A.M. Links: Boston Globe Endorses Jon Huntsman, Jon Huntsman Endorses Indefinite Detention, Emails Surface About Fast and Furious's Predecessor Program

|

  • The Boston Globe endorses Huntsman in the New Hampshire primary. 

  • Huntsman endorses the NDAA: "I would have signed it. I would work toward ensuring in practice that we have due process, habeus corpus, and that we do not torture."  
  • Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum spar over who was more important in Congress. 
  • Emails: Gun-walking operation under President Bush had similar problems to Fast and Furious. 
  • The unemployment rate has declined by 0.6 percent since August. 
  • Testicle-crushing torture fetishist John Yoo says Obama is abusing his power. 

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"

NEXT: Problems with the Squeeze Iran Strategy (And a Reluctant Hat Tip to Ron Paul)

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. The Boston Globe endorses Huntsman in the New Hampshire primary.

    Oh that should really help him with Republicans!

    1. A shocking development – the Globe endorsing the most leftist candidate available.

      1. Gee, I wonder who they’re going to endorse in the general election!

      2. They are throwing darts.

      3. Huntsman is far from leftist. Democrats just like him because he said something nice about global warming once. When they look more into him and see a staunch conservative they have an “oh” moment.

  2. The Boston Globe endorses Huntsman in the New Hampshire primary.

    New England says eff you to Iowa, we’re picking the guy who you voted last.

    1. and the rest of the world says, “John who?”

      1. John son, Johnson.

    2. As I wrote after the Iowa caucus, it’s amazing how the political and media establishments treated the two governors from Rocky Mountain states who were running for the nomination. One is “serious” and “respectable”; the other was treated as a whack-job if he was even mentioned at all.

      And yet, the “serious” one only got 1% in Iowa and probably won’t do very well in NH either. The “whack-job” wouldn’t have done any worse if he’d been given as much attention as the “serious” governor.

      1. Iowa sends its love:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..ture=share

        1. And we didn’t get you anything.

          1. I’m going to guess the video was produced by a resident of the People’s Republic of Johnson County.

            1. “You heard we were a bunch of knee-jerk conservative reactionaires. I guess that’s why we went FOR MASSIVE AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES in five out of the last six presidential elections.”

              Yeah, fuck you back Iowa.

    3. You know, I’m wondering if Johnson made a mistake dropping out. With the strange (albeit likely temporary) rise of Santorum, we’ve seen that the non-Romney voters are desperate for an alternative, and they’re not completely satisfied with Paul. I’m not saying those Santorum votes would’ve gone to Johnson, because they wouldn’t have, but I do think this is one of those races that could result in a current bottom-feeder doing well in some states (or even winning the whole thing).

      1. I’ve heard the same thing said about T-Paw, for what that’s worth.

        1. Watching and waiting.
          Watching. And waiting.

      2. With his pro abortion and pro gay marriage stance, Johnson is like the Anti-Santorum. I don’t see any way he could’ve ended up with the Anti-Romney/Paul vote.

        1. That wasn’t my point. He’d have sucked wind in Iowa. But I think he actually could’ve surged later. Santorum is going to vanish before too much longer, leaving Romney–who virtually no one in the party wants to be the nominee–Paul (ditto!!!), and Gingrich. Johnson starts looking good at that point to people who lean libertarian on spending/government scope but aren’t comfortable with other aspects of Paul’s message.

        2. Pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage? You mean he actively advocates having abortions and gay marriage? I thought he just believes they aren’t within the scope of power of the federal government.

          I have no issue with either abortion or gay marriage, but that doesn’t mean I am pro abortion or recommend that people marry same sex rather than different sex, I actually prefer there be no abortions and wouldn’t give a thimble of warm spit for who someone marries, but don’t think either are any of my business.

          1. Why do you prefer there be no abortions? If they’re no big deal…

          2. He was using shorthand terms and you know it. Pedants are annoying, even more so when they feign ignorance.

        3. You misunderstand how this works. View points are not considered until after the golden boy is picked. No one had any idea what Santorum was like. They just knew he wasn’t Newt, and he wasn’t Romney. When you are out of options you throw your hands up and pick the third choice hoping it might be better.

      3. The only current bottom feeder who I think has a chance is Perry. He’s going to poll as badly in NH as Huntsman did in IA, but he’s dumping everything he has left into SC, which has always picked the eventual nominee.

      4. Johnson’s pro choice, pro open borders, anti war and pro gay rights positions make it impossible for him to have a surge in the republican party, unfortunately.

        Ironically enough those same positions combined with his stance on civil liberties would make him the ultimate “blue dog” democrat. It would have been interesting in an alternate universe if he had switched parties to Democrat and given Obama a primary challenge. I think his positions on the above issues might have made him a viable challenger. Of course his stance on entitlement reform and the wellfare state in general would have turned off a lot the “progrssives” who only care about the above issues as a way of feeling good about themselves for being morally superior.

        1. No that would make him the ultimate of what the blue dogs claim they are, fiscally conservative democrats. What the blue dogs really are are moderate rural dems who have to hide their desire to spend a little and are only marginally better on social stuff then republicans.

          1. though there are occationaly fiscally conservative republicans who are also socially moderate or even liberal, i have yet to really find any democrats who are socilly liberal who are also actually fiscally conservative.

  3. Huntsman endorses the NDAA.

    Oh that should really help him with libertarians!

  4. Huntsman endorses the NDAA.

    Ron Paul does not.

  5. I’d like to pump a little more than just her gas…

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

    1. I have no idea who she is.

      1. You’re not a fan of High School Musical?

        Me neither.

      2. Several Disney channel shows and movies. She looks much better with half of her nose shaved off.

        1. She’s the voice of the sister on Phineas & Ferb. I love that show.

      3. Think Disney Channel.

        1. Well, that explains it.

    2. Lady Gaga has a restaurant in NY? I’m guessing that Thomas Keller isn’t exactly hearing footsteps.

    3. She looks like she’s 12. According to the comments she’s a plastic surgery addict waiting to erupt. Maybe she’ll look a bit older after she’s pumped full of silicone and botox.

