for that.

      His rules: “you can’t say, ‘listen, you idiot.'” Can’t change the subject.

      1. Now it’s a 2008 interview from a guy who was fired from the New Republic for defending himself under a pseudonym on the magazine’s comment boards. He and the interviewer are indulging in anti-Internet rhetoric.

        Interview: How to harness the power of the Internet for good, not “commotion?” The interviewee says it can’t be good. “Nobody’s reading these threads except the people who are on them.” As journalists lose their jobs, they will finally be able to criticize these Internet abuses.

      2. They can suck my sweet cock over at that comment section.

  54. What’s on your minds as we start the new year?


  55. The first bikini

    1. Dear lord that is a lot of “bikini zone”!

    2. Try as she might, she just couldn’t get her belly button covered with the bottom.

      1. Their fear of exposing belly buttons made for an even more revealing bikini.

        1. It certainly inflamed their cameltosis.

  56. Now NPR is going to critique the state-run South African Broadcasting Corporation. Is it an independent voice of dissent like the privately-owned press?


    1. NPR tears the ANC a new one…corruption and censorship. “Un-Mandela-like.” Ooh, the gloves are off!

      The “SABC model” is flawed – burdened with political appointees – “made-to-order coverage for people in high places.”


      1. [checks calendar]

        For a minute there, I thought it was April 1st.

    2. Gosh, that’s a real bunch of rebels over there at NPR.

  57. I’m tired and hungry and I’m sick and tired of being hungry and tired.


    1. If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.

      Play me off, Johnny!

      [ragtime piano riff]

  58. I’m cold, and there are wolves after me.

  59. is anyone else intrigued by the fact that the misunderstood pigs are obviously libertarians?


  60. The “SABC model” is flawed – burdened with political appointees – “made-to-order coverage for people in high places.”

    Not in any way similar to NPR.

  61. Your daily doubleshot of stupid, courtesy of HuffPo:

    Women’s Rights at Stake: Why Iowa Feminists Should Caucus for President Obama

    American women face a stark choice in the Iowa caucuses: re-elect feminist President Barack Obama who has advanced equality or caucus for a Republican who pledges to roll back generations of progress.

    1. Funny that it doesn’t say how Barry the Moocher advanced equality, but only makes a bunch of vague associations.

      1. Would you expect any less from the daughter of Nancy “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it” Pelosi?

        1. No, I wouldn’t.

    2. You pretty much could rape and enslave women and still get the “feminist” vote provided you were pro choice. Just pathetic.

      1. Hey, now… there’s nothin’ cool about enslaving women.

  62. Nothing says “libertarian” like locking people in cages; especially when those people have harmed nobody.

    1. I dunno… I feel better when I see a murderer or a rapist in a cage…

      Those who harm nobody? Hell, no, they don’t deserve being caged.

  63. New from your friendly [G] & [MSM]:

    A handy from less calloused hands-you know, to reduce chafing.

  64. There was 1000 yards passing in the Packers-Lions game (and the Packers had their backup play). Man, I bet that was an entertaining game.

    1. Entertaining, if you enjoy video game football. Thanks to the NFL’s pansy rules, the two top-seeded teams have the two worst defenses (GB – 411.6 ypg; NE – 411.1 ypg).

      1. Fuck the New England Patriots.

      2. Thanks to the NFL’s pansy rules, the two top-seeded teams have the two worst defenses

        I don’t see how that follows…

      3. I mean, one would think that the alleged pansy rules would make good defenses look bad.

        1. It skews the advantage to those teams with good offenses (something both NE and GB have).

      4. Entertaining, if you enjoy video game football. Thanks to the NFL’s pansy rules, the two top-seeded teams have the two worst defenses (GB – 411.6 ypg; NE – 411.1 ypg).


        Today’s football is reminiscent to playing Madden.

    2. “Hi, I can throw for 480 yards and 6 TD’s, but I can’t start in this league” – the new NFL.

      1. Aaron Rodgers would have thrown for 680 yards and 9TDs.

  65. Obviously an alternate variation of “misunderstood pigs”.

    Games- do not care/ want.

  66. Right now? Pie and getting to the Chinese(ish) Buffet before they switch from lunch to dinner, which is more or less the same but more expensive. Lots of political stuff too, mainly Ron Paul and Indefinite Detention/Targeted Killing.

  67. Why aren’t the dems running someone other than Obama? Seems to me just about anyone v Obama is going to be a win for the anyone.

    1. John Kerry/Barney Frank dream team?

  68. I’m surprised almost all of the comments are pro-gun.


    1. I posted a link to sensible HuffPo commentary, and also find it amazing how, sometimes, even they get things right.

      1. But twice in one day?

        1. Weird shit happens, bro.

  69. Listen up, H&R! I’m heading for home. 5+ hour drive is gonna suuuuuuck!

    Anyway, Happy New Year to all of you and your families and loved ones. May 2012 see your liberty grow in one way or another.

    1. You too, and everyone else here.

    2. If you let the TSA feel you up, sloopster, you could get home quicker.

  70. Russell Brand stands to make ?20million from his divorce from pop star wife Katy Perry


    1. Hey! He deserves to live in the manner to which he was accustomed to!

  71. http://althouse.blogspot.com/2…..inees.html

    Emily Bazelon in January of 2009 telling Ann Althouse how sure she is Obama is going to close GUITMO. This kind of stuff is comedy gold that will only get better with age.

      1. That is the scary thing. He probably won’t use the power. But it will be lurking out there to be abused in the future. Frogs, water, that sort of thing.

        1. Frogs, water, that sort of thing.

          What do French swimmers have to do with anything? Is this a London2012 post or something?

