A.M. Links: Ron Paul Heads to New Hampshire, Obama Unveils Military Diet, Kodak Mulls Bankruptcy

|

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

New at Reason.tv: "Rick Santorum on the Freedom to Impose Your Values"

Advertisement

NEXT: Steve Chapman on Obama's Continuation of Bush-Era Policies

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. 9AM…. Riiiiiiight…

    1. You have to expect a little latency when you are behind 7 proxies.

      1. Are you claiming that Riggsy is some sort of 1337 h4Xx0r?

        1. The squirrel can make anybody look 31337.

          1. Have you boys considered methadone?

    2. Celebrating cucumber, carrot, and zucchini fatwa month.

      Good morning reason!

      1. Wait, what?

      2. *confused dog stare*

        1. Sounds like a jezzebelle-inspired event.

  2. Password case reframes Fifth Amendment rights in context of digital world
    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19669803

    Beyond the log-in screen of Ramona Fricosu’s laptop computer lies what federal prosecutors say could be the key evidence in the bank-fraud case against her.

    There’s only one problem: Prosecutors don’t know her password.

    Thus, in an extraordinarily rare move, prosecutors in Denver are seeking a court order forcing Fricosu to unlock the computer so that they can obtain files they would use to try to convict her and her ex-husband.

    Civil-liberties groups nationwide have taken notice, saying the case tests the strength of rights against self-incrimination in a digital world. Prosecutors, meanwhile, say that allowing criminal defendants to beat search warrants simply by encrypting their computers would make it impossible to obtain evidence in an age when clues are more likely held within a hard drive than a file cabinet.

    1. What is law regarding regular locks? Can they force you to open a safe, for example?

      1. Nope, but they can use destructive force to access it. Same here. Let them brute force decrypt it if they have a warrant. And fuck ’em if they can’t.

        1. Plenty of tax-funded supercomputers they can put to use for the task.

          1. What you need is an encryption package that overwrites the disk with zeroes after a given number of failed logins. Brute force that.

            1. how you get one of them bad boys?

            2. actually you’d want to overwrite with random bits. multiple times.

              1. “actually you’d want to overwrite with random bits. multiple times.”

                ACTUALLY, zeros are the better choice.

                But I like how you put actually when you thought you were correcting someone but were not.

                I like when people like you think that you know what the fuck you’re talking about then prove you don’t.

                1. I don’t believe you (yet). why are zeroes better?

                  1. Because it’s possible to verify, after the write, that it was done correctly.

                2. But I like it when people get really fired up about shit like this.

                  1. Team RandomBits Vs Team Zeros.

                    *pops popcorn*

                    1. fucking zeros. I hate those fucking assholes.

          2. Hell, buy a motherboard with 2 GPU slots and 2 nice GPUs and you can probably crack it in a couple of days, depending on whether there’s a lockout period. I agree with NEM, if its really important that data not fall into the wrong hands, 12 bad password attempts ought to induce DOD compliant formatting.

            1. hey now, I’m not having any of this “cost effective computing” bullshit.

              If it doesn’t fill an entire floor of a building and use 100’s of kilowatts of power, it’s not acceptable for Official Government computing.

            2. (i can’t wait till like 5years from now, when i can grab a pile of used magnycours on the cheap. get a rack, some blades, and like 128gb of ram, BAM, renderfarm for less than $5k *drool*)

              1. You will still be unable to make Skyrim your bitch, sadly.

                1. You will still be unable to make Skyrim your bitch, sadly.

                  Not what the farm is for, besides it runs fine now anyway (except for Solitude, fucking pennants everywhere and long-views. Markath is kinda crappy too.)

                  1. Whiterun is only choppy place for me. I dunno why.

                    1. Whiterun is only choppy place for me. I dunno why.

                      I bet it’s because of the view over the city-wall.

                2. ::Obligatory arrow to the knee joke::

    2. Can courts force you to divulge the combination of your safe and give its contents to the prosecution in a case against you? Seems like the same thing to me.

    3. Tough shit. It is called the right against self incrimination. Since when did “but the accused might win” become an argument? The issue is whether giving your password amounts to “self incrimination” not whether it would make cops’ jobs tougher.

      You can get into reasonable arguments under the 4th Amendment because the Amendment is so vague. It doesn’t say anything about warrants or probable cause. It just says “unreasonable” whatever that means. Certainly if a rule would never allow the police to search, the rule would be unreasonable. But the 5th isn’t vague at all. It says “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Reasonable isn’t a part of the inquiry. The person is either being a witness against himself or not. And in this case, they clearly are.

      1. Self-incrimination is a privilege against providing testimony. Divulging a password or safe combination is not testimonial. I think this would be constitutional provided that it is supported by reasonable cause.

        1. I think it is testimonial. How is it not? When that cop goes to testify in court, he will have to explain how he got in the computer. When he does, he will say “the accused gave me his password”. That is clearly testimonial. For something to be testimonial there has to be an assertion and contemplation of litigation. There seems to be both here.

          1. Even if it isn’t testimonial… Do you have a duty to provide incriminatory evidence to the prosecution?

            1. If the subpoena it you do. But what they can’t subpoena is your testimony.

            2. You never have a duty to talk to the cops, or to reveal anything that you feel might be used against you. Even if they get a court order to reveal the password, the defendant should simply cite the 5th, tell them they are violating the constitution, and STFU and let their lawyer appeal it to a higher court.

          2. testimonial evidence is narrative. Courts have ruled that some types of information, such as birthdate or address, are not testimonial and not covered by the 5th Ammendment.

            To address Sugarfree’s question: “Do you have a duty to provide incriminatory evidence to the prosecution?” Yes, provided it’s supported by reasonable cause, usually in the form of a warrant. You can get a supoena duces tecum (subpoena and bring documents). A search warrant will allow a cop into your house. You don’t have to assist them by unlocking your filing cabinet, but then the cops will just pry it open. They can drill though your foundation if they have reasonable cause to believe there’s evidence under it.

            1. But is your password the same thing as your birthday? Maybe.

              1. But is your password the same thing as your birthday?

                I don’t think so. Somewhere, your birthday is a public record (on your birth certificate, if nowhere else). Its not even private.

            2. This is an excellent debate. I can see John’s point: they would be forcing her to utter a word that reveals her written words. And I can see Abduls point, that a password is the digital equivalent of a lock on a safe.

              I guess what would decide it for me is my default bias against police powers.

            3. The computer is analogous to the filing cabinet. Let them brute force the password.

              1. I’m with Zeb.

            4. You also have a constitutional “right to privacy” according to scotus.

              1. Only if you’re buying condoms or having abortions.

            5. “Do you have a duty to provide incriminatory evidence to the prosecution?” Yes, provided it’s supported by reasonable cause, usually in the form of a warrant. You can get a supoena duces tecum (subpoena and bring documents). A search warrant will allow a cop into your house. You don’t have to assist them by unlocking your filing cabinet, but then the cops will just pry it open.

              No, standing aside when cops enter your house using a search warrant isn’t, in any sense, providing them with incriminatory evidence.

              This order is akin to them getting a search warrant, not finding what they are looking for, and then demanding that you tell them where the incriminatory evidence is located.

              The search warrant is them seizing your computer. It’s not your duty to assist them in searching that computer.

              1. To see what a non-lazy lawyer thinks of the issue, check this out: http://volokh.com/posts/1197763604.shtml

                1. Before I clicked the link, I put on my Karnak hat and said, “Orin Kerr article; he’s going to find that the Constitution doesn’t prohibit what the cops want to do.”

                  Lo and behold! How that guy has a rep as a civil libertarian is beyond me.

        2. but I’m pretty sure they’ve already ruled that you can’t force someone to give up their safe combination. Again, they would have to break in. A safe combination is very similar to a password. Both are contained in one’s mind.

          1. Iirc the foundation of the right of protection from self-incrimination was when the English tried to force people to swear to things (“utter oaths”) that they simply could not in good conscience. This seems really similar in some respects.

            1. If you give your password, you’re admitting you have access to what (in the prosecution’s theory) is incriminating evidence. Admitting you have access to incriminating evidence is itself incriminating.

            2. Yes. I was just reading about this the other day in Blackstone, but now I’m fuzzy on the details. I’ll have to look it up again. (Yes, I read Blackstone for fun. And Maitland. Sue me.)

        3. “Self-incrimination is a privilege against providing testimony”

          No, that’s totally wrong.

      2. Since when did “but the accused might win” become an argument?

        Around the time that convictions became more important than justice.

      3. For a while, in the ’70’s I think, there was a legal argument that blood samples violated the 5th amendment, i.e., you were essentially forced to incriminate yourself by giving one. You can see their point–drawing blood involves one’s privacy interests and you would’t want to compel it unless you had good reasons. Eventually, SCOTUS found this wasn’t testimonial.

        I imagine if I wasn’t lazy, I could find a case out there that addresses whether things like a safe combination or cryptological key are covered by testimonial priviliege. But based on the reasoning from those blood cases, I’m pretty sure they’d find that such things aren’t testimonial.

        1. ya. they were wrong then too. fuck em.

    4. If I received a court order to punch myself in the face, why would I follow said order?

      I would rather take the contempt (or whatever) charge than reveal a password that could potentially send me to jail for even longer.

      1. Or you can say that you forgot the password. It was really complicated and I forget it.

        1. Or just make up a password and tell them you don’t know why it’s not working.

        2. i have a friend who literally doesn’t know what his password is. He picked something he could remember and aligned his fingers on a QWERTY board, but then shifts his hands one key to the right, but keeps the same finger motion. So all the letters are shifted to the right. He doesn’t know what his password is, he just knows the motion to type it.

        3. I love it!

          Try triskaidekaphobia? Darn.
          Try floccinaucinihilipilification? Darn.
          Try honorificabilitudinitatibus? Darn.
          Try copswivesgiveitupdayandnight? Darn.

          or another variation…

          “Password? I love that game! It’s in living color now, you know. Could you turn on the television set please officer? It’s time for my shows.”
          Darn that Alzheimer’s!

          1. Hmmm, I think the password was “Fuckoffanddiepigs”. No? Oh, wait, maybe it was “Imnotfuckingtellingyousopissoff”. No? Hmmm, was it “Yomommaisafiddycentho”? Still not it? Damn my faulty memory!

          2. Try removing the hard drive and installing it in another computer as a slave. Then use Windows Explorer on it?

    5. Can’t they just use one of those TV cop show hipsters, who is a computer genius, wears the latest styles, and has stuble?

        1. The most annoying that I’ve seen is Angela from TV’s Bones. Her art degree somehow makes her the best programmer that the world has ever seen.

        2. She is also a published writer,[6] a singer and civil rights advocate.

          As a non-viewer, I’m left wondering how often her character and the rest of her team violate the badguys’ civil rights. I’m guessing at least 3-4 times per episode.

        3. Dude, she is unbelievably hot for 42.

          1. At, say, 24, the gothic lolita look is a quirky eccentricity, at 42 it’s a sad attempt to pass as not-42.

            1. Pigtails and role-playing that you’re a barely legal teen is hot no matter how old a woman is. I can attest that that works for a 50something woman.

              1. assuming she’s not fat like most seem to be anymoar

        4. The character Abby Sciuto was created by Donald Bellisario, who “wanted to create…a character who was seemingly an ‘alternafreak,’ while portraying her as perhaps the smartest, most capable person on television. Not a junkie, killer, loser, or television stereotype.”

          In other words, an avatar for goony, broken nerds to pretend that they’re the most important person in the room.

        5. HOTT!!111!!!

        6. She’s unbelievably hot, period

    6. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a ham sandwich Grand Jury mesmerized by Law and Order to think prosecutors would never bring charges against an innocent person and police never, ever lie, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War (on Drugs/Poverty/Terror/etc.) or vague, continuing public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb unless we want to file civil rights charges after the state fails to make it’s case or doesn’t even actually try; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself unless we already know they are guilty because we can spot guilty people right off the bat, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (LOL); nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

        1. Your complaints mean less to me than a foreskin full of stale brie.

          1. Ah, but the import of that statement depends entirely one the value you place on the aforementioned foreskin. And what if it’s really, really good brie? You know, the expensive stuff they keep behind the glass display case and you have to take a number and wait to be served and then ask the person in the white apron behind the counter to get it out for you?

            1. My grading of Sugarfree’s typically puerile scratchings means so little to him that he took the time to tell me that he doesn’t care.

            2. BSR,

              I made the mistake of responding to it like it was a human, but it is the same old butthurt griefer who has so little in her life she has to come here to tell we are irrelevant. So irrelevant that she has to spend the day telling us.