      1. She’ll look a bit older after getting pumped full of something, but it ain’t silicone and botox.

        1. I’m sure she’s been pumped plenty full of that already.

        1. I guess I’m talkin’ about love.

      1. Does she need her exhaust realigned?

    4. Not all that impressed. Semi-attractive, doable, but nothing special. Boyfriend looks like a real winner.

      1. Makes it that much easier to sender her packing.

    5. She looks very cute here, but what caught my attention in this story was the following line: New man: Ashley and her boyfriend Martin Johnson enjoyed a romantic meal at Lady Gaga’s restaurant in NY on New Year’s Eve

      1. Don’t order the steak.

    6. You’ve got the option of going with LeAnn Rimes thong bikini pics, and you go with this instead? What were you thinking?

      1. Someone finally gave Rimes a sammich.

        She could use another, but she seems over the skeletoritis.

        1. Barely.

        2. All the sandwiches in the world aren’t going to do a damn thing about that face.

          1. Plastic like skin and thin lips stretched over bone doesn’t turn you on?
            What’s wrong with you?

  6. Does anyone else think the dude in the black jacket in the screen cap for the video wants a piece Mr. Sweatervest?

  7. This just in! Mila Kunis is still hot!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..-star.html

    1. Weird face.

      1. Looks like the Black Sea area. Turkish or Russian maybe?

        1. Ukrainian

          1. The best looking women I’ve ever seen were in Ukraine. It’s just that particular shot; her wikipedia pic is considerably better.

        2. She’s Ukrainian, from what I understand.

          1. “Kunis was born in Chernivtsi in the Ukrainian SSR. Her mother, Elvira, is a physics teacher and drug store manager, and her father, Mark Kunis, is a mechanical engineer and cab company executive. She has an older brother, Michael.Her family moved to Los Angeles, California, in 1991, when she was seven years old. Kunis is Jewish and has cited antisemitism in the former Soviet Union as one of several reasons for her family’s move to the U.S. She has said that her parents “raised me Jewish as much as they could”, though religion was suppressed in the Soviet Union.”

      2. That’s what pillows are for

      3. You know nothing of faces.

    2. I’d go for a Natalie/Mila 3-way

      1. Natalie Portman seems like she would suck in bed, and not in a good way.

        1. Well I certainly am willing to provide her as much instruction as she needs.

    3. Sexy feet.

    4. She on my “list”. You know. The la-la land list where if I ever had the chance, I could fuck her and my wife couldn’t say/do anything about it.

      The scene of her going down on Natalie Portman in black swan is, well, very good (despite it being utterly fucked up).

      1. She’s actually gotten better looking as she’s aged, although that could be due to the power of modern cosmetics as well. In the early That 70’s Show days, I thought Laura Prepon was the better-looking of the two.

      2. The wife and I call it the “celebrity waiver list”.

  8. Detroit police stations to start keeping banker’s hours.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/…..3496.story

    If you live in Detroit, your best bet is now hoping that Peter Weller gets in a horrible accident and is implanted with cyborg parts.

    1. Alternatively, at least Detroit taxpayers are only paying for cops to pretend to work 8 hours a day now.

    2. That’s always your best bet, regardless.

    3. That has always been our best, last hope for America.

    4. It wasn’t an accident.

  9. The emailed comment by an assistant U.S. attorney in Arizona to a law enforcement colleague in December 2008 focused on the tactic used in Operation Wide Receiver, an investigation that began in early 2006.

    They pick operation names that sound like gay bars. I assume, I’ve never been. I mean, the energy on the dance floor is incredible at those places. I hear. WHAT I DID SOPHMORE YEAR IN COLLEGE IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

    So anyway, Bush let guns into Mexico, too, huh?

    1. Bush was pro guns-for-all.

    2. New documents reveal that Operation Woody Cowboy allowed guns into mexico during the Clinton Administration, who appeared to carry on Reagan’s Operation Lucky Steel.

    3. Best sign in DC is the gay bar called The Tool Shed. Its in an alley off 14th (just off Thomas Circle). Two nuts and a wrench for the sign. Good stuff.

      1. Pales beside the name of a popular bottle shop on Polk Street (the old gay street) in San Francsisco years ago:
        Sucker’s Liquors

        1. no, tool shed is better

          honestly, sucker’s liquors isn’t even that good.

          1. Back in the 80s, a local right-wing candidate listed “Kisahomo’s Tool & Die” as one of her endorsements in the newspaper’s election guide!

        2. Which was next door to the gay bar The White Swallow, with a nice picture of a San Juan Capistrano bird in flight. Old joke now but was a groundbreaker back in the mid-80s

    4. Standard Republican Talking (Counter)Points:
      Wide Receiver was conducted with the knowledge of Mexican officials, and there was a plan for post border-crossing recovery of the weapons (that failed, due to Mexico), and the operation was killed after that failure.

      IOW, WR was a legitimate fuckup, F&F was deliberate; though they may have been emboldened to enact F&F because WR gave them cover to claim that F&F was an accident too, one that they just kept making over and over and over.

  10. I don’t know who Olivia Palermo is, but the other lady in that first pick is perfect for John!

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

    1. That’s no lady, that’s my wife!

      1. Hey, you stole my joke!

    2. Olivia needs a sammich or three.

    3. Olivia and her stud muffin are a bit unclear on the concept of ‘nude beach’, aren’t they?

    4. Averting her eyes. Would a bikini really have made a difference?

    5. Olive Oil

      1. Ya’spose she’s jealous of her boyfriend’s tits?

    6. Palermo is an MTV reality show whore. Typical NYC beyotch who could do with a couple slices o’ pizza.

    7. Here’s Palermo’s reality whore nemesis. Clearly casted as the protagonist. Yes, I watched the show(s) these two were on (Palermo was on one, this chick was on two)

      http://img.poptower.com/pic-1746/whitney-port.jpg

      1. Her eye make-up says she does anal.

  11. Would you fly in a space capsule with a crowd-sourced hatch design?

    1. How hard can it be?

    2. If it had been tested, sure.

    3. If I was really drunk. Why not?

    4. What, you want us to express our faith in Top. Men?

      1. If you believe Gus Grissom’s account, even the Top. Men. didn’t get it right on the first go.

        1. Yeah, he, Ed White and Roger Chaffee could tell you all about it. If they hadn’t roasted to death in about 20 seconds.