          1. Zat is, how do you say… raceest?

  72. I’m no fan of Newt Gingrich, but I would like to see a story about issues that surround judicial accountability, or lack thereof, and what has happened to our system of checks and balances when trial lawyers are playing it from both the judicial and legislative side of the spectrum, dominating judiciary committees, and failing to police itself. Thanks for listening.

  73. Reason Hit & Run College Bowl Pick-em Update

    Sandusky’s Sexual Fantasy Pick begins to take it’s rightful place at the top, correctly predicting the last eight games and bumping up to second place.

    Sloopy falls behind after putting his trust in Northwestern and Georgia Tech.

    Who will be the one to embarrass himself publicly on H&R? Probably “mattfenn”

    1. Northwestern hasn’t won a bowl game since the Truman administration.

    2. Tomorrow is moving day. Besides, I’m positioned right where I want to be.*

      *One person will get this.

      1. *One person will get this.

        Apparently not.

      2. Oh, I get it now.

      3. Get a fucking room already.

      4. I appreciate the update; it must be hard to post from a smartphone from bottoms.

    3. I got STEVE SMITH’d yesterday. Fuck A&M and Illinois.

      1. Wait a minute, fuck Illinois? Are you admitting that you picked UCLA?

    4. I have four underdogs left (including LSU) and am three back. Have a couple of Big 10 teams tomorrow in Mich St. and Wisconsin. Wisconsin could be huge as I’m guessing I might be one of only a few with them.

      In my stat system, Northwestern was the biggest underdog in the set (it gave A&M a half-home field). It wound up a little closer than the system thought. Right now I’m outperforming the spread slightly, three underdog picks and a pick ’em: two underdog wins and one underdog loss in the pick ’em.

      1. So far, 3/4 of my underdog picks have been correct. The next few games are going to be very interesting.

  74. “About 40,000 state laws taking effect at the start of the new year”


    1. I was out in Kansas over Christmas. I forget how stupid the typical evangelical do gooder is. They are just as much of a menace as liberals. Stupid fucks can’t think of anything they don’t want to control. Go save the world. Assholes.

      1. This is how good Christians flock to Santorum in the final days after he says he’ll bomb nuclear plants in Iran if they don’t allow inspections.

        1. No one ever lost a GOP primary for promising to overbomb.

        2. They are flocking to him because they are as bad as the feminists when it comes to abortion. He is reliably pro life. So they don’t care that he is a incompetent crook regarding everything else.

          Iran has nothing to do with it. They are all about domestic policy. That means abortion, and making sure the children are protected from drug users, drunk drivers and other undesirables.

          1. All of the GOP candidates are pro-life, no? Not that it makes a lick of difference as long as RvW stands, which will probably be forever.

            1. They are. But it is odd. The SOCONs like their asses kissed. Really from their prospective it shouldn’t matter who wins since as you point out they are all pro life. But it is a weird cultural thing with them. They want to feel like the guy is culturally one of them. They really are the mirror image of urban liberals.

              1. Good analysis. Also applies to the cosmo love for Gary Johnson and distaste for Bob Barr.

              2. On the other hand, they are used to being sold down the river after the primaries are over – some candidates feel free to promise whatever the SoCons ask for, with a wink and a nudge that “I’m just humoring these hicks to get votes.”

                That’s why socons want to vote for someone who is one of them.

                I dispute the claim that they’re all going for Santorum. Some of them are even for Paul.

                The instinct you refer to will, if it does anything, prevent them from voting for Romney, which they shouldn’t be doing anyway.

                1. I’m not denying that Romney *could* have had a sincere change of heart about abortion – people change their minds and hearts all the time, especially after watching an ultrasound.

                  But Romney’s switches of position coincidentally align with whether he’s trying to appeal to Massachusetts voters or Republican primary voters. He wants us to believe it’s all a happy coincidence that his conscience has evolved just in time to be convenient for him politically.

                  But socons aren’t dumb for refusing to believe it. They would probably be dumb if they did.

              3. hey want to feel like the guy is culturally one of them.

                Unlike every other voting block in the country.

      2. The one common thread between stolid conservatives and bleeding-heart liberals is the utmost desire to use the power of the police to make other people behave “the way they should”.

        1. yes. They just don’t agree on what that is. But they totally agree we need a large police force to do it.

        2. Indeed. Conservatives focus on controlling the pelvis and brain while liberals focus on the wallet and stomach.

          1. No. SOCONS want to control how you drive, how you drink, what you watch on TV, if you talk on the phone while driving. That kind of stuff.

            1. I was oversimplifying of course; the things you mention are areas both sides seek to control.

              1. It is interesting. The bible belt is full of strip clubs and porn is more available than back east. So I am not sure they are so into controlling your pelvis.

                1. Could be more of a “freedom for me but not for thee” thing.

                  Sort of like Al Gore has a mansion with massive CO2 emissions while Obama frequently travels around the world in jets with an entourage of hundreds of people… but they still berate the hoi polloi for leaving cell phone chargers plugged in, using incandescent bulbs, or eschewing low-flow shower heads.

                2. Maybe there is diversity in the Bible Belt – you can actually find atheists there, you know. And even sinners.

                  1. And how does one measure the availability of porn in the Internet age? Maybe they go to strip clubs because they don’t have computer access in their outhouses and barns.

                    1. Verily, ’tis hard to find good, quality ankle porn…

                    2. Abigail likes to relax after a hard day churning butter. So she poses for provocative oil paintings by our artist. Whips aren’t just for buggies! For copies of this tastefully-rendered art, send a carrier pigeon to the address on your screen.

                    3. They still seem to sell a lot of porn at convenience stores out there.

          2. It is all about the evil, drink with those clowns.

          3. liberals: and what/where you smoke, and what you say…

            the most egregious speech violations are almost always libs, and usually on college campuses, the feifdom where they are most entrenched.

            thank god for FIRE.

            these are the kind of people that told a college kid he had to remove a US flag from his dorm room window, because people walking around outside his dorm could be offended by it.