              1. SugarFree|11.7.11 @ 9:06AM
                The Pledge

                I will not respond in any way to rather or any of her other thousand spoof handles in any way…Let her post her retarded form letters and whining unmolested; she will hoist herself on her own petard as she has always done. The Big Ignore begins today. Please do not feed any of the trolls.

                Oops. It begins today.
                Really!

              2. Just remember that you’re standing on a planet that’s evolving
                And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
                That’s orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it’s reckoned,
                A sun that is the source of all our power.
                The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
                Are moving at a million miles a day
                In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
                Of the galaxy we call the ‘Milky Way’.
                Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
                It’s a hundred thousand light years side to side.
                It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
                But out by us, it’s just three thousand light years wide.
                We’re thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
                We go ’round every two hundred million years,
                And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
                In this amazing and expanding universe.

                The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
                In all of the directions it can whizz
                As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
                Twelve million miles a minute, and that’s the fastest speed there is.
                So remember, when you’re feeling very small and insecure,
                How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
                And pray that there’s intelligent life somewhere up in space,
                ‘Cause there’s bugger all down here on Earth.

                1. Take The Pledge, BSR.

          2. Sugarfree: Ignore the troll, already.

            1. I am, I am. It’s great how she has turned this place in a minefield of fuckwittery.

              1. You are so fucking nuts, sugarfree, and once again, I don’t know what the fuck you are bitching about
                I do know that more people are catching on to your BS game.

                poor little pro-lib covering his ass like a lawyer-he’s pathetic

                1. He gets caught breaking his own Pledge (again), and now he’s sad and frustrated. And for such an obnoxious little piece of scum who never misses an opportunity to trash others, he sure gets butthurt when others judge his infantile writing projects. Typical of his ilk, he can dish it out but he can’t take it.

                  1. The pledge? His antipodal policyspeak. He writes emails about contacting him for my personal info, including libelous claims, and writes unsolicited about having me banned from H&R.

      1. I like the cut of your jib.

    7. Oh, who remembers their password?

      1. Mine’s locked in the safe, bitches!

  3. Rick Santorum is not as poor or disconnected from Washington as he claims.

    A disingenuous politician? Unpossible.

    1. I recall that he got a job with Kirkpatrick & Lockhart–presumably at their Washington office–after getting run out of the Senate. That pays, and I imagine he was doing some sort of lobbying or otherwise trading off of his political connections.

    2. He also got a sweetheart mortgage deal, and I’m sure a basket full of other insidery goodies.

      1. I read that as “sweater mortgage” deal and besides LOLing, I thought “makes sense, given how many of the damn things he wears”. More coffee.

  4. I am starting to think there is going to be a brokered convention. If Santorum becomes the SOCON candidate he is guaranteed support and votes in every primary. Paul has his own group of supporters and money and isn’t going anywhere. Romney has more money and a bigger organization than anyone. Hard to imagine him quitting after running for the past five years. And if all three stay in, no way does anyone get 50% of the delegates. How is there not a brokered convention?

    1. Which wouldn’t be the worst of all Paulian worlds, at all.

      1. No. Paul wouldn’t get the nomination. But he could get all kinds of concessions in the platform. I think a brokered convention would be a good thing. Give them a chance to get someone else to run.

        1. If Romney can be held to about 30% of the delegates, I could see someone like Flake being the nominee.

        2. Oh yum! Concessions in the platform!! Can’t wait! That will advance liberty!

          /s

          1. Yeah, parties always take their platform seriously.

            No, wait, it’s a bone they throw to the losing faction and then ignore for the next four years. Oh, well, some cool platform language should bring those Paultards aboard for Romney.

        3. Cool, they might let Paul add to the heap of lies!

        4. I don’t think Paul would get many concessions. Where he differs from Romney/Santorum he differs a lot and in deep principle, what could they give other and what could he take?

          1. If he held the balance of power, something. If they split the delegates three ways, someone has to give up something. If nothing else, Paul could force them to take someone they really didn’t like as a VP.

            1. Maybe he could get his audit of the Fed, but really I don’t think he would get much beyond a good speaking slot (which could be important).

          2. More to the point, what the fuck does a platform mean anymore? Essentially it’s just a list of things the candidate hopes will get him elected, to be ignored once the election is won. See, e.g., Obama, Barack, Bush, George W., et al.

        5. platform? is that really the only room for bargaining? isn’t there anything else?

    2. I think there is a chance, but there are still a lot of winner-take-all primaries, so the split will have to be in a way that allows multiple candidates to be state winners come that point.

    3. ** rising intonation **

      What about the “Superdelegates”?

      1. There are only 132 and in most states they’re bound to vote how the state votes.

    4. While the GOP is doing a proportional allocation of delegates in the early states, a majority of the delegates will actually be awarded from later winner-take-all states. It won’t be enough for Paul and Santorum to just keep doing almost as well as Romney in the vote count, they’ll actually have to win some states to force a brokered covention.

      1. That is a good point. But it is not out of the question to see Santorum winning some Southern states and Paul winning some Western States. Romney doesn’t play well outside of the Northeast. I can’t see him sweeping the South or the West.

        1. Its such a good point that someone made it at 9:17 also.

          1. Sorry, I don’t think your comment was showing yet when I started typing mine.

            1. No problem, it happens all the time. I was just mocking John.

      2. And don’t forget Santorum won Iowa. So in at least one state Santorum and Paul didn’t just keep Romney down, one of them won the state.

        1. Recount!!

        2. Except for the technicality that Romney won Iowa.

          1. Except for the technicality that Pual won* Iowa, as the winner in Iowa is the person with the most delegates.

            *pending finalization in June.

    5. It sure would be fun to see!

    6. Santorum is going to implode. No way he makes it past March.

      1. That should read “Santorum’s candidacy is going to implode.”

        That he might personally implode is just wishful thinking on my part.

    7. and just 2 months ago you probably would call paul ever getting 20% a fantasy, when he was under 10. now you’re “starting” to think about some brokered convention. what’s next? people like you have been calling a paul “ceiling” since 3%.. don’t get me wrong, you can still be right, as occasionally with a broken clock. the point is what you’re going to come up with next just has total irrelevance. people like you taking a spectator approach to those trying to put out the fires of rome–there’s none a sight more embarrassing, to even think the speculators feel relevant to comment. laughable.

  5. Acting Like A King Isn’t Among The President’s Duties
    http://news.investors.com/Arti…..src=IBDDAE

    Within a day, Obama made good on the threat. On Wednesday, he bypassed the congressional approval process and named Richard Cordray as head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The appointment, made while the Senate is in a pro forma session and not in recess, came after that chamber blocked Cordray’s confirmation last month.

    Not only is Obama trampling precedent that says recess appointments are to be done only after the Senate has been out of session for 10 days or more, he’s also trying to circumvent legislation.

    1. Cordray is a twit. Obama shoulda appointed Ken Jennings.

    2. We can’t wait for Congress to act. And when Congress refuses to act, when Republicans choose the path of obstruction rather than cooperation, then the President is not going to sit here — this gridlock in Washington is not an excuse for inaction. He’s going to take the actions that he can take, using his executive authority, to help the cause here, to help Americans deal with this challenging economy. And they can be small, medium, or large actions, and they don’t have to be just executive authority actions, they can be things that we can do working with the private sector.

      1. Don’t forget to “cup” the balls in your hand.

      2. Errrmm…what?

      3. He’s going to take the actions that he can take, using his executive authority, to help the cause here, to help Americans deal with this challenging economy.

        Yeah, that all sounds great until someone from a TEAM you don’t like does it. Then you’ll be chimping out like the rest of your tribe.

      4. “We can’t wait!” will make a great slogan for our new dictator. Much better than the old Hope and Change. More decisive. More bold.

      5. Oh, yes!

        The “we have to do SOMETHING” argument.

        “The President/Emperor/King/Prophet/God is all-wise and will protect us!”

      6. The President is not a king. He can’t just make up positions and appoint people willy nilly. And don’t make me remind you that he and his party had complete control of both branches for two years and did nothing.

      7. Since the CFPB has absolutely nothing to do with helping Americans deal with a challenging economy, I assume you are discussing some other gridlock?

    3. Technically this applies to Congress as well, but this seems appropriate to post here:

      He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

      1. Oh damn! Especially Congress! Not to mention City Hall.

  6. Hey at least those pigs didn’t shoot themselves in the foot, amirite?

  7. Internet Access Is Not a Human Right
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01…..ef=opinion

    What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a civil right? The same reasoning above can be applied here ? Internet access is always just a tool for obtaining something else more important ? though the argument that it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger one than that it is a human right. Civil rights, after all, are different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings.

    1. “Civil rights, after all, are different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings.”

      Good God.

      1. Does the truth hurt? Though they’re ignored, I’m glad that Common Law rights are mentioned in the Constitution. One day we might reclaim them.

        1. You need to learn a thing or two about natural rights and their origins before you spew on these boards again.

    2. That’s flat out wrong in the United States. The Constitution is firmly based on the concept of natural law. Which means that we’re viewed as having all sorts of rights, none of which are “granted” by the government.

      This isn’t a debatable point. It’s made even clearer for the hopelessly dense in the 9th Amendment.

      1. The fact that “natural” rights are a fantasy doesn’t make it debatable?

        The founders were not libertarians. The idea of a minimal or nonexistent government would not have made sense to them, as it does not make sense to most people now.

        1. We hold these Truths to be Self-Evident – All Rights are Granted by The State and can be Rescinded by The State at a Whim.

          So Speaketh the Statist

        2. The founders were not libertarians. The idea of a minimal or nonexistent government would not have made sense to them

          Your statement lacks even the barest of historical fact in support of it. It evidences your utter ignorance of what the founders themselves actually wrote.

          1. You think the Founders were libertarians?

            1. The term had not yet been invented at that time. Which founders are we talking about? Some were pretty much monarchists, or very close facsimilies thereof. Others were much closer to what today would be considered libertarian, more or less. Compare Alexander Hamilton to Thomas Jefferson, for example.

              In any event, I disagree with the statement that the idea of minimal government would not have made sense to them. They certainly – even the ardent federalists – did not expect the federal government to expand to the extent that it has today, where we have a massive executive branch consisting of many-tentacled, ponderous and bloated regulatory agencies publishing detailed and extensive rules and regulations governing every detail and the minutiae of every day life, nation-wide.

              1. They certainly would have a vision of a much more minimal state than we have, but it would also be something pretty far from libertopia. Like I said, even at the federal level they would seem to have been fine with taxation, immigration and trade controls, interstate regulation (which could include things like prohibitions on interstate trafficking in “obscenity” and “gambling” (federal laws against which were enacted around the Civil War), government deprivations and takings of property. These are all things that prominent (and not so prominent!) libertarians can be found bitching about on Reason and Volokh every day…

            2. They were classical liberals

        3. The founders were not libertarians.

          [Facepalm]

          1. Gosh, I dunno, all of that stuff about limited government, natural rights, checks and balances up the nose, more limited government. . . .

            I mean, okay, they weren’t anarchists. But by today’s standards, they were crazy libertarian at the federal level. There’s an argument that they were less so at the state level, but even the states all have constitutions limiting their power.

            1. More libertarian than today, sure. But the Founders made a government that even when strictly construed allowed things that a principled libertarian would have to find outrageous. Post offices. Taking private property to build roads and army bases. Laws and regulations that deprive property, life and liberty. Regulating commerce (as long as it is interstate). Tariffs with no limit, immigration policy.

              1. If the Founders took the original Smallest Political Quiz what would they get? They’d not answer libertarian on the immigration and “eliminate barriers to trade” and the “end taxes” questions…

                1. You’re cherry-picking. They were libertarian (by today’s standards) in so many ways that many of today’s libertarians really just want to return to that view of government, more or less.

                  If nothing else, they’re certainly closer to being libertarians than they would be to Republicans, Democrats, etc.

                  1. As I said, if you want to say “their view of government was closer to libertarians view than most views today” I’d agree; but they disagreed with libertarians on more than a few areas so it’s not right to call them “libertarian” imo. Especially since so many libertarians that I’ve encountered here are extreme (you could also say “pure” or “strictly principled”) and fine even slight deviations from the path to be Very Big Deals.

                    1. And “cherry picking?” Dude, the constitution is what, five pages long and I came up with half a dozen examples of the top of my head. We’re talking about a document of federal powers and limitations that does not explicitly speak of a “right to property” or “right to contract” (outside of a restriction on the states) or “right to privacy.” What libertarian would write such a thing today?