          1. I was thinking of his Mercury mission, which directly relates. No hatch design except not having one could have made a difference on Apollo I.

        2. I am kind of curious why the makers of space capsule hatches tried to kil Gus Grissom so many times.

    5. If it had a window and explosive bolts.

  12. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum spar over who was more important in Congress.

    So they settled the “who took home the ugliest chick from the bar last night” bet already?

    1. Did they decide who failed more spectacularly?

  13. The Senate can make sure that its rights are respected by refusing to provide any support or legislation to the agency, conducting tough oversight hearings, and enacting repealing legislation at every opportunity.

    And Congress is so good at asserting its autonomy, prerogatives and mandates – this should be foolproof.

    1. Or, Congress could defund the agency pending resignation of the illegally appointed crony.

  14. Imperial Stormtrooper takes down Darth Vader…

    http://www.clickorlando.com/ne…..index.html

  15. Emails: Gun-walking operation under President Bush had similar problems to Fast and Furious.

    The MSM can breathe a sigh of relief. No need to cover this story anymore. Two wrongs make a right as long as Team Red and Team Blue each committed one of the wrongs.

    1. Mistakes were made. No one is claiming it was a perfect operation. Now, … back to Dancing with the Stars!

      1. Oh man, I was hoping that now they could link this story to BOOOSH it might finally get some traction…

        But now I fear that BT is right. Dammit

    2. Obama’s 2012 campaign strategy: Bush did it too.

  16. Cult of Steve excommunicates idolators.

    “Apple has allegedly threatened to sue Chinese company In Icons over its eerily realistic 12-inch action figure of Steve Jobs, the company’s late founder.”

    1. Only action figures made in Apples Chinese sweatshops will be authorized for worship. Kissing the feet or ass of the figurine will reward the worshiper with quotes from Chairman Steve.

    2. And what exactly again is the target market for a $99 Steve Jobs action figure?

      1. Plastic Jesus on hipster dashboards?

        1. Hipsters really are the biggest threat to, well, lots of shit.

          Fuck.

    1. I forgot to mention. Police have not, as of yet, mentioned whether the crossbow bolt had a +1 or better enchantment or the boy’s saving throws.

      1. Either way, the negatives on hitting a small target from a moving vehicle are pretty substantial. Maybe the guy in the SUV had Ride By Shot.

    2. The headline really says it all. You read the article to find out more, but you already know everything important about the situation.

    3. He filed for divorce in May 2011, but they continued living together in the Flower Tree condominium complex at 14171 Flower St., Garden Grove.

      … Why?

      (Not for the squeamish.)

      1. Probably couldn’t afford to move out. It happens more often than one would think.

      2. Its hard enough when you and the ex are living across town.

        Err, that’s what I read somewhere, anyway.

  17. All morning, Bloomberg’s Chief Economics Correspondent has been asking everybody, “So we can start QE3 now, right?”

    WTF?

  18. Testicle-crushing torture fetishist John Yoo says Obama is abusing his power.

    I didn’t read the story. Does he say he’s turned on by it?

    1. Now we know SugarFree’s real name!

      1. I’m Asian? When did this fucking happen?

        1. No, then you would be LactoseFree.

          1. I pity those that cannot have cheese. I just couldn’t live like that.

            1. I’m lactose intolerant and I eat cheese anyway. The people you should pity are the ones who must share my flatulent reaction to dairy products.

              1. Maybe you should stop being so intolerant. All that bigotry and hate can’t be good for your bowels.

                1. It’s my bowels that are intolerant when I try to be inclusive in my food intake.
                  Too much dairy and I hiss like a leaking balloon. Couple that with flatulence from drinking homebrew that still has active yeast in it and there’s a constant flow of air coming out of my ass. Driving with the windows down in the winter and I don’t smoke anymore. I come back to the bedroom from taking a shower and the room still stinks from the night’s farts. I try to take courtesy walks at work but the stinkers still slip out.

                  1. That is, somehow, exactly how I always pictured you.

                    1. You pictured me? Homo.

                    2. I didn’t picture you as homo, nttiawwt, despite the concentration camp victim fetish.

                    3. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You’re just jealous that my farts tickle my balls and you don’t. Homo.

                    4. You picture me tickling your balls? Maybe John is closer to right about the skinny chick thing than I thought.

                    5. You’d rather tickle my balls than bang a skinny chick?
                      You are one messed up dude.

                    6. As sarcasmic fells another warm breeze on his scrotum, he leans back in his chair and daydreams, imagining the day when the tickling comes from strong hands rather than weak hissing wind.

                    7. Neu Mejican, I commented with SugarFree, I knew SugarFree, SugarFree was a distant acquaintance of mine. Neu Mejican, you’re no SugarFree.

                    8. I’d like to bang a skinny chick who tickles my balls, but that’s just me.

              2. “I have a psychosomatic disorder, that I pretend is lactose intolerance, and I eat cheese anyway.”

                FYP

                1. The only thing worse was when I was taking Chantix. Holy crap I’ve never farted more in my entire life. It wasn’t just a constant hiss, it was a roar! My pant legs may have well been wind socks!

                  1. Yep…the Chantix was a helluva lotta fun in the farting department. I could get real creative when I was taking it.

                    1. A slew of heart meds gave me roaring gas, the likes of which would linger in the car to be smelt the morning after they were dealt.

  19. Would you fly in a space capsule with a crowd-sourced hatch design?

    That depends; will they test a working model before the launch?

  20. A 36-year-old woman was charged Wednesday after punching, scratching and sliding her buttocks against a painting worth more than $30 million, authorities in Colorado said.

    She looks like Lily Allen + 80 gallons of whiskey + 10 years of being dragged behind a truck.