            1. Agreed, FIRE are doing God’s work.

  75. And now we start the real Holy Season…


    1. No watermelon on MLK day!


      In solidarity with my stereotyped Irish brothers and sisters, I will not have potatoes on St. Patrick’s Day.

      Nor spaghetti on Columbus Day.

      And I will “just say no” to hemp on Washington’s birthday.

      And no bangers and mash on Guy Fawkes’ Day!

      Multicultural sensitivity requires some sacrifices.

      1. I always thought MLK day was fried chicken and greens.

      2. What will you give up on next Sadie Hawkins Day?

        1. If a girl asks me to the dance, I will not go.

      3. And I will “just say no” to hemp on Washington’s birthday.

        Washington can kiss my ass.

  76. They are just as much of a menace as liberals.




    1. If you are not around them, you forget how annoying they are. And the thing with the SOCONS is most people who bitch about them have never been around them and don’t know shit about them. So if you don’t live around them and just listen to a bunch of ignorant liberals talking shit about them and totally missing why they are good and bad, you start to forget just how and why you hated them when you lived around them.

    2. We’re not a menace! We’re trying to make you live your life for GOOD reasons!

  77. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16287211

    Wow are the Irish fascist crap weasels.

    1. Indeed they are.

      1. “It was only 20 years since Ireland had won its independence after many centuries of rule from London, and the Irish list of grievances against Britain was long”

        Read Irish history; your opinion is provincial

        1. Still no good reason to mistreat WWII vets, rather.

          1. I don’t ever agree with abuse of any human being but I understand their experience was not what Americans have had with the English.

            The comments are not based on the reality of British cruelty vis-?-vis the Irish

            1. A bad scene. But don’t present it without context.

              The article discusses “about 5,000 Irish soldiers who *deserted* their own neutral army [emphasis added] to join the war against fascism and who were brutally punished on their return home as a result.

              “They were formally dismissed from the Irish army, stripped of all pay and pension rights, and prevented from finding work by being banned for seven years from any employment paid for by state or government funds.”

              Not very nice, but bear in mind that the customary penalties for desertion include death. They were sentenced to poverty instead of being shot. Which is worse?

              Can a country which is sincerely trying to maintain its neutrality be gentle with people who desert the armed forces to join one side? Such leniency would be seen as a distinctly non-neutral act from the standpoint of international law.

              With the defeat of the Germans, of course the Irish govt. should have pardoned the deserters after having them complete their Irish military service. The govt could even have embarked on a project of historical revisionism – the 5,000 glorious Irish warriors against Hitler! Amnesties after wars are common events, and I’m shocked that they didn’t give an amnesty to this day.

              1. Siding with the British, even for such a just cause, would have ripped Irish society apart – the Troubles would have been exacerbated, and there might even have been a German fifth column to facilitate a Nazi invasion of Ireland – hardly unprecedented, for other countries to invade Ireland with encouragement from people inside.

                Having responsibility for his own nation, de Valera had plenty of reasons to stay neutral, just like the Swiss did. Countries act based on their assessment of their own interests, shocking as that may be.

              2. It is so much more complicated. You do the history
                service quoting from a newspaper article written by….

                    1. I wrote briefly on farting in jars at http://rctlfy.fartinajar.com.

    2. Oi! You haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. The famine was within living memory, and the Irish had had a war for independence followed by a civil war.

      1. Americans have forgotten how fucked up the English were and still are.

  78. 7 shot in first 12 hrs of new year, to include a dead LEO in my area. #$(#$(#$(

    the LEO was a national park ranger, apparently shot by a guy with a rifle, and i really hope the anti-gunners don’t use her death as part of some stupid argument decrying the (now) legal carry of firearms in national parks.

    and I hope they catch the perp and fry him

    1. National parks are dangerous. I hate the ban on carrying weapons there.

      1. there is NO LONGER a ban

        if you can carry in the state the park is in OUTSIDE the park, you can now carry in it. this happened during the bush admin and was long time a coming

        and of course there was liberal outcry about “blood in the woods” as they cried about blood in the streets for concealed carry in florida, etc.

        in the first year since the passage there was iirc only one shooting in a national park, and it was some guy shootign a bear in self defense.

        1. oh, and statistically, national parks are NOT dangerous. i read the stats and basically they are amongst the safest public spaces there are.

          however, that’s tangential to the fact that people should have the same right to carry within as they have without

          and of course the guy recently gored by a mountain goat probably would be alive if he had a gun

        2. They don’t let you carry in caves with staircases, which the Park Service claims are “federal buildings”.

          1. lol. that’s an awesome factoid i did not know. cool

            i am certainly happy that RKBA has been extended to national parks, but that’s kind of amusing that they consider a cave a “building”. i guessin one sense they are.

            so, if somebody comitted a crime in the cave after unlawfully entering it, that would presumably be a burglary then

            i wonder if the castle doctrine applies to caves.

            do they have firearms lockboxes outside the caves so lawfully carrying peeps can secure their gun?

            but i can see the argument. if the cave is “improved” with the staircase, that could qualify it as a building. it’s not inherenetly unreasonable, just kind of amusing

            1. Yes, they’re using the “enclosed + improved = building” argument.

              I don’t know about in general, but the cave I was visiting didn’t have a lockbox so I had to bring my pistol back to the car before going in. I’m not sure I’d trust a federal agency with safekeeping my firearm anyway.