                    2. Dude, are you kidding? The Ninth Amendment, not to mention the supporting literature like the Federalist Papers, makes it clear that the general belief of the Founders was that people hold a whole panoply of natural rights, and they absolutely did not view it as necessary to define those rights in the Constitution, which is strictly a structural document, aimed at narrowly defining and enumerating government powers, not civil liberties. Even the Bill of Rights was just an add-on, adopted to placate people that wanted certain key rights clearly protected (pretty good argument on the other side that the amendments were unnecessary and possibly dangerous in the possibility that they might be viewed as an exhaustive list).

                    3. I don’t think libertarians as a group are more dominated by their extreme elements than any other political viewpoint. Even here, I’d say the minarchists are the largest group, and even some of our anarchists accept that we’re not getting rid of government anytime soon.

                      As far as fundamental principles go, modern libertarians and the Founders are fairly closely aligned. Some issues (from either direction) are N/A–like, for instance, slavery, which we clearly oppose today.

                    4. “Some issues (from either direction) are N/A–like, for instance, slavery, which we clearly oppose today.”

                      That’s mighty white of ya 😉

                    5. You keep saying “they” as if all of the signers of the Constitution were one unified blob. They shared a common overall goal, but just like Congress today, their views on the philosophy of government and proper extent of government power varied from individual to individual. Hence the Federalists and Anti-Federalists; Washington/Adams/Hamilton vs. Jefferson/Madison.

                    6. That’s true enough, and I hope I wasn’t making it sound like they were monolithic in their views. Though even the ones who’d have been okay with a monarchy, for instance, really still favored pretty limited government. Parliament in the UK was already ascendent by that time.

                    7. You’re right they were spread out, some Founders were certainly closer to libertarianism than other. Good point.

                      “They shared a common overall goal”

                      Er, should I point out that goal at the Constitutional Convention was to scrap a more limited version of federal government and replace it with a more powerful one? [ducks]

                    8. That’s the balance – a government too weak to actively oppress the freedom of its citizens, yet a government strong enough to be able to govern and survive.

            2. Several of the Founders passed the Alien and Sedition Acts and insisted on Fugitive Slave Laws.

              Several of the Founders helped christen state churches in the years after the Constitution was ratified.

              So no, they were not uniformly libertarian.

        4. Right, ‘ cause dudes who say things like “the government that governs least, governs best” and veto ed legislation for a national road system because that power wasn’t explicitly granted in the constitution were totally un libertarian keynesians.

          1. Sure the Founders were not socialists, but they were’nt libertarians. Is the Constitution something a libertarian theorist today would write? It expressly allows for the taking of private property (as long as for public use and w/compensation) and for its deprivation (as long as due process is allowed). It expressly allows for things like the Post Office and for regulation of interstate commerce and federal tariffs etc.,

            Less government than now, sure. Libertarian? Hardly.

            1. The Founders were liberals – in the classical sense, not the progressive sense. Libertarianism as we think of it didn’t exist, but I think it’s safe to say that the Founders would be displeased with the current state of affairs, as well as both major parties.

            2. regulation of interstate commerce

            3. Anarcho-capitalists are a subset of libertarians. So not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists. So your litmus test is off.

            4. The constitution, as misinterpreted and rewritten by extensive judicial reinterpretation by modern liberals, isn’t something that libertarians would write.

              But the founders didn’t envision how their document would be twisted around.

              If they had a glimpse of the modern state, the constitution would be much longer and more explicit — the bill of rights would be about 1,000 items long.

        5. The founders were not libertarians. The idea of a minimal or nonexistent government would not have made sense to them

          The articles of confederation created a minimal government. The constitution, as written, created a somewhat larger minimal government. An expansive coercive bureaucratic state with a huge permanent standing army like we have now is what the British government had, and what the founders fought a war to abolish.

          1. & it created a government designed to be slow, inefficient, and gridlocked.

            This one checks that one, who checks this one, who checks the others, all of who can stop this or that…

            Not only would the size of government today scare the founding fathers, but the idea of efficient government wasn’t a goal of theirs either.

          2. It was minimal AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

            State governments were fairly intrusive at the time; not quite as intrusive as today, but that’s a function of the longer communication and travel times and more primitive record keeping technology.

      2. The Constitution is firmly based on the concept of natural law.

        Bull. It doesn’t say that in the document itself, and the 9th doesn’t say this either. The 9th just prohibits interpreting the first 8 amendments as an exhaustive list of civil rights, it doesn’t say shit about natural law.

        This isn’t a debatable point.

        That’s what people who know they can’t defend their claims always say.

  8. Pres. Obama to announce plan for a slightly smaller U.S. military.

    Let me be clear.

    Obesity has no place in Tomorrow’s American Military. As Her Excellen, uh, the First Lady, says, “Let’s Move!”

    1. In another order, all military uniforms will be modified to wear the belt at breast bone height. Her Excellency thinks that its very fashionable

      1. Wait, so our soldiers would be wearing mom-jeans?

        1. Careful peasant, Her Excellency does not like that term.

          1. She prefers “Palace Guards”.

        2. mom-slacks. no denim.

        3. Pajama Jeans.

          Forever Lazy’s are also acceptable.

  9. Anyone else noting that the story about the police shooting is at “Fox News Latino”? Did Fox realize that they were turning off Hispanic viewers with the non-stop immigrant bashing on the regular network?

    1. If Hulu has a Latino section, why not FoxNews?

    2. That is only a problem if all Hispanics are racist and support illegal immigration because a large proportion of illegal’s are Hispanic.

  10. If the Community-Organizer-in-Chief packs the NLRB with a matched set of “labor movement” yes-men, will the Senate initiate impeachment proceedings?

    If not, why not?

    1. It is the House who initiates them. And if the GOP were not the stupid party and weren’t more concerned about liberals in Washington liking them, they would do just that. Who cares if he is acquitted? Make them defend this bullshit in the Senate. And make Democratic Senators go on record saying they don’t give a shit about preserving the institutional power of the body. An impeachment proceeding over an actual abuse of official power rather than a personal peccadillo would be highly educational to the American public.

      1. An impeachment proceeding over an actual abuse of official power rather than a personal peccadillo would be highly educational to the American public.

        Which is exactly why it must be prevented at all costs.

        1. (and if Obama has to get an illicit BJ as part of the plan, then By God, he’ll do it.)

      2. It amazes me how little the houses of Congress protect their prerogatives. I guess they just want to have a dictator one of these days?

        1. If it is their team, they will sign on. We have a generation of politicians who really don’t care about the institutions they serve. We are becoming a banana republic.

          1. Which would be fine except that our system depends on the branches protecting themselves against encroachment.

        2. My Team Blue acquaintances cheer on every power Obama grants himself, evidently never suspecting that an Emperor Santorum would use those powers to crush their little liberal dreams to dust.

          Superficially, anyways. Lately it seems like it’s all the same system crushing us all, and the sooner people quit cheering for their Team, the better.

          Most people seem incapable of looking either forward to anticipate unintended consequences, or backwards to review the impact of actions in the past. Must be nice, in way; complete blissful fucking ignorance.

          Quote from a FB friend concerning Obama’s appointment of Richard Cordray: “Way to grow a pair Obama! Woot!”

          Hooray for Our Guy!

          1. Yes, why, why, why do we keep allowing the expansion of power? Eventually, we will lose what’s left of our republic, and there’s absolutely no guarantee that the cause you support will get such absolute power, even if you are okay with unlimited government (in the “right” hands) in principle.

            1. Hayek:

              “If most people are not willing to see the difficulty, this is mainly because, consciously or unconsciously, they assume that it will be they who will settle these questions for the others, and because they are convinced of their own capacity to do this.”

          2. No kidding–contrast the reaction of liberals on the Cordray appointment with Bush’s appointment of Bolton.

        3. We can’t wait!

      3. great idea spending money we dont have tilting at windmills

        1. As opposed to spending money we don’t have paying off cronies and ruining the economy. Obama is blatantly violating the law. This actually is an impeachable offense.

          1. do u seriously contend that POTUS has no constitutional authority to make recess appts?

            1. When Congress is in session? Recess appointments themselves are probably unconstitutional, but avoiding the Senate during a session is totally unconstitutional. It’s an impeachable offense, though that won’t happen, of course.

              1. The president’s allies are arguing that the nonrecess was just proforma, but it is the Senate that determines whether it is in session or not, not the president. And whining about them doing this to block recess appointments–which, again, are questionable in themselves–is nonsense.

              2. Recess appointments themselves are probably unconstitutional,

                Article II Section 2 allows them.

                But only during a recess. Which this isn’t.

                1. “But only during a recess. Which this isn’t.”

                  And what is a recess? How is the President and maybe the courts to tell this?

                  1. I think it’s a political question that’s solely the Senate’s determination.

                  2. Nobody disputes the President’s right to appoint people while the Senate is in recess…the issue is the fact that the Seneate is still in session (pro forma)by the minority in the Senate.

                    Its precedent is when Harry Reid kept the Senate in session through pro forma to keep Bush II from making any recess appointments.

                    Also, according to precedent set in the Clinton era a recess appointment could be done after a period of 3 days or more without the Senate in session.

                    But sinces its a Team Blue thing…its ok now to do

                  3. “And what is a recess?”

                    It’s when they declare a recess.

                    “How is the President and maybe the courts to tell this?”

                    When they’re fucking told that a recess has been declared.

                    This isn’t hard.

                2. Sorry, I meant the way presidents have lately been using recess appointments to attempt to completely evade the appointment process (even recess appointments are supposed to be confirmed by the Senate later).

                  1. I think it can be said it is the Senate that is completely evading the appointment process, they refuse to hold votes because of filibusters (which are not explicitly part of the constitution btw). They could eliminate all this fuss by just having the vote, and they are free to vote these appointments down.

                    1. they refuse to hold votes because of filibusters (which are not explicitly part of the constitution btw)

                      Article 1, Section 5:

                      Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.

                    2. Do you consider that “explicit?” WTF?

                    3. “Do you consider that “explicit?””

                      Yes. They were EXPLICITLY given the power to create rules of procedure, of which the filibuster is one.

              3. “It’s an impeachable offense”

                See, I think this is another example of how extreme you guys can be. The power of recess appointments is explicitly given to the POTUS and the word recess is not defined in the Constitution. Sure, you can make an argument that then the Senate should define it, but it is at least something that can be debated by reasonable people of goodwill (here’s a link to someone on the other side of it). THAT’S what you think the impeachment clause is for?

                http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..05441.html

                1. It’s letting the branches violate the Constitution that’s got us into this mess. If the Senate says it’s in session, it’s in session. The Congress holds the impeachment power, anyway, so it could use it if the president violated a core power of the Senate.

                  In any case, I’m not advocating impeachment for this. I’m just saying that it would qualify if the Senate and House were pissed off enough.

                  1. “If the Senate says it’s in session, it’s in session.”

                    So if the Senate decided to take off a year and declare they were not in recess?

                    I don’t think letting each branch define for themselves is helpful. It’s at least reasonable to think that when the Senate is not in session they are in recess (at least there is a reasonable period of time to which this can apply). The impeachment power was supposed to be a last resort, save for egregious shit kind of thing, not for this kind of thing.

                    1. I don’t think letting each branch define for themselves is helpful.

                      So, you don’t think Obama should get to define it unilaterally, either?

                      Since somebody has to say when the Senate is in recess or not, I can’t imagine why the Senate isn’t in the best position to do so.

                    2. Well, you could argue that the stuff about recess appointments is in Article II so if anyone could unilaterally define it maybe it should be the executive. But you can also persuasively say since it is speaking of the recess of the Senate it is the Senate’s question. Better yet the courts should decide this, they often are called on to decide what an X or a Y is, and what a recess is is not outside that kind of analysis.

                      But this is all my point. If someone wants to sue to challenge this, sure, I think they may even be right. But impeachment? That’s crazy.

                    3. Obviously, if they go blatantly off the reservation, the president would have an argument. But this proforma business is established practice, as is the filibuster and other internal practices of the Congress. I think some of those skirt the intent of constitutional provisions (I also strongly dislike the idea of seniority playing any role whatsoever in Congress), but the courts tend to leave such matters alone.

                      I’m not screaming for Obama’s head on this matter, but I’m deeply troubled by yet another check being diluted just a little more.

                    4. But see, now you’ve gone from “impeachment!” to “well, there are obviously some areas where the President would have a case.” And in that kind of thing we should not even be thinking about impeachment as a solution.

                      I think the case can be made that anyone who is ordered by an official appointed in this way could bring a suit and it should be decided. But impeachment? That’s internet chatroom hyperbole at best dude.