    1. I’d hit it.

      I mean the painting.

    2. When did Janeane Garofalo go crazy with the tattoos?

      1. Around the time she decided to become a shrill political hack.

        1. She looks really smelly in that picture. Yuck.

          1. Dirty hippies!

        2. Does that shirt refer to a shitty band, or is it just too many layers of irony to fathom?

    3. $30M, eh?

      Seems undervalued to me.

    4. It was an abstract expressionist. They must have caught her in the act.

    5. Well, she didn’t pee on it or anything! What’s the problem?

      1. I thought girls pee out of their butt. Have I been misinformed?!?

    6. I read that story yesterday – she also tried to piss on it, but missed.

      Great security at that there museum.

      And what pretension fucking asshole would pay $30 million for that paint-smeared canvas?

      1. I think a lor of women would need to pee on it before it had any value at all.

        1. Is the photo of the painting before or after the ass-wiping?

      2. I like it. But $30 million for any object that doesn’t do anything seems a bit absurd.

        1. The painting represent social justice and fighting the good fight against the oppressors. It’s quite obvious.

      3. I have some old shirts that look better than that. Best get them to Denver where I can get a good price for them.

        And they make much better butt wipes too! That alone should increase the price.

    7. That woman’s only 36?

  21. Today, the county grand jury indicted the 48-year-old woman on one felony count of torture, one felony count of aggravated mayhem, and a sentencing enhancement for the personal use of a knife.

    Really? There’s a sentence-enhancement in CA for using a knife when committing horrible crimes? Like torture and mutilation aren’t as bad if you use a broken beer bottle?

    1. No, it’s the personal use of a knife. Like, if she had just attacked a stranger for money, it would have been fine.

      1. Chop, chop!

  22. Testicle-crushing torture fetishist John Yoo says Obama is abusing his power.

    …as white doves fly by in slow motion while an action hero dives for cover firing twin gold-plated pistols at the nemesis who kidnapped his wife and daughter after exposing him as an undercover DEA agent. Or am I thinking of someone else?

  23. THE FEMALE GAZE; or It’s OK when we do it because fuck you that’s why.

    1. Getta whiffa dis!

    2. Um. . . those calendars aren’t being bought by women.

      Don’t ask how I know, I just know, alright.

      1. That’s why its okay. Because gay men say so. Although that wouldn’t explain the jezebelian aversion to buttsecks.

        1. Anal toys are quite popular among lesbians.

          1. Well its obviously okay when there are no men involved.

          2. Sorority Sisters Backdoor bonanza parts I through XVII are not a documentary.

            1. That doesn’t change the fact. Check out any sex shop catering to the lesbian market, the multitude of lesbian sex blogs, etc.

      2. Those articles aren’t being written by women either.

    3. It would be more accurate to say that a significant portion of those calendars are purchased by men for themselves or for other men.

      I know some women who are into beefcake. Some.

      1. Yeah, years ago, at my previous place of employment, the accounting department was entirely women. They mostly were pretty cool ladies, but one day as a gag, one of them brought in and hung up a nude guy calendar. From Playgirl or something. I walked in there and went, “ugh.” They all had a good hoot about it.

        I always wondered what would have happened if I had hung up a naked babe calender in my office.

        It was a small business and this was at least 15 years ago. Probably couldn’t get away with it today.

        1. I doubt you would have gotten away with it 15 years ago and today you’d end up with a fat harrassment lawsuit on your lap.

      2. At least one was purchased as a gag gift for my brother-in-law… Who found it hanging on his wall.

    4. But men and women are exactly the same!

      http://jezebel.com/5873347/men…..y-research

    5. You know what is kind of funny to me is that most men could give a shit if women check them out. (I am not talking about blatant gawking or loud commentary or whatever; that sort of thing is distasteful to anyone.) But I figure looking over and admiring people we find attractive is what human beings DO. It’s like a reproductive strategy or something.

      1. Obviously you are only saying that because you are in the throes of an evil patriarchy.

      2. “…most men could give a shit if are actively hoping that women check them out.”

    6. What is he doing to that kitten? Someone stop him!

    7. Some of those would be mildly hot if they were so posey-wosey. Like, how about a “candid” shot of a lumberjack taking of his sweaty flannel after a hard day’s work? Is that too much to ask?

      1. Not a lumberjack, but how about a bike messenger?

        http://lh3.ggpht.com/_c9BPAbXR…..aphy-2.jpg

  24. Early in the investigation, prosecutors had enough to charge suspects who had been converting firearms into machine guns, but law enforcement officials decided to wait, according to emails by personnel at ATF.

    “We believe at this point there is more value in the surveillance, identification of locations, persons, vehicles,” an ATF supervisor wrote in a June 15, 2006, email. An ATF briefing paper on Wide Receiver in August 2006 said the weapons involved in the investigation probably had ended up as “illegally trafficked firearms to Mexico.”

    So they decided breaking the law on a daily basis was less important than an extremely remote possibility of hitting a headline-generating home run.

    1. Excuse Me!

      That would be “a headline-generating home run” which would then allows them to go to Congress and ask for a big increase in their budget. Remember priorities. If they don’t have a big increase in budget how can they stop the evil people who are sending guns to Mexico.

  25. After four clueless years, light bulb finally goes on for well-known useful idiot.

    Also, fuck him and everyone like him who screwed us over so badly.

    1. “He’s more liberal than he thinks he is. He thinks he’s just slightly center-left, but when you get down to his instincts, they’re pretty left. And his problem is that he can’t really act on them, because it would be political disaster. And so that means, I think right now he’s doing very little, proposing very little.”

      Don’t worry, David, now that we’re in an election year, Obama will start proposing “solutions” again since the unions need more public money as a reminder why they have to vote for him.

      1. He’s more liberal than he thinks he is

        Obama, or Brooks?