              1. yea, fwiw, that is generally how a building is defined under many model penal codes.

                fwiw, in my state, an entirely fenced yard counts as a BUILDING too, believe it or not.

                iow, if a guy unlawfully enters your fenced yard and punches you (w.o lawful justification), it’s a burglary in my state

            2. I don’t know what the situation with police searches of cave-homes would be. I suppose if you put doors in the opening it would be essentially the same as a house; I know some people who literally do build their house into the side of a hill or something.

              Not sure if you leave the cave opening as is though. Would that be like a house with the front doors open?

              1. generally speaking, the opening doesn’t really matter

                a carport is a building in my state, even if it is completely open to the air in the front

                one that just has a roof but only one wall, would PROBABLY not be, but frankly… not sure.

                for search and seizure purposes, a tent is also a building.

                the same warrant requirements etc. apply to a tent at a campsite as apply to a home.

                the more i think about it, the more i think the feds argument about the cave with a staircase as a building is a reasonable one.

                i think it’s still great that people can now carry in national parks, outsiode such improved caves, etc.

          2. They don’t let you carry in caves with staircases, which the Park Service claims are “federal buildings”.

            That’s retarded. Next they’ll claim bears are “federal agents”.

            1. Hey Boo-boo, Ranger Smith has been stiffing us all these years. When’s the last time we got paid?

            2. Some DAs have charged people with assaulting a police officer for kicking a police dog, so it’s not as far fetched as you might think.

              1. Strange. And owners of dogs are charged when their dog attacks someone, but the officer handling the police dog is never charged with assault when a cop dog attacks an innocent person.

                But according to dunphy, cops are held to either the same or higher standards that the general public.

    2. I hope they catch the perp and fry him

      Gee, what happened to the guy who always holds off judgments about guilt or innocence until all the facts are in?

      Oh right, that’s only when the “perp” is one of the valiant men in blue.

      1. no, it is implicit that he gets a TRIAL.

        note i didn’t say i know who the perp is.

        i am not advocating instant justice. i am advocating a TRIAL and justice


        1. iow, i didn’t say – i hope john cocktosun gets fried for this. he’s obviously guilty

          i am saying SOMEBODY did this, i hope they catch the person WHO did this, and that PURSUANT to legal fair due process, once convicted, and if convicted… he is given the maximum penalty, which is deaht

          1. Why would you even comment on this event and the likelihood of someone’s guilt and subsequent sentence without having all of the facts? Seems terribly irresponsible behavior from a law enforcement officer.

            We have something called due process in this country.

            I like to wait until all of the facts are in to make s judgement, dunphy. I know it’s tough when one of your own is harmed, because you guys are different than civilians, but you should really wait until all of the facts are in to make a statement.

            1. again, you can play this game all you want (i was expecting it after my post), but it’s silly.

              i want ANYBODY charged with a crime to be given due process.

              so speare me.

              i haven’t made a judgment and you know it.

              i said i hope that whomever IS guilty is apprehended and fried, and ex-post due process was implicit.

              so spare me.

              i realize you want to play games, like you have some kind of “gotcha” which you don’t.

              i don’t have to wait until all the facts are in to make a statement. if somebody WAS apprehended, i wouldn’t assume they were guilty. but i would definitely hope that whomever IS guilty is apprehended and if the right person is apprehended, one would hope they WERE convicted


              that’s true in ALL homicides.

              and it’s entirely consistent with what i have said in the past.


            2. If 10 unarmed people were shot by a cop, I’m sure dunphy wouldn’t reserve judgement very long. There’s no plausibly unknown facts about this incident that could make the shooting justified.

              He only talks about reserving judgement in cases where there are important facts that are unknown. Do recall he sided with you guys on the Berkeley pepper spray case at first.

              1. exactly. and in numeropus other cases (UC Davis, where i later changed my mind given new evidence,) etc.

                again, some people are interested in playing games vs. having rational discussion.

                hey, i did debate team before, too. games are fun

                but not really my cup o’ tea.

                1. According to dunphy:

                  Having a rational discussion = agreeing with all of his unproven assertions

                  Having a rational discussion = accepting his anecdotes as definitive quantitative proof of the correctness of his position

                  Having a rational discussion = accusing anybody disagreeing with him of being a bigot

                  Really dunphy, if all you have is your stoopid fucking “troll-o-meter” then you should just quit now before you embarrass yourself further.

      2. iow, where did i make a judgment about guilt or innocence. i didn’t.

        i said i hope they catch WHO is guilty and punish him (given due process)

        i didn’t say i think person X is guilty of it. hth

        1. A lot of these cases are self-defense, therefore we shouldn’t be hasty in saying what they should do to the person that did this.

          1. uh, no. a lot of cops shot during a felony stop are not self defense. there is an infinitessimally small chance this is the case.

            it’s also possible she committed suicide , but that’s also an infinitessimally small chance

            again, you can play gotcha games all you want, but it is a near certainty that somebody illegally killed her, and that somebody i would hope is brought to justice.

            just like in ANY crime, i would hope justice prevails.

            1. We don’t know that she was illegally killed until all the facts are in. That you would make such an assumption is highly unprofessional.

              I expect more from such an esteemed member of the law enforcement community.

              1. yawn. the gotcha games troll-o-meter = .01


                  From the Kelly Thomas thread:

                  and i am of course reflexively disgusted by the condition of this man’s face and the natural assumption is that the cops were unjustified. but i KNOW that that would be a rush to judgment, so i place my emotions behind my “reason” and consider the facts… of which i don’t know enough of to draw a conclusion

                  the end result is tragic. and if a crime was committed, it should be prosecuted. *if*

                  1. and again, a severely beaten face in an arrest situation is NOT even a “probable’ that there was excessive force or a crime.

                    that’s the difference

                    a dead cop during a felony stop is almost ALWAYS the result of an illegal act.

                    there are all sorts of ways a person could get severely munged in the face while resisting that would not qualify the force as a crime.

                    so, yes… the situations ARE disanalogous.

                    it IS an irrational rush to judgment to assume the cops used excessive force in an arrest based on the visual condition of a person’s face.