                    5. Now you’re being silly. Saying that this could be taken to such an extreme that the president would have a case is a far cry from saying that this situation is even remotely there. It isn’t.

                      If the president seriously thinks this is okay, one option would be to seek a declaratory judgment of some sort from the courts. Which won’t give it to him, but that would give him cover. He doesn’t really stand on good ground telling the Senate how its internal rules work.

                    6. “He doesn’t really stand on good ground telling the Senate how its internal rules work.”

                      But does he stand on impeachable grounds? I mean, perhaps it is best to leave the definition of recess to the Senate, but it’s hardly the only reasonable way to interpret it. We don’t always let these guys define terms that are capable of non-politically definition. There’s problems, as I’ve pointed out and you’ve conceded, with the principle “a Senate recess is whatever the Senate says it is.”

                    7. “But does he stand on impeachable grounds? ”

                      How did YOU go from “it’s ok for obama to make recess appointments even though there’s no recess” to “impeachability” and think you made ANY POINT WHATSOEVER?

                      You were wrong on recess. You changed the argument because you knew it.

                    8. “I don’t think letting each branch define for themselves is helpful. ”

                      “Article 1, Section 5:

                      Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”

                      No one cares what you think about it.

            2. do u seriously contend that POTUS has no constitutional authority to make recess appts?

              Define “recess,” jackhole.

              Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal explained to the Supreme Court the Obama administration’s view that recess appointments are permissible only when Congress is in recess for more than three days. Here’s the exchange with Chief Justice John Roberts:

              CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And the recess appointment power doesn’t work why?

              MR. KATYAL: The — the recess appointment power can work in — in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days. And — and so, it is potentially available to avert the future crisis that — that could — that could take place with respect to the board. If there are no other questions ?

              CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.

              1. future crisis

                Really?

              2. thx for katyal’s opinion.

                1. So the Obama Administration’s action was in direct violation of its own position that it argued before the SCOTUS.

                  Which doesn’t surprise me one whit, coming from those cynical and disingenuous fucks.

                  1. This is like the worst chat room ever.

  11. Like Rocky Balboa, Rick Santorum is a working class hero
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n…..um=twitter

    Santorum finds himself in a similar underdog role, and there’s as much history resting on his shoulders as there is on Balboa’s. Following his photo-finish in Iowa, Conservatives have to reassess Santorum and decide whether or not he’s going to be a one hit wonder. They face a difficult choice. Rick has plenty of momentum but little money and manpower, making it difficult to win big states later on. But if Right-wingers abandon this newborn frontrunner for Gingrich or Perry, they could split the field and let Romney win by default. No wonder then that a group of social conservatives gathered in Texas yesterday “to unite and to come to a consensus on which Republican presidential candidate or candidates to support”. They need to make their minds up soon.

    1. *barf*

      [apologies to barfman)

      1. No, no, I think it’s fair to say that Santorum is the intellectual equal of Balboa.

        1. Except that Rocky single-handedly won the Cold War.

        2. Santorum is the intellectual equal of Balboa.

          Without the charm.

        3. It’s rather amusing that Rocky Balboa is the most culturally significant thing to be associated with Philadelphia in decades. How many people visit that city just to run the steps?

          1. I visited the historical places there a while ago, and it seemed to me that they really weren’t taking great care of all of that. Like they don’t even give a crap about they’re own place in history.

            1. Were they run by the city or the National Park Service? Typically, NPS seems to take pretty good care of their sites–I was impressed, for instance with park at the Horseshoe Bend battlefield in Alabama a couple years ago.

              If they’re run by the city, I can see how they might have deteriorated.

              1. I just walked right into Independence Hall–nobody there to prevent me from doing squat. Ditto a couple of other places.

                Might be different now–that was years ago.

            2. My friend Laurie licked the Liberty Bell back in 1990. It was an age of great freedoms, now long gone.

              1. Many-a-year ago, on my first trip to NYC, I pissed on the side UN building at midnight … ah, good times …

  12. So Obama’s smaller military is going to let Iran get the bomb and nuke Israel, right? Just like Paul’s? I eagerly await NYT’s pearl clutching on this matter.

  13. Cops shoot, kill teen holding pellet gun.

    Suspicion confirmed.

    1. I was ready to be outraged by the story – then I saw the “pellet gun” that looks exactly like a Glock 17.

      This was suicide by cop.

      1. We need a better class of nutpunch.

      2. Same here. No orange tip on toy gun to make it easy to identify. The kid ignored, seemingly, multiple instructions.

        Can’t blame the cops here.

        1. THAT INNOCENT KID SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A PELLET GUN THAT LOOKS LIKE A GLOCK TO ANY SCHOOL HE WANTS TO BESIDES HE WAS A GOOD KID WHO MOWED LAWNS FUCK THE PIGS!

      3. This was suicide by cop.

        No, this is a 13-year old boy doing what 13-year old boys do: being complete idiots without thinking a single thing through.

        We can’t have officer safety compromised by a confused child, now, can we? No, that wouldn’t do at all. They’re America’s motherfucking heroes.

        The kid ignored, seemingly, multiple instructions.

        I’m sure he was given sufficient warning. Maybe as much as 2 whole seconds.

        1. He was 15.

          1. Still plenty young enough to be an idiot and lacking the decision making powers of an adult.

  14. “ID now needed for drain cleaner

    One of Illinois’ new laws requires consumers to reach for their identification as well as their cash when they have a clogged drain.

    The law that took effect Sunday requires a valid identification to buy products containing chemicals listed within the Federal Caustic Poison Act in concentrations that require the warning “causes severe burns” on the packaging. Targeted substances include hydrochloric and sulfuric acids.”

    http://qconline.com/archives/q…..?id=575952

    1. Only Licensed, Bonded, Plumbers should be allowed to handle such dangerous substances.

      Why do you hate jobs?

    2. legislators … voted for the measure for the sake of public safety, … to minimize the potential of attacks …. “If people use these products in a proper way, they won’t have any problems,”

      Guess these folks have never gotten onion or grapefruit juice in their eyes.

      1. Don’t give them ideas, or we’ll need a permit to buy hot sauce.

        1. First they came for the peanuts, but I’m allergic, so I didn’t care.

          Then they came for the hotsauce…

        2. That can be reduced and used in pepper spray. Sir may I have your identification.

          1. With the DEA’s expertise in identifying and destroying agricultural products, eradication of all Chili cultivation in Our Great Nation should be achievable within 5years.

            …well, except for the inevitable Chili Black Market that will spring up.

  15. Interim Police Chief Orlando Rodr?guez said the teen was pointing the weapon at officers and “had plenty of opportunities to lower the gun and listen to the officers’ orders, and he didn’t want to.”

    The chief said his officers had every right to do what they did to protect themselves and other students even though there weren’t many others in the hallway at the time. Police said officers fired three shots.

    Officer safety = paramount.

    I know the law and order crowd will tell me that I wouldn’t last long, but before shooting someone, especially a child, I would need to be rock solid sure he was an actual deadly threat. I couldn’t take a life on a whim.

    1. Assuming the story the cops are saying is true*, I think this is a tragedy but one tough for the cops to avoid. This isnt like shooting a kid with a laser tag pistol in the woods.

      *I assume the exact opposite, because that seems to be the way to bet.

    2. I am not sure about this one. I would like to hear more about what happened. If he really did point a loaded weapon at the cops, I can’t blame the cops for shooting him. Forget officer safety. If there were other people there and this kid is pointing a loaded gun at people, the cop is putting other people’s lives in danger by not doing something about it.

      It is a horrible tragedy. But I am not going to automatically say the cops were wrong.

      1. Yeah, if he was dumb enough to point his pellet gun at an armed officer, he bears some culpability.

      2. “Pellet gun” could mean a lot of things, from a real-looking Airsoft gun to one of those toys with an orange tip. If it was one of the former, the cop probably didn’t do anything wrong. But if it was one of the latter, the cop is a murderer.

        1. Picture is in story. It looks real. No orange tip either.

        2. The article says this is a photo of the actual pellet gun he had. I’m not a gun expert, but it looks pretty realistic.

          1. Looks very much like a Glock 19.

            1. Let’s just say that if some kid was pointing that pellet gun at me, I would assume it was a real gun that could kill me.

              Pointing that at an armed cop is totally stupid. Ignoring orders from said officer to put it down compounds the stupidity.

        3. OK, after clicking the link and seeing the pellet gun, I have a hard time faulting the cop. Assuming the rest of his story is true, of course.

          1. Assuming the rest of his story is true, of course.

            Heh heh heh.

          2. Ditto on the “heh”.

          3. Assuming the rest of his story is true, of course.

            Good one.

        4. And if it was a good pellet gun, it might shoot lead pellets at 400 fps. Not likely to kill, but you could do some real maiming or possibly even kill with a really lucky (unlucky?) shot.

      3. I am actually more sympathetic than usual. Of course it’s impossible to know what really happened, but based on everything in that article, if he had something which looked like a gun, the police had been told there was a handgun being brandished, and he pointed it at them, well, that’s a pretty tall stack of evidence in favor of shooting. It sucks, no doubt, but still, I can’t hate them too much.

        The only thing that doesn’t make sense is that the kids sounds basically normal, with no history of behavioral problems, so I don’t understand what his motivation was for getting into that situation in the first place.

        1. I don’t understand what his motivation was

          How could you? You didn’t know him. Not that you and the other chatters will not endlessly speculate.

          1. You misunderstood my point. I don’t see a clear motivation, which is the only thing that causes me some doubt about the cops’ story of how events unfolded.

            1. I think you may be right, but I’m not sure.

            2. …which is the only thing that causes me some doubt about the cops’ story…

              Heh heh heh.

              1. In my (pretty extensive) experience, cops are no more likely to be telling the truth than anyone else would be — a good thing to remember if you ever serve on a jury.
                Just sayin’.

                1. Also, they are no more likely to rat out/testify against one of their own than is any gang member.
                  Again — just sayin’.

                  1. We get it. Cops lie. The truth is unknowable.

                    1. Took you long enough, moron.

                    2. I’m already filtering this griefing idiot, CN. What’s taking you so long?

                    3. I’m a non-filtering kind of guy. Not recommending it to anyone else — just the way I roll, baby.

                    4. Somebody needs a hug.

    3. By “rock solid sure” do you mean wait until he shoots someone?

      1. In this case, the weapon would have to have been discharged, yes. The first bullet to fly would not be mine. I just can’t see myself doing it. Maybe it’s a defect on my part.

        1. You isolationist bastard.

        2. Yeah, if you wait until my kid gets shot because you give the erratic kid waving a realistic gun the first shot, it’s a defect on your part, imo.

          1. In my defense, I try to make it known I’m not responsible for other people’s kids. Some won’t like that, but others might appreciate that I won’t preemptively shoot their children.

          2. The impression that I got is that the kid was in an empty hallway, not waving the gun around in a classroom full of kids.

            He then “brandished” it at the cops, which means anything from “pointed it at them with the glint of murder in his eye”, to “was standing there looking noncompliant for the 0.5 seconds they gave him to comply”.

            The gun looked very real. The truth is impossible to know here. I think my biggest criticism is that the cops had quite a few options less lethal than shooting him in the head.

    4. Eh. I’m on the fence about this one. If you look at the pic, it would be easy to mistake for a real pistol, and if the gun had been real and the kid had wounded and/or killed 4 or 5 people b/c the cops waited until they had overwhelming force, we’d be up their ass for that.

      This one is a shitty situation, but I’m not ready to get my cop hate on over it. Fifteen is old enough to know better than to wave guns in public. Should it be fatal, no? But when you see people with real guns, not dropping your fake one is a bad, bad idea.

    5. My heart’s not bleeding for this kid. He punched a kid in the face, unprovoked, and pulled a pellet gun that looks like a real gun? he held it for 20 minutes until cops arrived? He refused to put it down when cops told him?

      If I was carrying concealed around this kid and had the same scenario, I’d have shot him too.

      BTW, 15 years old in the 8th grade? Seems there’s a little natural selection at work here.

      1. 15 years old in the 8th grade? Seems there’s a little natural selection at work here

        Yes, so let’s just round up all the dummies and shoot’em ahead of time, amiright?

        1. Natural selection means the dummies round themselves up. that’s the natural part of it.

          1. So we can start with Congress?

            1. It’s that climate of hate that leads to heave metal bands putting backwards messages into their albums.

              1. that was supposed to be “heavy” metal, but it kind of still works.

                1. .dnatsrednu I

    6. Suicide by cop – whether he intended it or not. That think looks exactly like a Glock 17, can’t blame the cops for assuming it was real.