  26. “CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (CBS Washington) ? A Charlottesville-area elementary school has been accused of making students sing a pro-Occupy Wall Street movement song.”

    http://washington.cbslocal.com…..cupy-song/

    1. Yet another reason to keep kids far away from public schools.

    2. What’s amusing is that it wasn’t even put together by the teachers. It’s a program designed by some goofy hipster outfit–Kid Pan Alley–that sounds like something that would have been financed by the WPA in the 30s.

      1. Kid Pan Alley sounds like it could a gay version of Sesame Street.

  27. Technology could be good or bad. Imagine you’ve never read a single sci-fi book (including 1984 or Farenheit 451 or the other stories taught in school) and you come up with the conceit that technology could be a great source for good or evil depending on how it is applied. Now write a 1000 word column about it and have The Atlantic publish it.

    1. What intrepid journalism.

      1. Bad things or good things might possibly happen!

  28. “A TEENAGE boy was tortured and drowned because a relative thought he was a WITCH, a court heard yesterday.”

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/ho…..witch.html

    1. Reminds me of a bit I saw the other day on 1000 Ways to Die. The village leader that determined if accused people were witches accidentally got high on mold or something. The people used his own bleeding mole test on him, and he failed. He was then stoned to death. I laughed.

    2. Well maybe he was. Can’t be too sure. Better safe than sorry, I say.

      1. If he wasn’t a witch he’s in heaven now so no harm no foul.

      2. That’s ridiculous.

        I’m pretty sure men can only be warlocks.

    3. Man, that is some case of sibling rivalry.

    4. Did he turn anyone into a Newt?

      Shouldn’t they have at least used the “does the accused weigh the same as a duck test” first?

      Sorry, someone had to make the Monty Python references so I took it upon myself.

  29. “Gun-walking operation under President Bush had similar problems to Fast and Furious.”

    I’ll be checking my mail for the flood of apologies daily…

    1. I really can’t think of a situation where “it’s the same thing George W. Bush did, but three times as much!” would be a mitigating factor.

      1. Well, when you’ve been attacked as much as I have for suggesting the program and tactics are not exactly novel, then yeah, it’s a bit mitigating of that.

        Anyone who ever took the time to simply talk to any LE at any level who did investigative work with illegal goods knows letting illegal transfers happen instead of immediately intervening is a longstanding and common tactic. Guns, drugs, knock off purses, they are all allowed to “walk.” It allows for the gathering of not only info to charge but intel to use later.

        Having said that it is, as I’ve ALWAYS SAID, morally a terrible idea, especially when the illegal transfer involves something dangerous. This is why as the article said it was officially against justicce policy to do it. They knew the potential problems. And people still did it. Worse higher ups seemed to have known about it and did nothing or approve. Heads should roll.

        But some left wing conspiracy to pump up cross border gun murders to trigger gun control laws? C’mon.

        1. MNG, it’s not so much a function of a n antigun administration as a runaway agency. ATF has been unanswerable to administratiins for some time. Spend enough time talking with gun industry folks, and as a collector and shooter, and you learn just how arbitrary and capeivious ATF

          1. …and capricious ATF interpretations of the law can be. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine some ATF lifers coming up with this. Their entire agency is built on restricting posession of firearms. Their incentives are universally aligned with this objective and they have not been held to account for some really egregious offenses. For instance, wholesale destruction of registration documents for lawfully owned machineguns and the utterly capricious practices surrounding determination letters for new products.

            1. I’m no fan of the ATF. I remember Waco and Ruby Ridge.

              The ATF shares most LE gung-ho, us-against-them (them being citizens), Rambo type mentality that leads to chronic heavy-handedness and abuse. They deserve much scorn.

              Add to that that libertarians disagree with their basic mission and they are of course despised around here, and much of it is deserved.

              But that detestation has led to some pretty big logic leaps and assumption junctions over this. What’s sad about this is that one need not go there to call for heads to roll and reform: what IS obvious is that the ATF engaged in a morally perilous tactic in violation of their own stated policy and many higher ups knew and either did nothing or approved (and then covered it up). Their violations and negligence have lead to deaths. That’s enough of a problem without jumping to conclusions about gun control conspiracies and such.

        2. “Well, when you’ve been attacked as much as I have for suggesting the program and tactics are not exactly novel, ”

          THAT is NOT why you are continuously attacked, you mendacious fuck.

          1. Oh really? I have a couple of posts bookmarked that say otherwise, want to put something on the line you “forgetful fuck?”

            1. “I have a couple of posts bookmarked that say otherwise, ”

              Really? You have posts bookmarked that outline why you’re continuously attacked? Let’s see em.

              “want to put something on the line you “forgetful fuck?””

              let’s. Name an escrow and an amount cunt.

        3. Well, when you’ve been attacked as much as I have for suggesting the program and tactics are not exactly novel,

          That’s a very, erm, favorable way to put it.

          As I recall, you were comparing it to a garden-variety drug sting. You may have thrown out there that Bush did it too.

          But, on either count, you would be wrong. I think we already beat the drug sting analogy into the ground, and the BOOSH did it runs aground on detail, such as coordination with the Mexicans and terminating the program when it didn’t work.

          1. “I think we already beat the drug sting analogy into the ground”

            Really? I remember that even John concede that drugs are allowed to walk. Do you dispute this?

            1. None of which has anything to do with he fact that the drug analogy sucks, is wrong, and was debunked.

              1. By all means, if you think the drug analogy, something even John conceded, is wrong and has been debunked, I’d love to hear your argument there.

                1. “You want to dispute that I was attacked because I argued the tactic was not a novel LE tactic?”

                  No, you disingenuous goalpost moving twat, I want to dispute that the reason you are “continuously attacked” is because you claim this program was “not novel”.

                  Don’t change your argument now that you have to back it up asshole.

                  And I want MONEY. YOU care about the motherfuckers here, but that currency is worthless to me.

                  1. “My contention all along has been that I don’t buy the conclusion that this program is so wacky and unfathomable that its only explanation must be politically motivated to spur gun control”

                    THAT is not the same as not novel, so you admit in this very thread you’re not being attacked because you’re claiming it’s not “novel”.