                    1. Well, since you found your shift key, then those assertions must be correct.

                      res ipsa loquitur

        2. So you already know a crime took place and there’s no chance it was self defense or an accident?

          It’s not a case where you say “it looks bad, but…” Why not?

          1. just like in many other cases, when i hear hoofsteps outside the window, i think horse not zebra

            regardless, i do not KNOW with 100% confidence a crime occurred.

            i would say i am 99% confident. because self defense shootigns of cops on felony stops are almost unheard of. felony stop means the cop has their weapon drawn and is issuing orders. and the person has a duty to comply.

            regardless, i realize you are interested in playing gotcha games, not having rational discussion

            i draw conclusions when the evidence supports it. not when i know stuff for certain

            like in the UC Davis case, i drew a conclusion that the cops were unjustified.

            and once the full video came out, i changed my mind

            new facts make rational people reassess

            but feel free to play gotcha games. it’s common on the internet, but not my thang

            1. GTFOI dunphy, you are responsible for all police violence.

              Aren’t you a trainer too? Then you are responsible for all fat asses on your side of the Mississippi river

              1. it’s a heavy burden, … a heavy burden…

            2. I’m not playing “gotcha games,” I’m just pointing out you decry the initial “get the creep who did this” reaction when all that is known is the creep is a cop, but when the cop is the victim you immediately want somebody to fry for it.

              Get it?

              1. Watch out squisha, or you’ll get the dreaded “troll-o-meter”!

    3. Why shoot a park ranger?

      1. i don’t have much details. my understanding is it is felony stop related so she might have been trying to apprehend him for another crime he had just committed. it’s very sketchy at this point.

        i have a friend who is a ranger, so i am waiting to hear from her

  79. Headline on Drudge

    OBAMA: I have the power to detain Americans — but I won’t…

    Coming from the guy who had a citizen assassinated for saying essentially the same things as his reverend, that’s not very reassuring.

    1. Reminds me of when I promised Monica I wouldn’t cum in her mouth…

      1. Didn’t he cream on her dress?

        1. He did both, allegedly.

          1. I ‘sploded so hard, it shot out her nose.

    2. I would expect a lack of nuance to understand the difference in these two cases from a libertarian. In the first instance, it helped me to obtain a senate seat in Illinois. In the later instance it may help my reelection bid. Without the qualifying circumstances you are in no position to make a judgement call.

      1. I hope the ‘memo’ is leaked; the justification under which Anwar alAwlaki  was killed may indicate how he came to this opinion

        1. Because clerics are just so damn useful in the field (they are not). Snicker.

        2. The memo is stored in a number 2 jar with a tight fitting lid and 3 ounces of methane.

      2. You got that Senate seat by using legal trickery to get your opponents off the ballot.

        Only a coward does shit like that.

  80. Newt Gingrich :Asshole

  81. The impression I get from this newsletter controversy is that people think the words “fleet footed” are a racial epithet akin to the N-word. Reminds me of the “niggardly” controversy.

    1. I’ve been using “fleet footed” as a euphemism ? la “Canadian” for a while now.

  82. Clearly this is not America

  83. I’m not a suicide pact.

    I know a document that is though.

  84. Just finished the traditional black-eyed peas and cornbread New Year dinner. Too bad for those of you who aren’t married to a Southern girl.

    1. Enjoy it before it’s outlawed.

  85. I had to stop on the way home. This is the worst drive I can remember. Anyway, I found this while I was driving and my internet connection was too slow to watch Top Gear on my iPad.

    The EEOC goes full retard in defense of retards (which somehow have become a protected species under the ADA). I swear, our government has well and truly jumped the shark.

    1. Oh my God. This is excellent red meat for the GOP to beat BO up with after the payroll tax debacle.

      Sometimes it seems like BO’s administration is actively trying to keep him from winning reelection.

      1. Are you too dumb to graduate high school but smart enough to hire a lawyer? Call our secretary and schedule an appointment. The you may already be a winner! Degrees aren’t all they’re cracked up to be – we have tons of degrees and fancy book learning but are utterly ignorant or indifferent about the harmful economic consequences of the Ada!

        1. the harmful economic consequences of the Ada!

          That may have been one of the best geek jokes ever, if it was intentional.

    2. The poll on that website is several shades of stupid:

      In public schools, should evolution be taught as fact or as a possible explanation?

      Grammatical-stupid: Is that a yes/no question?

      Logical-stupid: What could “other” possibly mean?

      Epistemological-stupid: Whatever happened to “theory”? Is that something other than “possible explanation”? If not, why not say “theory”? If so, why the difference?

      Just plain scientific-stupid: Are there other theories that even come close to accounting for the facts?

    3. Actually makes sense to me. Retards have to do something productive, right? Not all jobs require a high school diploma and such a requirment could be used as cover to discriminate against tards. Let Corky mop the floor! Who does it hurt?

      1. That doesn’t hurt anything, but when they start this whole “reasonable accommodation” for mental deficiencies, you basically say companies can be forced to hire mentally retarded people on a quota basis. Slippery slope and all that.

      2. Having any kind of requirements for a job is discriminatory.

        Corporations must be compelled to hire anyone who applies for any job.

        1. Yeah, that would work real swell when a quadriplegic wants to become a fireman…

  86. This is like the worst chat room of the year.

  87. Hah! If you fools think I’m going to waste my time reading through some five hundred odd comments, you gotta another thought coming.