      1. It’s the uncertainty I would not be able to overcome. First time I see the weapon fired, yes, I could put him down. Not before. That may be incorrect thinking on my part, I admit.

        1. So, you’d put him down after he fired a pellet gun? Really? Do you always bring a nuke to a fist fight?

          1. See, I’m not the pussy you all think I am.

            1. Au contraire, mon amie, if you can’t take the sting of a pellet gun I think you are quite the pussy.

              1. Can’t or won’t. There’s a difference.

              2. Right through the eye. Zowie!

        2. I am completely with you Fist. He who shoots first is the aggressor. So the kid was scary, until he actually did more than brandish, I would not feel justified in shooting him.

          1. We will call you to disarm the next guy who brandishes a gun.

            1. Okay by me.

          2. I am beginning to suspect there are a lot more adherents to the Bush Doctrine here than I would have guessed.

            1. Ya think?

      2. Yes, I’m sure he knew exactly what a “Glock 17” looks like. Everyone does, right?

        1. If he didn’t know the gun didn’t look real, would he have pulled it on his classmates?

          1. Fuck, yeah! … No? … Uh, what was the question?

        2. I can only recognize them when they’re tilted 90degrees to either side.

          1. You laugh, but angling the pistol (to a comfortable angle, not 90 deg,)to is correct practice when shooting one handed. It eemoves a source of tension that can cause the muzzle to pull off target when firing.

            1. *joke retracted*

              1. No need for that, I’m just humorless. More coffee is needed.

                1. I’m just humorless

                  My jokes have that effect.

    7. If they did order him to drop the gun several times, and he was brandishing it holding it so that he could easily fire it and was indicating by his actions and awareness that the cops were there and telling him to drop the gun, then the kid’s shooting is justified.

      1. I am still trying to figure out the shot to the back of the head though.

        1. Eh, he could’ve been spun around, the cop could’ve been making sure he only had one story. At the point where its okay to shoot somebody, its okay to shoot them twice.

          1. Or the police could be spread out. There is no requirement to follow Malcom Reynold’s rules of chivalry.

            Here’s a thought experiment that I think will be useful.

            You come home. You discover your roommate being held at gun point by an intruder. As you pull your piece out of its holster, the intruder starts to draw a bead on your roommate’s head, and so you shoot the intruder in the back twice.

            That scenario, the intruder’s family and friends can cry “he was shot in the back” to their heart’s content, but it would still be a justified shooting.

            1. Oh, I was defending the cops. I agree. Bullets are cheap, my life is priceless. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Also notice that the transcript says “from the back of the head”, which could mean that the officer was reporting where the blood was coming from, not where the bullets entered.

        2. The coroner will rule it self-inflicted.

        3. There were two cops. They probably approached him from different directions.

    8. And that is why you will never qualify as a police officer.

      1. One of many reasons, to be sure.

        1. So you’re saying your IQ is too high?

          1. I can see my shoes and I would look terrible with a mustache.

    1. Julian Assange should be made a high priest.

  16. It seems to me that when your gun shoots pellets and the other guys’ shoots bullets, the thing to do is put it the hell down when told to do so. I have a hard time working up much sympathy for someone who’s pointing a realistic looking gun at people.

    1. This.

      Plus, pellet guns can be lethal. Wanna get shot a few times with one?

      1. Yep, one of those pellets could get lodged under the skin and cause a very bad infection.

        1. So, that’s a “Yes, I don’t mind being opened up on by a pellet-gun-wielding person”?

        2. (Whoosh!)

        3. Actually there are pellet rifles for hunting that can fire 9mm pellets at 900 fps. Obviously this isn’t anything like that but even a .117 pellet at 400 fps can easily blind someone. There’s a very slim chance that it could reach the brain or nick an artery. Not likely but still possible. Besides, a very bad infection can kill you. Just ask the ghost of Jim Henson.

      2. The pellet could lodge under the skin and cause a very bad infection.

        1. dammit, sage

        2. dammit, sage

          1. dammit, squirrels!

            1. dammit, Clark!

        3. That’s Clark DUBYA Griswold, TYVM.

    2. Those cops couldn’t have shot him in the leg?? At least tried to shoot low?

      1. That isnt how they (or anyone) is trained. Center of mass is where the shots should be. Considering how awful of shots most cops are, we dont want them even trying to wing someone.

      2. One hit him in the back of the head.

        I wonder if he was lying on his face when he got that one.

        1. If I read the article correctly, witnesses heard three shots in quick succession, which implies the bullet that hit the kid in the back of the head was not fired as a coup de grace after he was no longer was threatening people.

        2. Nah, just another magic bullet.

        3. Back and to the left, man.

        4. Did it go through the front of his head first?

      3. Shooting someone in the leg only works in movies and TV shows.

        If you are in a gun-fight, trying to only wound your opponent makes it almost certain you will lose your life. It’s hard to hit an extremity. It doesn’t disable your opponents ability to shoot back.

        You fire at the center of mass, two round bursts etc until he no longer is a threat, either because he surrenders, drops his weapon, or is hors de combat.

        1. trying to only wound your opponent makes it almost certain you will lose your life

          Except when your opponent doesn’t a real gun.

          1. If one’s opponent is brandishing something that “looks” like a gun (has a barrel, trigger, grip, no orange tip, etc), asking to inspect it to make sure it’s real is probably a good way to get oneself killed.

            1. Yes, except in this case it wasn’t a real gun.

              1. And this was immediately apparent how?

                1. Couldn’t they have threatened to suspend his internet privileges? Couldn’t they have ordered nachos and hashed out their differences?

              2. Did you see the picture? I wouldn’t have bet on it not being real from 5 yards away.

        2. If you are shot in the leg, you can still shoot back.

          Never shoot someone “trying” to only injure them. You always shoot to kill. Its a life or death situation; try to act like it.

    3. Evolution in action.

  17. You know, if the people weren’t wearing uniforms with badges, this would probably be called a gang war.

    1. Here’s a follow-up. They were kind enough to determine the trooper who pulled over the speeding cop didn’t do anything wrong.

    2. Being that government is a protection racket, it is a gang war.

      1. Why doesn’t anyone take anarchists seriously?

        1. onetime I waved my hand in front of my face real fast and it looked like an old-timey movie.

          1. Oh sarcasmic, your spoofing is getting too obvious.

            “Anthony Weiner”, “rather”…you’re busted.

            1. He’s a flea on an infested dog, no point in picking at it

              1. And such an obvious one.

  18. I couldn’t take a life on a whim.

    This reckless and delusional comment denotes you as Unfit for Duty. Turn in your weapon.

    1. I have the opportunity to converse with quite a few law enforcement personnel, and so many of them seem just a little too comfortable with the idea of deadly force. Hopefully that’s the minority of all those who carry. Hopefully most appreciate the gravity of it. (For the record, I am a gun owner.)

      1. I overheard a drunk cop lamenting at how he had never had the opportunity to take a life.

        I don’t know what’s scarier. That he took the job hoping to kill someone, or that the other drunk cops consoled him instead of reacting with revulsion.

        1. You’re hanging out at the wrong AA meetings.

        2. I have heard more than one cop, and a couple NJ State Troopers, say this stone cold sober. In each case, the individual commented that he hoped he had the chance to shoot some scumbag before he retired. They were looking forward to the day when they had an opportunity to legitimately unholster and pull the trigger at a person.

          1. BTW, I did not “overhear” these statements, either – they were made directly to me.

          2. This guy wasn’t specific about wanting to off a scumbag. He just wanted to kill someone so he knew how it felt. He didn’t care who it was as long as he could get away with it by being a cop. Listening to him made my skin crawl. Not to mention that that, combined with my first encounter with the police involved a guy standing behind me and whispering “give me one reason, please, I’m begging you, give me one fucking reason, you know I want to, give me one fucking reason” into my ear has given me a healthy fear (not respect, just fear) of men in uniform.

            1. We’re just evil!

              1. And I’m just a passive-aggressive cunt!

                1. “And I’m just a passive-aggressive cunt!”

                  When you’re right you’re right.

            2. “my first encounter with the police involved a guy standing behind me and whispering “give me one reason, please, I’m begging you, give me one fucking reason, you know I want to, give me one fucking reason” into my ear ”

              And of course, like the coward you are, you stood there and took it like a pussy faggot.

              1. *slurp* *slurp*
                moar pleez

              2. Wow, what the fuck – are you what, like 12 years old? Let us know when you finish 7th grade.

        3. I once corresponded (briefly) with a dude on Match.com who switched around branches of the military so he could get a combat assignment. I interpreted that to mean he wanted to shoot people (not saying I was correct in my assumption – maybe he just wanted higher pay, but it didn’t come off that way from his language). I cut off contact PDQ.

          1. Last I checked you needed to be in a combat related specialty to be eligible for many of the benefits.
            It could have been that he wanted to go to college on the military’s dime after he put in his minimum hitch.

            1. It could have been that he wanted to go to college on the military’s dime after he put in his minimum hitch.

              Based on what Kristen said, I don’t think that’s the case. If he just wanted to do his hitch and go, it would make a lot more sense to just join the Air Force and go in open general for jobs, not actively seek out combat positions.

              I did four years as a tech controller, and most of my time was spent watching movies on shift while waiting for circuits to break. I tell people that my deployment was like a four-month break from work because the civilian contractors did most of the trouble-shooting.

            2. This is untrue. A desk jockey and a commando get the same benefits from the government. There are pay bonuses for deploying to combat zones or for jobs that are hard to fill (both combat and non-combat related). Hell, one of the most dangerous jobs in a hostile fire zone belongs to the guys who do the mail runs. Most of those folks only have the bare minimum weapons training and no combatives training.
              There are some non-governmental organizations that provide awards specifically to personnel in combat and counter explosives specialities, but those aren’t big enough to rate changing your rating or MOS.

      2. My dad was a cop for 25 years — about 15 as a sergeant in a pretty rough part of town. He never discharged his weapon in the line of duty.
        Again — just sayin’.

        1. (Perhaps that’s why there’s nothing — nothing — in this world I hate more than a bad cop.)

          1. Oh, except for the scum who think orange juice is just for breakfast.

          2. At H&R, we’re all bad.
            Didn’t you know that?

            1. Not all. Just a very sizable minority.
              I think the problem lies in the system itself. Even the “good” cops can’t really speak out against the bad cops and continue to do their jobs without being marked as pariahs. I suggest more civilian oversight, review boards, whatever.

        2. A friend of mine was a police officer for much of his career. He used to tell a story about a time he faced down a man pointing a gun at him. He told the story with such intensity that you could almost imagine being there. In the end he convinced the man to put down his gun. He never once expressed a wish that he could have shot him.

          1. The older guys seem to be more like that. And maybe the attitude of the younger guys I talk to is just braggadocio, that they don’t really have so cavalier attitude toward the idea of deadly confrontations.

            1. It’s just like the service. A lot of people talk shit to score manliness points. Most of it can be taken with a grain of salt. A very rare few are actually psycho.

  19. Kid stabs bully to death and gets away with it!

    There is still some justice in the world!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..d-law.html

    1. FL has decided that the stand-your-ground law means what it says. Although, as the kid tried to retreat, he probably would have been safe under the previous law, too. I’m pretty sure you just have to fear for your safety, not your life, to use deadly force in FL. Our cops may be doucebags, but our courts seem to be coming around.

      1. IIRC, Florida law permits the use of deadly force “to prevent the commission of a forcible felony“. No fear for safety or life required.

    2. As it should be. If you attack someone, whatever that person does to you is your own fault.

      1. Reading the article, I am amazed at the bully’s parents’ comments.

        “Our son didn’t deserve to die for running down a guy and punching him in the back of the head”.

        This is not a judge engaging in some novel legal excursion.

        Here in MA we had a case where a dad sucker-punched another dad at a kid’s hockey game, and the guy he punched died after he smacked his head on the concrete. It’s fucking deadly force. I’m sure that hundreds of similar cases could be dug up by someone who wanted to go through crime databases.

        In my personal experience, we had a E-6 who got jumped by some “unarmed” Crips off the Nimitz. The E-6 shot three of them (one in the back as he fled) and the local DA refused to charge because, again, it was so clearly self defense. (Our CO did try to court-martial him anyway, but the military judge dismissed the charges at the pre-trial hearing)

        Good for this judge.

        1. Note to gang members: keep off The Military’s turf.

        2. Your CO sounds like a real douche.

          1. I was pretty surprised; it’s the only decision I ever saw him make that I disagreed with.

            He wasn’t a douche. He’s CINPACFLT now, and was a really awesome guy: thoughtful, bright, compassionate at captain’s mast, had high standards, had the balls to once tell the CNO in a public forum that the CNO was full of shit, etc.