    2. All the Bush fans here will be sure to note that.

      1. Yeah, if I were saying “Bush did it too so that makes it right” then you might have a point. But I’m saying “Bush did it too so that shows it is not novel.” A lot of people here were arguing that this was such a novel, unprecedented, unfathomable LE tactic that it MUST, MUST I tells ya!, have a conspiratorial explanation behind it. It was so obvious that anyone who denied it was of course a tool for Obama and being “dishonest.”

        1. “But I’m saying “Bush did it too so that shows it is not novel.” ”

          NOW you are, and that’s not why you’re getting shit.

          1. MNG|9.29.11 @ 11:11AM|#
            “So those guns disappeared right before or right after going to Mexico.”

            And you simply can’t imagine how being able to, even in the short term, establish the fact and the time and manner of the guns being smuggled might not be useful in building a case against gun smugglers. And it is on THIS inability to imagine that upon which your entire charge rests?

            Holy shit.

            1. who the fuck are you talking to retard?

              Yo made a claim that you said you could support and haven’t.

              what’s with this non-sequitur gibberish shit?

        2. That’s an asinine argument. Wide Receiver was itself novel. It was also a colossal failure and was shut down. F&F was by no means SOP, it was a repeat of an idiotic mistake.

          And it was worse — as bad as WR was, they at least appeared to have a plan for and the intention of recovering the weapons before they were used in crimes. In Fast and Furious, they seemed to deliberately shun any sort of tactic (constant surveillance, tracking devices, alerting Mexical officials or ATF agents in Mexico to follow guns after crossing the border) that might give them some chance of finding the weapons again higher up in the food chain.

          WR seems to have been an ill-conceived sting — give the straw purchasers weapons, track them to bigger fish with the help of Mexican police, big bust. F&F seems to have been intended to collect data about the flow of guns by identifying them, putting them into play, and then seeing in what crime scene they ended up at. That’s fine for radioactive isotopes in medicine, or animal populations, but when it’s guns in the hands of murderous gangs, that’s Nazi science, not to mention treason.

          Was the DEA allowing cartels to smuggle drugs under Bush too? Were the feds laundering money for the cartels? The ATF’s operation seems part of a pattern of DOJ misbehavior. A sting without the bust at the end is just plain old crime, and that seems to SOP for the DOJ these days.

          1. ” In Fast and Furious, they seemed to deliberately shun any sort of tactic”

            The indictments they’ve done suggest otherwise. The only real difference seems to be that instead of trying to track them down in Mexico they tried to eventually arrest smugglers at the border.

            1. “You want to dispute that I was attacked because I argued the tactic was not a novel LE tactic?”

              No, you disingenuous goalpost moving twat, I want to dispute that the reason you are “continuously attacked” is because you claim this program was “not novel”.

              Don’t change your argument now that you have to back it up asshole.

              And I want MONEY. YOU care about the motherfuckers here, but that currency is worthless to me.

            2. “The indictments they’ve done suggest otherwise.”

              How do you figure? The extreme tactics they used were justified as part of a plan to let little fish get away things in order to net big fish.

              Doing nothing to any big fish, and waiting until you have a big scandal to indict the little fish that you could have already easily busted just sounds like CYA.

        3. ” A lot of people here were arguing that this was such a novel, unprecedented, unfathomable LE tactic that it MUST, MUST I tells ya!, have a conspiratorial explanation behind it. ”

          I don’t recall the novelty of it coming into the discussion in any really way whatsoever until today, when you thought you could use it as an out to pretend you had a point all along.

          1. MNG|9.29.11 @ 10:46AM|#
            “And they couldn’t just arrest the guys who bought the guns in the parking lot like every other ATF sting why?”

            That’s what I would have done. Letting the guns go is fraught with moral peril. But everytime the cops let a drug or gun purchase go in order to track later purchases this happens. It’s amazingly common John.

            1. who the fuck are you talking to retard?

              1. MNG|10.18.11 @ 10:54AM|#
                And of course I have much more to support my theory that, as it stands, this looks like a routine (though morally reprehensible) LE program negligently carried out.

                1. Everyone admits that LE officers will sometimes allow and foster illegal purchases of goods to catch other and bigger fish doing the same later.
                2. There are actual indictments produced from this program.

                All you have is “what else in the WORLD CAN IT BE?”

                1. who the fuck are you talking to retard?

                2. Still waiting on those posts that show you’ve been continuously attacked because you said f&f wasn’t novel.

                  1. This is like the worst chat room ever.

    3. Why? Wide Receiver has been part of the story for months.

      1. My contention all along has been that I don’t buy the conclusion that this program is so wacky and unfathomable that its only explanation must be politically motivated to spur gun control, that instead it strikes me as a common LE tactic with legit LE goals. I think the fact that there were other, previous versions of this kind of support that. What do you think it shows?

        1. “My contention all along has been that I don’t buy the conclusion that this program is so wacky and unfathomable that its only explanation must be politically motivated to spur gun control, ”

          Which you are now trying to pretend is the same thing as “not novel”.

          You’re a lying fuck and it’s obvious.

          1. MNG|9.29.11 @ 10:50AM|#
            “Explain why they didn’t do the same thing in every other case and allowed those guns to go across the border?”

            You see the situation you are in, don’t you? You’re entire “evidence” for your theory is that you can’t think of an explanation for the behavior otherwise.

            1. I’m not in any situation at all.

              YOU made a claim of why you were being attacked.

              I made no claims at all about f&f.

              post your proof of your claim, make the bet, or fuck off and die.

              1. MNG|10.18.11 @ 11:21AM|#
                “You kind of need those two aspects if you’re going to get anybody past the foot soldiers buying and running the guns”

                No, not at all. Not if the goals included:
                1. Mere intel to use in future operations
                2. Arresting different people on our side of the border

                Neither of these are radical, unheard of goals for an LE agency.

                1. “My contention all along has been that I don’t buy the conclusion that this program is so wacky and unfathomable that its only explanation must be politically motivated to spur gun control, ”

                  Which you are now trying to pretend is the same thing as “not novel”.

                  You’re a lying fuck and it’s obvious.