    1. TL/DR? The reason commentariat has decided people who post as punctuation marks are dickholes.

      1. Are you saying Objectivists like me are dickheads? Oh, and right, and we are.

        1. A “$” is not a punctuation mark. It’s a symbol.

          1. Are you blogging while driving you magnificent bastard?

            1. I was until about 15 minutes ago. I had used rubber bands to mount my iPad to the steering wheel. It was pretty efficient. I watched 3 episodes of Top Gear, stopped in Mojave then blogged the rest of the way home.

              1. Things could get real interesting if your air bag went off, you stupid fuck. Oh well, it’s one way to clean the crap out of the gene pool. Just hope you don’t take anyone else with you. BTW, a period is my handle. Tough fucking shit, if you don’t like it – yours isn’t so wonderful either.

            2. I was until about 15 minutes ago. I had used rubber bands to mount my iPad to the steering wheel. It was pretty efficient. I watched 3 episodes of Top Gear, stopped in Mojave then blogged the rest of the way home.

              1. Did you see the India trip? Jezza got in a lot of shit again for some of his actions and comments (again!).

                1. I watch the Vietnam one…hilarious.
                  The Bolivia one…awesome.
                  and the North Pole one…meh.

                  I’d be happy if that’s all they did…and I’d be happy if Netfuckingflix would get the new seasons up.

                  1. I liked the Southern US tour.

                    1. That was OK, but they fucked up on the Blue Ridge Parkway. You can get the Rangers to keep sections clear for you if you ask nicely. We used to do SCCA Polo Class runs up there all the time, and they always assisted as long as we signed a waiver.

                  2. But the Pole episode ended with a big Fuck You to Al Gore!!

                    1. Well, that is true but it had too much James May for me. Besides, I don’t think it’s that big a deal. Don’t you Canucks go to the North Pole all the time for school field trips and scouting trips?

                    2. I’ve never been north of Snow Lake, and that was in summer.

              2. Across the Ridge Route?

  88. updates y0…

    (video at link.. this one will set off all the leftwing anti-gun nitwits… POI described as survivalist, heavy weapons, bla bla)

    MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK, Wash. – A man who is a person of interest in the shooting death of a park ranger Sunday morning near Mt. Rainier is also a suspect in a shooting that left four wounded in Skyway earlier in the day, sources tell KOMO News.

    Detectives are looking for Benjamin Colton Barnes, a 24-year-old believed to have military experience and survivalist skills, officials said.

    Investigators have recovered Barnes’ car which was filled with weapons and body armor, along with survivalist gear, said Det. Ed Troyer with the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department.

    Meanwhile, an intense manhunt continues for the armed gunman who fatally shot 34-year-old park ranger Margaret Anderson following a traffic stop, and the 368-square-mile park in Washington state remained closed.

    Authorities believed the gunman was still in the woods with an assault rifle. They asked people to stay away from the park, and for those already inside to leave. Troyer said there were about 100 people hunkered down in lodges and cabins on the mountain. They were asked to stay put because they could be in the line of fire.

    Troyer also said it appeared there were still visitors hiking on the mountain who could not be reached and were not aware of what was going on.

    “We do have a very hot and dangerous situation,” he said.

    The shooting occurred about seven hours after a gunman opened fire at a house party in Skyway. Witnesses told deputies that the suspected shooter had been at the party earlier in the evening at the home in the 6200 block of S. 117th Place and was asked to leave after a dispute. The man returned and started shooting people in the home before running away, King County Sheriff’s deputies said.

    All four shooting victims were rushed to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, where two victims are said to be in critical condition.

    ‘She loved being outside’

    Meanwhile, Anderson’s family said she died doing what she loved.

    “She loved people and she loved being outside,” Paul Kritsch, Anderson’s father, told KOMO News Radio.

    At around 10:20 a.m. Sunday, another park service employee had unsuccessfully tried to pull the man over during a routine traffic stop. Anderson set up a road block with her vehicle in the middle of the road, said park spokeswoman Lee Taylor. The man pulled up to Anderson about 11 a.m., jumped out, fired and ran off, she said.

    Margaret Anderson
    Troyer said when authorities arrived they were also shot at, but no one else was hit. About 150 officers, including officials from the Washington State Patrol, U.S. Forest Service and FBI, were on the mountain. They had not made contact with the gunman and did not know where he was, Troyer said.

    A military-style, armored vehicle was seen as police deployed resources into the evening.

    Authorities said earlier that Anderson’s body had been removed from the park, but Troyer said police have been unable to get to her.

    Park superintendent Randy King said Anderson has served as a park ranger for about four years. King said Anderson’s husband also was working as a ranger elsewhere in the park at the time of the shooting.

    Kritsch said Anderson met her husband while they were working at Bryce Canyon in southern Utah and searched out a place where they could serve together, and that’s what brought them to Mt. Rainier.

    They eventually got married and started a family, and had two young daughters, now aged 4 and 2.

    “She loved her two little girls, and they’re going to miss her,” Kritsch said. “(Her husband) is going to do a good job of remembering Margaret but the little girls will have very few memories of her mom any more after a while.”

    Adam Norton, a neighbor of Anderson’s in the small town of Eatonville, Wash., said the ranger’s family moved in about a year ago. He said they were not around much, but when they were Norton would see Anderson outside with her girls.

    “They just seemed like the perfect family,” he said.

    The town of about 3,000 residents, which is a logging community overlooking Mount Rainier, is very close knit, he said.

    “It’s really sad right now,” Norton said. “We take care of each other.”

    It has been legal for people to take loaded firearms into Mount Rainier since 2010, when a controversial federal law went into effect that made possession of firearms in national parks subject to state gun laws.

    The shooting occurred on an unseasonably sunny and mild day. The park, which offers miles of wooded trails and spectacular vistas from which to see 14,410-foot Mount Rainier, draws between 1.5 million and 2 million visitors each year.