            The guy made admiral without kissing up to anybody in Congress, probably one of a handful who have pulled it off.

            At the time, I rationalized that he tried to prosecute the E-6 to head off an escalating war between the Nimitz and the Lincoln. The Lincoln guys would likely have lost; the Nimitz had been infiltrated by LA street gangs.

            1. the Nimitz had been infiltrated by LA street gangs

              They wouldn’t let me join because of a childhood history of asthma, but they let gang bangers in.

              Go figure.

              1. In the late 90’s, supposedly some of the bigger gangs made a push to get members into the military in order to get vlauable training and access to military equipment or facilities.

                The cursory nature of customs inspections make a navy ship an attractive way to smuggle things. A carrier has all sorts of nooks and crannies where one can stash things where no one will find them.

                Which brings to mind an amusing little story. When I was in the gulf, the 5 other guys in my state room decided that they were going to smuggle Persian rugs (the real kind from Iran) into the U.S. so that they could make a killing. They went out to Dubai to make some purchases. I warned them that they were going to be fleeced (I know a little about the Persian rug trade, and there’s a culture of fleecing suckers on principle). They haggled, wheeled and dealed and “us”‘ed the local rug dealers until they got a good price.

                We transited the Pacific with two racks filled to the overhead with rugs.

                Then in San Fransisco, they started making the rounds of all the rug dealers. Most of them wouldn’t touch the rugs with a thousand foot pole. The ones who did, quoted prices that were half what my roommates had paid in the gulf.

                All of them ended up having well-carpeted apartments that looked very nice.

                1. Persian rugs (the real kind from Iran)

                  Persian-Persian?

                  1. You can get Persian rugs that are made using the same materials and processes from Turkey, Iraq or even in Saudi Arabia.

                    Of course the real deal is worth far more, given the U.S. sanctions.

                    1. I just thought the need to qualify it was funny.

                2. with a thousand foot pile

                  Rugpun.

            2. “The guy made admiral without kissing up to anybody in Congress”

              No he didn’t.

              1. Actually, he did.

                I overheard two admirals (a three star and a one star) discussing the phenomenon in wonderment. I believe it was a result of the time he stood up to Boorda over the way the Navy was crewing ships preparing to deployment. It was a “all the thrust in Christendom won’t make that a fighter” type moment in that he was the first with the courage to say what a large number of people were thinking. Almost every commanding officer in the Navy was present or teleconferenced in and I think it impressed a large number of people. Certainly the type commander was singing his praises after the incident.

        3. There was a case in my high school where one kid punched another in the chest and due to some freak medical condition killed the kid. It wasn’t an attack. Just a high school fight. But punching someone with a bare fist is a lot more dangerous than people think.

          If you leave people alone, you won’t risk being shot.

    3. Just a thought. He must have had that pocket knife on him at school if he used it after getting off the bus.
      Isn’t it a felony to carry a pocket knife on public school grounds?

  20. Shares of Eastman Kodak Co. tumbled to a new all-time low following a report that the ailing photography pioneer might be preparing to file for bankruptcy protection.

    They deserve to go tits up for that resource hog EasyShare software that I could never get my old man to stop using on his computer, no matter how much it slowed it down.

    1. EasyShare: because who wants to plug in their camera and access it like any other folder on their computer.

      Oh wait…

      1. Yeah, try telling my seventy-whatever-year-old dad how to do that. You’d think I was asking him to hack into NORAD.

        1. my seventy-whatever-year-old dad

          just outta curiosity, you do know the precise number, right?

  21. Sinead got laid *barf*

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

    1. I saw this yesterday and I was amazed because I had unkowingly walked by Sinead’s house just last year.

    2. Honestly, I feel sooooo sorry for that woman. She had so much talent, but it’s all twisted up by her reaction to the crap that was done to her as a kid.

      Some people can get past that sort of thing. She doesn’t seem to be able to.

  22. It is the House who initiates them.

    I forgot. The “trial” is conducted by the Senate, right?

    1. Yes. And the House can vote it out to the Senate by a majority. It takes a super majority to convict in the Senate. But wouldn’t a trial be made for TV entertainment?

      1. Eh. Wait until after the election to take up impeachment. Otherwise we get Obama and a Dem senate. Impeachment is literally the only thing that could motivate Dems to keep the Senate.

  23. I’m shocked that Obama’s military cuts all come in the form of ground troops. No big program cuts and not a single DOD civilian will lose a job.

    1. Ground troops don’t pay the contractors. They will fuck ground forces and retirees to keep their buddies at Lockheed Martin from taking any hits.

      1. Most of the high-ups in the military contractor corporations are retired brass.

        1. They don’t give a shit. They have private health care through their new jobs. They are making a fortune. What do they care if some retired E-7 sees his pension cut?

          1. If you have worked hard to put yourself in a position where you send people to certain death, it’s doubtful that you care if they lose their job or pension.

            1. Are you a spoof of a retard?

            2. what certain death?

          2. Or if we are short of ground troops when we need them. I mean, the pension a retired general gets is a joke!

    2. I’m shocked that Obama’s military cuts all come in the form of ground troops.

      Don’t be. Helps pave the way for TSA to be militarized.

    3. I’m shocked that Obama’s military cuts all come in the form of ground troops.

      Don’t be. Not one single unionized employee will be fired, so this is an easy call for the White House.

  24. Just continuing to not care what Team Red does with their little “candidate selection” process, since I’m not voting for any of them, nor for Obama.

    Carry on.

    PS Good morning, Reasonoids.

  25. Ron Paul raised $13 million in Q4 2011

    That’s more than everyone except Romney.

    1. And now he’s gettin feisty in the Live Free or Diet state!

      Living in Virginia, I tried doing something with our state motto, but Sic Semper Diaetis (Thus Always to Diets) just wasn’t as funny.

      1. “Living in Virginia, I tried doing something with our state motto, but Sic Semper Diaetis (Thus Always to Diets) just wasn’t as funny.”

        As “live free or diet”?

        Wow, your sense of humor sucks.

    1. Nice 🙂 I caught the end of the game. Brutal.

      1. I also liked the headline on fark this morning: “The last time a team from South Carolina got beat this bad it ended slavery.”

        Also, as a WVU alum, I have had an erection lasting longer than four hours (going on 10 right now).

        1. Yeah, one of my Mgrs is a WVU alum (their safety program is excellent). He’s a happy guy…

    2. To quote edsbs.com:

      Fuck Clemson

    3. Holy fuck. I hope the D-coordinator finds a new profession, too.

      1. Since I was born in WV, I loved it. Especially after Herbstreit picked Clemson to “demolish” WVU.

        1. Mr. Kirk on Herb Street, how can Peggy help you?

    4. The ACC sure deserved that second BCS bid over the Big 12. The ACC managed to put forth two of the three or four worst teams ever to get a BCS bid. And they did it in the same year.

      I am still convinced that the Sugar Bowl was used as a payoff to the Big 10 to get their coaches to vote Alabama number 2. They gave Michigan the at large bid and let them pick their own opponent. And Michigan of course chose the weakest eligible team in VaTech.

      1. The problem with that theory is that Va Tech in many ways dominated Michigan, if not for some good fortune and Tech miscues Michigan would have lost.

        1. And if your aunt had a mustache she’d be your uncle.

          But she’s not, and Michigan won. Nananana boooooo boo!!!

          1. Fuck Michigan.

            1. Aww, baby gonna cwy?

              Cwy baby!

              1. That’s it! I can’t stand it here any more. I’m never coming back to this stupid website you jerks!

        2. That just means Michigan is really bad and didn’t deserve their bid either. They picked the worst team available and still should have lost.

          Look at it this way. Clemson dominated VaTech both times they played them. That is how bad the ACC is and how bad VaTech is. Boise and K-State deserved the Sugar Bowl bids.

          1. The way they fuck over Boise is scandalous. They have changed their schedules to play a big team every year, this year Georgia, beat them, and still get no respect. The Las Vegas Bowl against Arizona State? WTF? Yeah, the Sugar should have gone to Boise. They would have raped Michigan.

            1. They would have. And K-State Boise would have been at least an interesting match up. K-State with a good defense and running offense versus Boise’s offense. Would have been great.

              And I don’t buy the “they don’t travel” BS. The entire state of Idaho roots for Boise. They traveled great to the Fiesta Bowl. They are like the NFL team of Idaho. It is the same with K-State. They may not have national followings. But they both have rabid fan bases who would have traveled and sold out the game.

              1. Fuck “do they travel or sell tickets” as criteria. I understand the bowls want to make money and that is a legit criteria for them, but if the BCS is supposed to mean something else, like help sort out who are the best teams, then that criteria is bullshit.

              2. And I don’t buy the “they don’t travel” BS. The entire state of Idaho roots for Boise. They traveled great to the Fiesta Bowl.

                Like I pointed out yesterday, a BCS bowl would have to be insane not to take Boise anymore. They’re competitive, they can hang with the big boys, and they always seem to pull out one or two crazy plays a year during their bowl games. They’re just flat-out entertaining and can bring in ratings.

                At this point, it’s obvious that the big schools are scared shitless to play them when the spotlight is hottest. Despite playing in weak conferences, this is not a pushover program, and the big boys know it.

            2. Actually, Georgia fucked them by not beating a team with a winning record all year (maybe Auburn at 7-5?). Georgia was not a quality win to the BCS.

              1. Georgia won their half of the SEC, and yes I would count beating Auburn (who finished at 8-5 and will be ranked something lie 22).

                1. It’s all nonsense, anyway. We need a playoff system.

                  I think Boise State is a legitimately decent team, but I don’t think they are or have been a national championship contender. It’ll help them to be part of the Big East, so they’ll get a chance to state their case.

                  One good thing for them is that they’re high national profile over a few years will help recruiting. Usually, the fatal flaw in teams like that is a lack of depth, which often gets them in trouble when they face “name” teams.

                  Georgia played like crap early in the season (they lost their first two games, I think), so it being the sole measure of whether Boise State is great is problematic. Though they did get screwed in their bowl matchup.

            3. “They have changed their schedules to play a big team every year, this year Georgia”

              Georgia is middle of the pack team that has finished the year unranked more often than not lately.

              Your claiming they’re a “big team” is evidence of your ignorance on the subject.

              Boise State plays a shit schedule.

              Crying about it doesn’t change it.

          2. Guy, you’ve been caught lying a dozen time in the past MONTH.

            Save us your considered opinion on anything.

            1. You are an idiot Michigan fan living under the delusion they are any good. They are not. They stink. Va Tech was a lousy team that lost to every good team the played.

          3. “Look at it this way. Clemson dominated VaTech both times they played them. That is how bad the ACC is and how bad VaTech is. Boise and K-State deserved the Sugar Bowl bids.”

            And Clemson got crushed by Georgia Tech and NC state, two wholly shitty football programs.

            If you play that stupid game John, it becomes obvious Michigan deserved a bowl spot far more than Clemson.

            1. So what? Michigan didn’t deserve it more than Boise or K-State. And Clemson got an automatic birth. If Michigan wants to play in the BCS, move to a shitty conference where they can compete.

    5. Yawn. Call me when the score is 222-0.

  26. Pixie Lott (no idea who she is) is very hot:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..-love.html

    1. I love it. She has the whole pixie look going. And her actual name is Pixie.

      1. Ain’t she a bit skinny for you?

        1. A bit. But she pulls it off. And she has a nice figure. She has hips and doesn’t look like a concentration camp victim.

          1. I think you’re a winner too, John.
            Call me.

          2. Her bf is hotter than she is. She doesn’t have any muscle tone.

              1. DA has always identified as female.

                1. DA has always identified as female.

                  NTTAWWT

          3. And she has a nice figure. She has hips

            Based on the fact that her body is aligned to a hard left in everyone of those pics?

    2. Victoria Louise “Pixie” Lott (born 12 January 1991)

      Holy fuck, I’m old.

      She could almost be on Venezuelan TV. Not bad.

      1. You nutratweeted that link.

        1. No, they just don’t allow hotlinking. Copy and paste the link and it’ll work.

            1. Put your cursor in the address bar and hit enter again, and the picture will load. This kind of anti-hotlinking measure is really easy to fool.

              1. Still doesn’t work.

                1. Okay, try this: Call the girl, have her meet you and your photographer at a local studio, take some pictures, post them on your own web server, and supply the link.