  30. Vulgar “Santorum” Website Gets Boost From Romney

    GOP rival’s campaign ad runs on prank site linking Santorum’s name to anal sex.

    http://slatest.slate.com/posts….._site.html

  31. “A Colorado woman dropped her pants at a museum and rubbed her rear end all over a painting valued at $30 million, according to police.

    The oil-on-canvas abstract expressionist painting was spared additional damage when the woman tried to urinate on it but apparently missed.”

    http://www.nbclosangeles.com/n…..26763.html

    1. [not so polite cough]

      1. Sorry, I missed that.

    2. Everyone’s a critic.

  32. Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics has an excellent analysis of why it is that conservatives in reality have little to no control over the republican party nomination process.

    1. Two ways I can think of to easily fix the problem he is suggesting:

      1. True proportional delegate assignment. No threshholds, no bonuses to winner. The proportional split can be statewide or district or a combination, but use true proportional representation at the convention.

      2. If you are going to use winner-take-all voting, use some form of IRV.

  33. I’ll be checking my mail for the flood of apologies daily…

    Why? What happened under Obama is still as wrong as it ever was. If you want to slam Bush, go ahead.

  34. What happened after the death is a kind of snapshot of a cultural divide. Some would find it discomforting, strange, even ghoulish — others brave and deeply spiritual. Rick and Karen Santorum would not let the morgue take the corpse of their newborn; they slept that night in the hospital with their lifeless baby between them. The next day, they took him home. ”Your siblings could not have been more excited about you!” Karen writes in the book, which takes the form of letters to Gabriel, mostly while he is in utero. ”Elizabeth and Johnny held you with so much love and tenderness. Elizabeth proudly announced to everyone as she cuddled you, ‘This is my baby brother, Gabriel; he is an angel.’ ” (NY Times)

    And then they say that Ron Paul is creepy.

    1. Honestly, whatever people want to do to cope with stuff like that is fine with me. Its pretty traumatic and I don’t begrudge their way of dealing with it. But then, I don’t begrudge gays marriage either.

      1. Apparently they dealt with it by having another child when Karen was what, 47 years old? That’s pretty disturbing…

        1. Quiverfull.

        2. Definately a roll of the dice but I don’t know if I find it disturbing. Some people love having kids and want lots of them – what’s wrong with that?

        3. Apparently they dealt with it by having another child when Karen was what, 47 years old? That’s pretty disturbing…

          I guess I don’t see why this is disturbing, can you explain?

          1. Because the risks are so high of something going wrong with either the child or mother with a pregnancy at that age. And it’s not as if they didn’t have any children yet.

            1. I still don’t get your reasoning. If they knew what the risks were and decided in favor, who are you to judge?

              1. If the parents would bear the full cost associated with that risk, fine. In the case of Santorum, he probably pays out of pocket for the treatment of his child’s chronic disease (it would be an interesting question to ask him), but in other cases tax payers will have to foot the bill.

          2. At some point, having what you know will be a high risk pregnancy is pretty irresponsible and selfish.

            I’m not gonna beef about how they handled the death of the baby that was born alive and lived a couple hours.

            Bringing that 20 week deceased fetus home, though, is kinda weird (and probably illegal, BTW; a 20 week deceased fetus is technically medical waste and has to be redbagged).

            The fact that they also had a (borderline) abortion, and continue to be sanctimonious fucks on the topic, really sandpapers my taint.

            1. They are both devout Catholics. Getting pregnant and having babies is kind of their thing, by definition. If she got pregnant, and they have religious scruples about that sort of thing, they don’t have a lot of other options than to have the baby. I’ll also note in my own personal Catholic data sample that kids at that age, while not at all usual, are not unheard of either.

            2. Irresponsible and selfish? Exactly how is it either?

              1. Yeah, I am honestly not getting all the judgement here. What people decide to do with their procreative decisions is really no one’s business but their own. To me that would apply to the abortioniest hippie, or someone like the Santorums– it’s simply not my problem, and unless it impacts me or mine, is neither irresponsible or selfish.

                1. You’re not getting the judgement because unlike some (most) people you’re at least consistent in your views wrt other peoples procreative decisions.

                  1. Putting aside for a moment my overall anti-natalist position, what about the older siblings? (Although being an older sibling is how I ultimately became an anti-natalist, but I digress.) Did their other children consent to (a) having another person in their household or (b) the risk involved that they might lose their mother, end up with a permanently and severely maimed mother, or end up with not just another person in their household but in fact some seriously disabled person that they might have to care for for the rest of their lives?

                    Is it “their decision” as opposed to the states? Yes. Would it be nice to run it by your other kids when you’re planning to completely change their lives? I know most parents don’t even consider it, but I think they should.

                    What they’re essentially saying here, to their other kids, aside from the usual “hey, you have to live with someone new, even if you hate him, and we’ll probably force you to take care of him too, even though he’s not your responsibility,” is also “we value the potential future life of a currently nonsentient creature more than the life of your mother, who might die trying to give birth to him” as well as “and you might have to care for someone with Down’s syndrome until you die in case we have a handicapped baby that outlives us.”

                    1. When, exactly, were you going to put aside your anti-natalist feelings? After hitting the submit button?

    1. Leeeroy Jenkins might be my fav from that list.

      1. “Leeroy, you are just so damn stupid.”

        “At least I ain’t chicken.”

  35. “The findings of a new National Bureau of Economic Research study released by economists at Harvard and Columbia suggest that at least some of these critics’ concerns may be misplaced. By following students in grades three through eight into adulthood, the research team was able to link, for the first time, value added performance evaluations to life outcomes we actually care about. The economists found that teachers who boosted standardized test scores also better prepared their students for later in life: Students who had high value-added teachers in grade school attended college at higher rates (and attended better colleges), were less likely to be teenage mothers, and earned more in early adulthood. High performing teachers may more than justify much higher pay.”

    http://www.slate.com/articles/…..life_.html

    Something in this to please and anger everyone I should think. The right might not like evidence showing how a chance encounter with a teacher (evil public ones no less!) can have such a significant impact on later life success. The left won’t like the obvious implication that standardized tests really measure something and some teachers are better and more deserving of reward than others…

    1. The right might not like evidence showing how a chance encounter with a teacher (evil public ones no less!) can have such a significant impact on later life success. The left won’t like the obvious implication that standardized tests really measure something and some teachers are better and more deserving of reward than others…

      WTF. The “left-right” meme is getting out of hand.