    The Longmire station served as headquarters when the national park was established in 1899. Park headquarters have moved but the site still contains a museum, a hotel, restaurant and gift shop, which are open year-round.

    The Washington State Patrol also was helping with the investigation.

    “Our faith is sustaining us, but it’s a tragedy,” Kritsch said. “And we hope and pray they capture the guy who did this and bring them to justice.”

    1. Authorities believed the gunman was still in the woods with an assault rifle.

      Similar to the semiautomatic weapons the police hunting him have?

    2. Was his “assault weapon” anything like the semiautomatic rifles the police have?

      1. they never mentioned “assault weapon”

        they said “assault rifle”

        the former, as you know, is an invention of anti-gun libs (see: assault weapons ban)

        as usual, you fail to read for content

        original article does not mention ASSAULT WEAPON

        it says ASSAULT RIFLE, which is a much better defined and useful term

        this is actually an excellent example of how your biases and preconceptions color your perception of what you read.

        you SAW assault weapon, despite the fact it nowhere appears in the article

        it again, is a great demonstration and offers yet another valuable lesson in how ideologues do not see what is there; they see what they WANT to see

        you wanted to see “assault weapon” and you saw it.


        before you dismiss this (as your cognitive dissonance forces you to do with uncomfortable truths) take a few seconds and consider it

        it may help you heal…

        most likely not, but it’s worth a try






        1. Oops, I meant to type “assault rifle,” I swear. Because that’s what they always refer to civilians carrying, while they refer to police having “military-style weapons,” which was evidenced later in the article when they describe the armored personnel carrier the cops were deploying.

    3. We’d be a lot better off if the government stopped owning gigantic tracts of land (over which it is completely ineffective at maintaining a monopoly on force).

      1. I enjoy visits to mt rainier park. it’s beautiful. i don;t expect govt. to protect me from bad guys (or animals).

        that’s why i carry there.

        1. And thankfully now, other civilians are able to enjoy their Second Amendment rights there…except in caves, public restrooms, shelters or any other “government buildings.”

          Hooray, the two-class system suffers another defeat, albeit not a complete one.

  89. Authorities believed the gunman was still in the woods with an assault rifle.

    I wonder if it’s similar to the “semiautomatic weapons” the rangers have.

    And I’m shocked, shocked, that you haven’t said you hope the guy who shot up the house is also tried and executed.

  90. I have a feeling you will love this one, sloop 😉

    1. “on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work”

      Paging dunphy!

      1. i’ve commented on this numerous times. old story is the one in CT.

        it made big news, guy got tons of job offers.

        as i mentioned before, i purposefully answered a few IQ questions incorrectly, to avoid this effect.

        still got told i got a ridiculously high score 🙂

    2. So private employers can be required to make reasonable accommodations for people who are incapable of mentally doing their job, but public employers can discriminate against people who are considered too intelligent for the work (albeit by dubious methods)?

      My solution: all those tards should be hired as cops, immediately declared not mentally competent to own a gun, and should not be able to drive due to their diminished mental state.

      1. discriminating against applicants by public employers is easy. ONCE they pass probation, they get metric assloads of protection agaisnt same

        i purposefully answered a few stanford binet questions wrong, btw… to avoid the “CT effect” 🙂

  91. Now watching old South Parks.

    Happy January 2, 2012, Reason!

    PS Way to lose to the fucking JV, Detroit! Like the old days – good times, good times

  92. How come the government doesn’t ban gambling?

    1. Too busy banning Gamboling?


        1. We resolve to comment more intelligently is 2012.





  93. Communications From Elsewhere Constructivism in the works of Spelling
    Barbara Dahmus
    Department of Literature, Cambridge University
    Linda O. H. Drucker
    Department of Future Studies, Carnegie-Mellon University
    1. Realities of defining characteristic
    If one examines capitalist neocultural theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject the textual paradigm of expression or conclude that art is responsible for hierarchy, given that consciousness is interchangeable with reality. It could be said that Sontag uses the term ‘constructivism’ to denote the role of the poet as writer. Bataille’s analysis of subcapitalist situationism implies that reality is a product of the collective unconscious.

    Thus, Marx uses the term ‘dialectic theory’ to denote the meaninglessness, and some would say the futility, of precapitalist society. The primary theme of Prinn’s[1] essay on constructivism is the role of the poet as reader.

    In a sense, Humphrey[2] holds that we have to choose between subcapitalist situationism and postconstructive theory. Any number of desublimations concerning the futility of textual sexual identity may be discovered.

    2. Sontagist camp and neocultural capitalism
    “Class is part of the rubicon of sexuality,” says Lacan. But the characteristic theme of the works of Spelling is a modernist totality. In Beverly Hills 90210, Spelling reiterates neocultural capitalism; in Models, Inc. he deconstructs subcapitalist situationism.

    In the works of Spelling, a predominant concept is the distinction between feminine and masculine. However, if subdialectic capitalist theory holds, we have to choose between constructivism and Marxist class. Bataille promotes the use of subcapitalist situationism to modify and attack sexual identity.

    “Society is meaningless,” says Lyotard. But Lacan uses the term ‘postdialectic narrative’ to denote the role of the artist as writer. The premise of constructivism states that the task of the artist is deconstruction, but only if Derrida’s critique of the patriarchialist paradigm of expression is valid; otherwise, the collective is part of the meaninglessness of reality.

    In the works of Spelling, a predominant concept is the concept of precapitalist culture. Therefore, Brophy[3] holds that we have to choose between neocultural capitalism and postsemioticist narrative. Bataille uses the term ‘subcapitalist situationism’ to denote the defining characteristic, and thus the rubicon, of dialectic consciousness.