                  1. Still doesn’t work.

                    1. Oh, right, I left out “Bring lots of cash.”

                    2. Let’s try this again:

                      https://reason.com/blog/2012/01…..nt_2739789

                    3. Well, it’s too bad you’re a retard. Just GIS her name and look for the picture where she’s doing a back bridge and grabbing her heels.

                    4. So I’m a retard because your link doesn’t work? Got it.

                    5. Those are the facts, retard.

      2. Poor woman has so much eye makeup on she tipped over.

      3. Her ass is superb. Superb.

    3. Sarah’s prettier.

  27. Zooey Deschanel is officially single:

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

    1. Now that he is no longer married, Pumpkinhead can resume his murderous backwoods rampage.

      1. Biggest disparity in attractiveness since Rick Ocasic married Paulina Poriskova. Of course Ocasic actually had some talent.

        1. And Katie Perry and that Tiny-Tim-esque, loathesome Russell Brand.

          GOD I hate Russell Brand. Even if he weren’t married to Katie Perry.

          1. He isn’t.

            1. Idiot – Thanks for keeping up with the celebrity marriages for me!

          2. That is another good example. And Brand isn’t even a musician. He is just an annoying loser. Why do I even know who he is? What movies has he ever made besides that awful Arthur remake?

            1. I made it through about 5 minutes of “Get Him to the Greek”, and saw him on SNL or something like that. Hated it.

            2. I thought he was funny in Sarah Marshall and Get him to the Greek.

              1. I have never seen those movies. So that is why I had no idea who he was when that Arthor movie came out, which I didn’t see either.

                1. Forgetting Sarah Marshall is very good.

                  1. The puppet show at the end is funny. The rest made me want to murder everything in the world.

                    1. Unfunniest movie since Superbad. The puppet show was its only redeeming quality.

                  2. Love it.

          3. “Tiny-Tim-esque”

            OK, that was good…

        2. And they’re still together. Ric Ocasek is the closest thing to proof that deals with Satan are an option that I’ve ever seen.

          1. What about Haiti?

            1. Who is it dating now?

              1. I was joking about Pat Robertson’s thing about Haiti having made a pact with the Devil. “True story.”

                I don’t know who Haiti is dating, but I bet they are a cheap date.

                1. Oh, right, I remember that one. Whatever deal Haiti made, it wasn’t a very good one.

                  After taking a Disney cruise to the Bahamas a few weeks ago, I have an idea for solving Haiti’s problems once and for all. Give the country–sovereignty, citizens, land, everything–to Disney. The idea being that Disney will make huge swaths of Haiti into, collectively, a giant Disney resort and theme park.

                  Disney offers the world order, at family-friendly pricing!

                2. Some countries like to date projects and “fix” their significant others…

        3. John, you are really hung up on him. Every single time this comes up you have to rag on the guy.

        4. I loved The Cars. Although that probably marks me as a douche or nerd or fag or something.

          1. Their first and Candy-O. And “Don’t Tell Me No.” The Shake It Up crap was crap.

        5. Biggest disparity in attractiveness since Rick Ocasic married Paulina Poriskova.

          I think you’ve forgotten about the Christina Hendriks pairing that has been discussed here on occasion.

          1. Don’t forget Seal and Heidi Klum. Although Seal does have talent.

      2. STEVE SMITH LOOK FORWARD SEE PUMPKINHEAD IN BACKWOODS. INTRODUCE PUMPKINHEAD TO HIKING RAPE AND S’MORES.

    2. Who the hell is Ben Gibbard and why is he an idiot?

    3. I like Zooey. I don’t find her pant-inducing hot but when she is on screen I can’t take my eyes off her.

      1. She’s cute, but I can’t stand the characters she plays. They’re all derivative of a passive-aggressive hipster that uses glibness to disguise a total lack of personality.

    4. Too bad she’s a total liberal.
      Then again what would you expect from someone who marries that emo douche?

      1. Who in Hollywood isn’t?

        Anyway, I find it odd that Zooey and Katy, who both look so much alike, are getting divorced at the same time.

        1. ” Zooey and Katy, who both look so much alike, are getting divorced at the same time.”

          Both hope and change!

          1. “Look Alike”

            *rubs eyes…..*

            Nope, not seein’ it…

        2. Who in Hollywood isn’t?

          Kelsey Grammer
          Penn Jillette
          Colin Quinn
          Dennis Miller
          Ben Stein
          Clint Eastwood
          Sarah Michelle Gellar
          Denzel Washington
          Sylvester Stallone
          Drew Carey
          Heather Locklear
          Jessica Simpson
          Shannen Doherty
          Adam Sandler

          They exist.

          1. Don’t forget Bo Derek.

            1. Not on animal issues though. Bo’s the kind of conservative that Rush and Hannity would run out of the movement if her views were ever scrutinized and important to something.

              1. So Rush and Hannity are for killing kittens? I did not know this.

                1. Only if they’re Iranian kittens.

                2. Bo has some “PETA-esque” views on animals (especially horses), yes Rush and Hannity would drum someone like that out of the movement if it ever mattered.

              2. G Gordon Liddy and Newt Gingrich are big animal lovers too. Go figure.

                1. Way to call in another lawsuit on Reason, Abdul. Thanks. A lot.

          2. I wouldn’t describe Penn Jillette,
            Colin Quinn, Dennis Miller, Ben Stein, or Drew Carry as being “in Hollywood”.

            Anyway, I was talking about “still hot”

            So has anyone seen Shannen Doherty lately?

            1. I think people who have had their own show qualify as “Hollywood”.

          3. Robert Downey Jr.

          4. So ya. That’s about the whole list, right?

            1. Only the ones that have come out of the closet.

          5. Don’t forget Tom Selleck.

          6. Andy Garc?a
            Angie Harmon
            Catherine Hicks
            Chad Everett
            Cheryl Ladd
            Cindy Williams
            Craig T. Nelson
            David Greenwalt
            David Lynch
            David Zucker
            Dennis Franz
            Dwight Schultz
            Adam Baldwin
            Alex Trebek
            Freddie Prinze Jr.
            Gail O’Grady
            Gary Sinise
            George Hamilton
            Gerald McRaney
            Hal Holbrook
            Hunter Tylo
            Jackie Mason
            Jaclyn Smith
            James Woods
            Janine Turner
            Jim Belushi
            Joan Rivers
            Joe Pesci
            Kevin James
            50 Cent
            John Milius
            John Schneider
            Jon Voight
            Jonathan Jackson
            Kathy Ireland
            Kevin Sorbo
            Kurt Russell
            Larry Miller
            Larry the Cable Guy
            Laura Prepon
            Leslie Nielsen
            Lionel Chetwynd
            Matt Mulhern
            Mel Gibson
            Merv Griffin
            Michael Medved
            Michael Moriarty
            Mickey Rooney
            Milos Forman
            Naomi Judd
            Pat Sajak
            Patricia Heaton
            Paul Sorvino
            Paula Prentiss

      2. “Too bad she’s a total liberal.”

        So she should be euthanized right?

        1. I think you should be euthanized to put you out of my misery.

          1. I’m sure you do nutjob, I’m sure you do.

            1. I’m sure I’m not the only one who thinks the world would be a better place without you.

              1. If only we had a word or concept to cover people who wished death on people for the casual reasons you do…

                1. schadenpsychosis

    5. I saw Zooey’s show for the first time a few weeks back. The half Indian half Italian girl that plays her BFF is hotter. I dream about eating her pussy that very night. I know that’s moving in a little fast, but I feel right about that.

  28. It’s the uncertainty I would not be able to overcome. First time I see the weapon fired, yes, I could put him down. Not before.

    That’s because you, a mere insectoid civilian, might actually be held accountable if you guess wrong.

    If you were a cop, and had had OFFICER SAFETY drummed into your head relentlessly, would shoot a fifteen year old kid in the back of the head and wait eagerly for your medal.

    1. I like how you ignore the comment threading feature and post your crackpot commentary as a sort of non sequitur performance art.

      1. P Brooks has eschewed threaded comments since they were introduced.

        1. I endorse his protest.

          1. Me too!

          2. I just wanted to point out that Brooks, unlike {NewHandleEveryDay}, actually exhibits consistency.

            1. He is a single-issue protester, dedicated to his cause.

              1. Yes, his anarchist, crackpot “cause.”

                1. At least his cause can be articulated.

            2. I’m trying out a new handle. This one feels like a keeper.

    1. “The average wedding in the United States costs $27,000.”

      Reason no. 5,345 why I have little to no sympathy for the struggling middle class. Spend money on dumb shit and — surprise! — you end up with no fucking assets. Then you can complain that all of the investment income is concentrated in the top 1%. Well, no shit, that’s what happens when smart people invest their money instead of spending it on open bars and $2,000 wedding cakes.

      1. That’s crazy. We had a nice wedding for a lot less than that.

        1. Got married while in grad school, had no money at the time, and therefore had a wedding that befitted our status as poor people — literally had supermarket trays for food and had it in a free venue, whole thing cost maybe $350. Honeymooned in a B&B on the South Carolina coast for 3 days, and even that was probably more than we should have spent.

          1. Seriously DEM, if you don’t stop being poor, I’m gonna have to start hucking rocks at ya.

        2. I had TWO weddings for a lot less than that.

      2. my wedding was done at the courthouse with just my parents, her parents, a friend of mine, and a friend of hers.

        afterward, we had a really nice lunch.

        And the next day we had a family get-together. The total cost was just a couple of hundred bucks. Of course we had little to ‘prove’ since we had already been living together for ~ten years.

        1. Basic the same thing here, only no parents and we and our friends went on a 13-hour pub crawl through NYC which included being kicked out of two places, hanging out with cast members from The State, my wife seeing Chloe Sevigny vomiting in the bathroom at The Blue and Gold, and passing out in Katz’s Deli.

          1. If i ever get married, I’m hiring SugarFree as my wedding planner.

            1. Yeah me too. It sounds like the perfect nostalgic trip back to our early relationship years too. Love it!

          2. Best damn pastrami sandwich ever.

        2. I had a much more formal and traditional wedding, with guests and everything, but it was just a few grand. That seemed reasonable for what we wanted to do. The idea of spending $10-20K struck us both as ludicrous.

        3. My rules for the wedding was that it should be small (we capped the guest list at 40-50), and we should be able to eat and drink as much as we want (buffet and open bar). My wife is cheap, so she went along with it.

          No photographer (everyone has a camera); no florist (churches already have flowers); no unicorns pulling our gold-plated convertible past peasants.

          Came in at way less than the average.

      3. But my little flower is special and this is her big day. NO EXPENSE CAN BE SPARED!!!111!!!!1111!

        For the record, the most expensive part of my wedding was the rings. I think I spent $200 on the set.

      4. I have no idea what my first wedding cost, but it was the big traditional do. Very nice.

        I paid for the second wedding. I think the total tab was around $1,000, all in.

        1. Same here — first wedding traditional.
          For the second, we went to Honolulu, where her sister lives, and got married by a judge in Foster Botanical Garden. (And no rings.)

          1. Mine was the opposite.

            1st was 15 minutes in the courthouse (and the marriage lasted about as long).
            2nd was traditional, but we only spent about $4K, and yet was still very nice.

      5. My cousin and his wife had a fairly low-key wedding. The food was buffet-style, there were maybe 20-30 people there not counting the wedding party, the music was played off of an iPod, and the photographer was someone they knew. They still ended up spending about $10,000 before the honeymoon.

        Fuck all that. For $10K, my future bride and I can go to Vegas, do the wedding, and have a hell of a good time without all the planning hassle.

        1. But what will the bride say when you duck out of the reception early to hit the Rhino?

        2. How the hell did they spend $10K on a party with, what, 40 people? That’s, what $250 a head?

    2. My top 5 reasons.
      1) I like my freedom and money money, and I don’t want some woman to take them away.
      2) With the extremely high rate of divorce, I don’t think the risk is worth it. Plus, she’d likely take a lot of my money. Even if we don’t divorce, their’s still a high probability that we will loathe one another.
      3) Kids. I refuse to allow my father to be a grandfather. I’m his only child, so I will not give him a grandchild.
      4) I don’t want to be responsible to or for someone else outside of work. I don’t want to have to worry about making money to support someone else. I make good money, but if I decide I hate my job and need a new career, then it will be much easier to do without a family dragging me down.
      5) I’m laid back and like things to be relatively peaceful. I don’t need someone nagging all the time and telling me “do this” and “do that” especially when I’m watching a game or playing video games.

  29. It looks like the Los Angeles arsonist is a German named Harry Burkhart, and he sounds like a typical left wing anti-American worthless piece of garbage. His mother is also apparently a criminal, wanted for many counts of fraud back home, and she sounds like a nut too.