    However, several discourses concerning the neocapitalist paradigm of expression exist. The primary theme of Long’s[4] essay on constructivism is not dematerialism per se, but predematerialism.

    Thus, if neocultural capitalism holds, we have to choose between constructivism and dialectic narrative. Many situationisms concerning a mythopoetical reality may be found.

    Therefore, Sartre uses the term ‘neocultural capitalism’ to denote the role of the reader as participant. The figure/ground distinction intrinsic to Madonna’s Sex emerges again in Material Girl.

    In a sense, Pickett[5] suggests that we have to choose between constructivism and subcapitalist cultural theory. The subject is contextualised into a neocultural capitalism that includes language as a paradox.

    It could be said that several discourses concerning predialectic libertarianism exist. In Erotica, Madonna reiterates constructivism; in Sex, however, she affirms neocultural capitalism.

    However, constructivism implies that the purpose of the poet is significant form, given that reality is distinct from culture. The main theme of the works of Madonna is the paradigm of cultural sexual identity.


    1. Prinn, T. J. R. (1998) The Meaninglessness of Consciousness: Constructivism and subcapitalist situationism. Oxford University Press

    2. Humphrey, H. J. ed. (1970) Constructivism in the works of Glass. O’Reilly & Associates

    3. Brophy, E. Q. C. (1998) The Narrative of Stasis: Subcapitalist situationism and constructivism. Cambridge University Press

    4. Long, T. S. ed. (1970) Constructivism in the works of Madonna. O’Reilly & Associates

    5. Pickett, Q. W. N. (1995) The Iron Sky: Constructivism in the works of Stone. University of Georgia Press


    The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link. If you liked this particular essay and would like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page.

    The Postmodernism Generator was written by Andrew C. Bulhak using the Dada Engine, a system for generating random text from recursive grammars, and modified very slightly by Josh Larios (this version, anyway. There are others out there).

    This installation of the Generator has delivered 5426790 essays since 25/Feb/2000 18:43:09 PST, when it became operational.

    More detailed technical information may be found in Monash University Department of Computer Science Technical Report 96/264: “On the Simulation of Postmodernism and Mental Debility Using Recursive Transition Networks”. An on-line copy is available from Monash University.

    More generated texts are linked to from the sidebar to the right.

    If you enjoy this, you might also enjoy reading about the Social Text Affair, where NYU Physics Professor Alan Sokal’s brilliant(ly meaningless) hoax article was accepted by a cultural criticism publication.

    Both comments and pings are currently closed.
    Comments are closed.

    You are here:

    The Postmodernism Generator
    Home Page
    Recent Activity
    Music Picks

    Bike Links
    Bike Hugger
    Bike Seattle
    Cleverchimp blog
    Kent’s Bike Blog
    Surly Bikes Blog
    The Pleasant Revolution
    Alien Loves Predator
    Buttercup Festival
    Dinosaur and Robot
    Girl Genius
    Making Fiends
    Penny Arcade
    PVP Online
    Something Positive
    Too Much Coffee Man
    Wapsi Square
    Folks I Read:
    Cameron Larios
    Livejournal Friends
    Making Light
    Michael Hanscom
    Mike Whybark
    Miss Doxie
    Oren Sreebny
    Paul Beard
    Other Things:
    About Me
    Buy me something
    Cosmic Wimpout
    Discordian Tarot
    Emperor Norton
    Infocom Games
    Jargon 4.2.3
    Photo Gallery
    Sunlight Clock
    The Mighty Red Ram
    Sites I Like:
    Boing Boing
    Cool Tools
    Goto Reviews
    Jason Webley
    MAKE: Blog
    Obscure Store
    Pyramid Online
    Spy’s Spice
    Text Generators:
    Adolescent Poetry
    Band Names
    Subgenius Brag
    Time Cube


    Search Now:


    Log in
    0 queries. 0.235 seconds. || Powered by WordPress || Hosted by DreamHost

  94. Has anyone noticed any similarities between the writing styles/comments of Eric-IslamoFascist-Hating-U.S.Navy-Deck-Swabber-Nine-Languages-Fluent-Libertine-Republican-Hotair-Whats his face (EIFHUSNDSNLFLRHW) …..

    ….and a certain H&R troll that goes by the name Max ?

    If Max & EIFHUSNDSNLFLRHW are not actually the same person, I’d like to know where Max got his potty mouth.

  95. Thank you Reason Magazine for your article:
    Raw Milk V. Dope & Rabbit Food

    …which contains links of dope & Progressive Insurance.

    I am very much interested in any links to misdeeds of Progressive Insurance, particularly their law offices and claims department.

    Several years ago I got an email from Progressive (law office) and after three weeks of trouble with missinformation, mistakes, typos, etc. from that email, I came to the conclusion that the lawyers at Progressive are stoned-out-of-their-fucking-gourd. Their screwed up email didn’t look to me that it could be blamed on whiskey, scotch or rum. Nobody that drunk would be at work and sitting at a computer keyboard, sending out emails. Their lawyers have to be smokin’ dope. Booze does not explain the email.

    However, if you run into any connections of questionable integrity about alcohol abuse and Progressive Insurance and their lawyers, I am anxious to hear about it.

  96. I have lost the weblink to the site at “Thoughtful Living”

    “The website you are visiting is currently offline due to system maintenance” …? HostMonster.com


    RE: Alcohol abuse & Progressive Insurance

    It has been suggested to me that the lawyers of Progressive Insurance (Kirkland, WA) might be using ‘laptops’ and it might be possible for them to go to a bar, get throughly-shit-faced-drunk (TSFD), a send emails from dimly lighted places. That *somewhat* might explain what I got from them (Progressive Insurance).

    I have a long, long list of questions about Progressive Insurance but no answers (as yet).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.