    I guess the strudel doesn’t fall too far from the plate. I hope this fuck dies in a fire.

    1. “Now is der time on Shprocket ven ve set fires…”

      1. Your story grows tiresome.

    2. John said he was a Boomer.
      Oops.

    3. oh so now you believe the popo ?

  30. It occurs to me that my Glock 17 looks like a Glock 17.

    SCARY!

    1. Glock 21 says: “BOO!”

      1. So does my Kimber 1911 🙂

        1. I prefer “BOOM”

          1. I thought Glocks say “ka-BOOM.”

            j/k, I love my 35.

  31. MATT DAMON!

  32. Santorum’s Celibate Military!

    Asked by a YouTube questioner whether he would try to reverse the policy allowing gays to serve in the military, Santorum responded: “Any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s…..z1iavArwas

    1. Which begs the question; where do future soldiers come from?

      1. Civilian control, or rather lack of it?

    2. Is he saying that jerking off is a dishionorable discharge?

      1. “Emission completed!”

      2. That’d be the best way to get out of the military ever.

    3. WTF? Sadly, the military is being caught in a vice between prude feminist and evangelical nuts like Santorum. We are expecting our soldiers to be warrior monks.

      1. They could all become predator priests.

    4. So he doesn’t want military personnel breeding? Is this some sort of complicated racism?

    5. In Santorum’s Vietnam movie script:

      “Me so chaste. Study Bible long time.”

    6. Santorum responded: “Any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military.”

      Well, now I know who thousands of hookers working the bars and whorehouses next to US bases around the world won’t be rooting for in November. (I almost wrote “pulling for”.)

      1. They won’t take this lying down!

      2. won’t be rooting for

        What you did there . . .

    7. “In 1856, the city council banned all sexual positions except for missionary. And two years later, they banned missionary.”

    8. “Any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military.”

      If Uncle Sam wanted you to have a wife, you would have been issued one, soldier.

  33. Browsville, Tx is gun country, and their is now way a GOB confuses a pellet with hunting.

    1. Right now. And spelling and grammar check, stat!

      1. So I sent in my form to be registered as a Republican so I can vote in Maryland’s primary in April so I can vote for Paul. I don’t pretend to agree with everything Paul stands for and I still think I prefer Johnson overall, but I can’t stand to see him being attacked by the GOP chickenhawks because he won’t endorse their raison d’etre warmongering and WOT tactics like they did in 08. Also, I think the single biggest issue right now is war with Iran, I think it would be a catastrophe for that to happen.

        1. so I can vote for Paul.

          /spit-take/

          I think the single biggest issue right now is war with Iran

          Not global warming? I keed, I keed.

          1. I’m starting to get a clear picture of wife’s tat choice on your back
            -you were being punished right?

        2. Fuck. Now I have to worry about pig shit falling on my head.

          1. I’ve always liked Paul for the following reasons:

            1. He panders less than any pol on the national scene I can think of
            2. his WOD stance
            3. his stance on the military and offensive wars
            4. civil liberties (at least at the federal level)

            Those are pretty big issues to me. According to polls and my experience they are pretty big issues to many liberals, they just don’t realize his stances are much closer to theirs than Obama et al’s stances (and words frankly).

            I prefer Johnson overall, but he may or may not even be running at this point, so I’ll vote for Paul in the primary. Were Paul to win the nomination and Johnson run as LP then I gues I would support Johnson…But let’s let that happen first!

            1. they are pretty big issues to many liberals, they just don’t realize his stances are much closer to theirs than Obama et al’s stances

              Just don’t go saying this to any Republicans.

            2. I always knew you were one of the good ones MNG

      2. drinking first coffeee now

        *there*
        confuses *a*
        hunting *gun*

        Thank your Sister Spellcheck of the order of Reason

          1. If only.

            1. Quetzalcoatl, you’d miss me -kinda like an ex-wife 😉

  34. Cheap ass Libertarians can get a deal on getting laid at the Bunny ranch in Vegas; all you have to say is:

    “I’m pimping for Paul.”

    1. ” lot of the women supported Barack Obama in 2008, but then he signed a bill allowing for human consumption of wild horses and “the girls don’t want any part of Obama,” Hof said.”

      What if I told you ladies that he’s hung like a horse?

  35. It occurs to me that my Glock 17 looks like a Glock 17.

    SCARY!

    Paint the muzzle orange.

    1. There was that guy in Tennessee who was open carrying a real AK Draco pistol with the muzzle painted orange. Great hilarity ensued

      1. And there is that Hello Kitty CA-legal AR-15.

  36. ID now needed for drain cleaner

    But not to vote.

    1. That would be racist somehow.

      1. …because drain cleaner is a civil right

        1. No, idiot. Indoor plumbing is a civil right.

  37. Mom of the Year?

    Only disappointed she asked for permission to shoot someone aggressively trying to break into her home. Still, she dealt with the trash. I’m sure the anti-gun libs on here would say she should have allowed them to rape her and rob her rather than kill one of them.

    1. Breaking into someone’s house should be a contact sport. Shoot a few of the bastards and even the methbillies will get the message.

    2. The libs would say that she should have waited for the cops since only cops can be trusted with guns.

      She was on the phone for twenty one minutes before she shot the guy.

      Twenty one minutes.

      How much longer would those idiot liberals want her to wait?

      1. And how stupid was the guy she shot staying there for 20 minutes after he knew she had a gun. If I have a knife and the guy in the house has a gun, I am leaving. That whole knife to a gun fight thing.

        1. Thinking with the wrong head?

        2. It said they were after prescription pain meds, so it is likely they weren’t in a rational state of mind.

          1. Sorry, no RTFA; thought they were after something else.

            1. I’ve read more than one story about this incident, and while that one doesn’t say anything about drugs I thought another one did.

            2. Well, in her shoes, I would repeatedly mention that I feared I would be violated, regardless of what I actually felt at the time. But yeah, I’m not calling the police until after the situation is dealt with.

              1. Best to have the police on the line recording you yelling that to the perp.

              2. Don’t you live in FL? Pretty good castle doctrine there.

                1. CA, Bay Area. Way different here of course. SF cops that taught my handgun class gave me that little tip. It’s just for good measure.

          2. And the worst part is they thought she would have said prescription meds because her husband DIED OF CANCER RIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS.

    3. Wow, 21 minutes.

      I’m trying to picture the scene in my house if someone tried to break in. Large angry dogs trying to chew through whatever walls are between them and the perp, laser sights glinting off of surfaces, etc.

      Eventually, I’m sure we’d call 911, to haul the bodies if nothing else.

      1. Yeah, but that’s Tejas.

        1. Tejas is an indian word meaning friend or friendly. 🙂

      2. I thought the same thing. Can’t cops in Oklahoma afford cars? Or maybe, because everyone’s in a tailer, when someone’s breaking into your house, you just drive it to the police station?

        1. Blanchard is rural. She likely lived quite a distance from the police station, so it would take a while on a lot of back country roads to get there.

  38. Santorum pulls into third in New Hampshire poll

    You’ll have to read all the way to the end of the article to figure out who actually came in second.

    1. Also Santorum is up +2 since last poll, from 6% to 8%. That unknown 2nd place person has gained 4%, from 14 to 18.

      1. Paul needs to get to 20.9% by next Tuesday so he gets 3 delegates instead of just 2. NH has 12 total.

        Mimimum is 10%, so Santorum needs to gain another 2 pts to get any. Any not granted proportionately (due to rounding or under the threshhold) go to the winner, so Mitt will get the rest.

        1. I would think Paul would do better than this in the “Live Free or Die” state. Who is hurting him here? Huntsman?

          1. Mitt has a home in NH, was governor next door, has spent the last few years there mostly full time. He just has some built-in advantages in NH.

            1. Not to mention the mass migration of Massholes to NH in the last decade.

    2. And he’s third with a lousy 8%! He’s virtually tied with Gingrich and Huntsman (both at 7%). Idiotic. Look at the polls at RCP. It’s basically random variation, nothing significant at all.

    3. Here’s another poll with the same theme to the reporting: Santorum gets big bounce in N.H.

      Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, still holds a commanding lead over the field in Iowa with 38 percent support, followed by Rep. Ron Paul at 24 percent and Mr. Santorum at 11 percent….

      One exception to Mr. Romney’s broad support is among single people, where Mr. Paul was backed by about half of all single voters. Mr. Paul also led among self-identified liberals, while Mr. Romney collected about 40 percent of moderates and 40 percent of conservatives.

      But all eyes will be on Mr. Santorum going forward.

  39. I posted this on another thread, but….

    I made the mistake of visiting Dondero’s shitstain blog yesterday. I kid you not, he claims that Romney is the true champion of limited-government Reaganism and Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich represent big government.

    God Dondero’s a fucking idiot.

    1. He was stumping for Perry last I heard. Weather vane.

      1. Unfortunately, Katy is only 27, so there is no hope of a Perry-Perry ticket.

        1. Without make-up she looks 35. Does that count?

    2. Better than 4 years ago, when Guiliani was the libertarian savior.

    3. By any measure that I can tell, Paul is the limited government candidate. The only one in the major parties. It’s totally disingenuous to think otherwise.

      I don’t know why he bothers pretending to be a libertarian. Why not just go straight GOP and skip these arguments altogether? The libertarian wing of the GOP isn’t completely moronic, you know, despite their maybe misplaced optimism about getting libertarian values more firmly established within the GOP.

      1. HERE IS MY CELL NUMBER, AND IF YOU DON’T CALL ME IN THE NEXT 3 MINUTES, YOU’RE A FUCKING PUSSY

        1. Was that the shit Dondero pulled?

          1. I WAS IN THE NAVY, PUSSY. WERE YOU IN THE NAVY, PUSSY?. CALL MY PHONE!

      2. I assume you mean Dondero in the second paragraph?

        Yes, I agree with you. Him and Gregooo simply baffle me. I wonder if there are a subset of folks out there who just think “libertarian” has a nice ring to it.

        1. That’s correct.

        2. That or gives them a paycheck, see Weigel, Dave.

    4. I don’t follow the Dondero thing. But did Paul go Sandusky on him in the shower or something? Seriously, that is fucking nuts.

  40. He was stumping for Perry

    I hope he wiped the Santorum off.

  41. So, Huntsman is looking to come in 4th or 5th in NH, which is basically the kiss of death for his campaign. Anyone think there’s a chance he would endorse Paul? He’s actually fairly conservative, and is the least warmongery candidate remaining other than Paul.

    1. doubtful – he would still be playing for secretary of state or a future run. He’s not going to get behind paul even if he personally agreed with him.

    2. The other governor from a Rocky MOuntain state wouldn’t have done any worse if he had gotten any attention. But the Beltway political and media establishments decided that Huntsman was “serious”, and the other Rocky Mountain governor was a whack-job.

  42. Commander-in-Chief, speaking now, panders to warmonger vote.

    “I won’t allow our fragile defenses to be dismantled. And, make no mistake, I was Personally Involved in these deliberations, so all you haters who say I’m disengaged can just STFU.”

  43. Headline I want to see:

    Santorum Slipping Through Cracks in South Carolina

    1. SC Evangelical voters ready for a taste of Santorum

  44. I just saw The Toledo Blade‘s headline from Iowa:
    Romney, Santorum in Dead Heat – Paul a Distant Third

    1. I’m sure they’ll be getting an angry email from Repub Central.

      They mentioned Paul. In a headline! Definitely against the rules.

  45. Speaking of Santorum, apparently the pusillanimous nonentity’s butt still hurts. Maybe he/she/it/they should try an acetone-soaked tampon.

    1. Lisen. Get this: nobody with a good car needs to be justified.

  46. I wonder if there are a subset of folks out there who just think “libertarian” has a nice ring to it.

    This could explain Fearless Fosdick’s repeated “No, seriously you guys- I’m totally a libertarian!” assertions.

      1. yawn. troll-o-meter: .01

        you are not the grand arbiter of who is or isn’t a libertarian

        it’s a bigger tent than you want it to be, and this country would be much better off with more libertarian cops (and LEO’s in general)

  47. Who?

    Our little pal “dunphy”.

    I don’t ordinarily waste my time playing the “Who gets to call himself a libertarian?” game, but when you’re the triggerman for the Total Control State, you’re not a libertarian, no matter how much you protest otherwise.

    1. Gotcha

      Yeah, I see what you mean about dunphy

      1. rubbish. been addressed many times

  48. Santorum says: That right there. That. Right there. Those values, right there. That. That there. Right. There.

    Satorum thinks: I’m just gonna keep babbling like this til they applaud like they were told!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.