      1. Actually I think most people ignore it. Most people I talk to borrow from the left and right without thinking about it.

        1. So why did you propose that these positions, which have nothing to do with left-right, would please and anger based on left-right status?

          1. I’m not sure where you think the problem is. I said it will please and anger those on the right because it will challenge their assumptions/positions and vice versa for the left.

            1. Cuz “their assumptions” as described have nothing to do with right-left.

              When has “the right” said that teachers can’t be important?

              When has the left said that “standardized tests don’t measure anything and merit pay is a bad thing”?

              It is the parody of people’s arguments with easy, inaccurate stereotypes that gets old.

              1. As I said I think the findings undermine the common individualist tropes about people being responsible for their own success, and certainly there’s significant opposition in the left to standardized testing and merit pay for teachers.

                1. Still waiting on those posts that show you’ve been continuously attacked because you said f&f wasn’t novel.

                  1. SugarFree|10.18.11 @ 10:03AM|#
                    He says that sort of operation is routine and therefore their shouldn’t be any partisan outrage.

                    That is a defense of Fast and Furious at it’s most basic. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

                    1. John |10.18.11 @ 10:31AM|#
                      It was clear there was nothing routine about it.

                    2. So, all along I’ve said the program was routine, common, not novel. And I’ve been attacked as partisan for saying that.

                      Of course it’s now pretty demonstrable that letting illegal goods walk is routine, common and not novel, even when we are talking about guns programs like FF.

                      So checkmate my obsessive little cunt-troll, checkmate. You’re tears and impotent lil’ white hot rage are yummy!

                    3. “So, all along I’ve said the program was routine, common, not novel. And I’ve been attacked as partisan for saying that.”

                      Yes, you’ve claimed that repeatedly, and posted stuff that doesn’t demonstrate it.

                      Still waiting.

                    4. “My contention all along has been that I don’t buy the conclusion that this program is so wacky and unfathomable that its only explanation must be politically motivated to spur gun control, ”

                      Which you are now trying to pretend is the same thing as “not novel”.

                      You’re a lying fuck and it’s obvious.

                    5. Still waiting on those posts that show you’ve been continuously attacked because you said f&f wasn’t novel.

                    6. Of course, its in the details that we learn that F&F wasn’t novel. The refusal to engage with either Mexicans or their own people in Mexico, the sheer volume of guns walked, the refusal to make arrests until very late in the game, and, of course, the admitted intention to use the guns that they themselves channeled to the cartels as an excuse for more gun control.

                      I don’t think you’ll find that Boosh did any of that.

                    7. I see, a pussy lil’ dodge that routine and common does not equal not novel so you can avoid the fact that you got served. Who saw that pussy move coming?

                    8. “I see, a pussy lil’ dodge that routine and common does not equal not novel so you can avoid the fact that you got served.”

                      YOU made the claim bitch, and YOU failed to support it.

                      And just to be clear, how fucking stupid are you that you think one line in one post supports your previous claim?

                      Or did you forget your previous claim asshole?

                    9. Read the threads all those comments of mine were from. My case has consistently been “this is a common, routine LE practice.” And I’ve been attacked for putting forward that defense, as the SF and John quotes show, but look at all those threads now you know the dates.

                      But of course this was never about evidence with you. This was about your tiny, lil’, impotent right wing rage. Rage on tiny man, rage on. Yummy tears go wel with my lunch!

                    10. “Read the threads all those comments of mine were from.”

                      How about you just provide the bookmarks you claim you had but never produced?

                    11. “Yummy tears go wel with my lunch!”

                      That is pretty much the universal internet admission that you know you’re wrong.

                    12. I think a better internet showing of someone being wrong is when they post the equivalent of “you’re wrong!”

                      I can demonstrate that my line with FF has consistently been “this is a routine LE strategy.” And I’ve been attacked for taking that line rather continously.

                    13. SO you’re saying you don’t have any bookmarks tht show you were “continuously attacked” for claiming f&f is “not novel”?

                      We knew that because you’re a liar who thinks saying things like “yummy tears with my lunch” scores points in a debate with an adult.

                    14. “you’re a liar who thinks saying things like “yummy tears with my lunch” scores points in a debate with an adult”

                      Whereas “fuck you” always wins…

                    15. Who saw that pussy move coming?

                      I think we all saw your spam of posts that don’t say what you act like they say coming. It’s classic MNG and it’s why everyone despises you.

                    16. Perhaps you can elaborate? I said I was continously attacked for consistently arguing FF was an example of a common LE tactic (as opposed to some fantastical covert operation to foster crime and murder to encourage gun control). This troll challenged that. I posted numerous posts from different dates demonstrating that this has been my consistent argument on the subject. The threads demonstrate how much I was attacked for making this argument. Some, like the SF one and the John one I posted, were quite explicit that they thought my claim it was common warranted attack as hopelessly partisan.

                    17. HI MISS RECTAL

                2. As I said I think the findings undermine the common individualist tropes about people being responsible for their own success,

                  But it doesn’t undermine that at all. And I think even your average individualist acknowledges that a good teacher can be influential.

                  and certainly there’s significant opposition in the left to standardized testing and merit pay for teachers.

                  Not quite. There is opposition to using standardized tests as the metric for determining merit pay. This is a much different thing than saying standardized tests don’t test anything, or that merit pay is a bad idea. And, of course, much of the opposition to standardized testing coming from Washington is centered on the idea that control of education should be local and not federal…hardly an ideology of the left.

  36. Kathleen Sebelius: The Affordable Care Act, helping Americans curb health-care costs
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    The 2010 reform law gives Americans a truly competitive health insurance market. In the past, insurers could get away with huge premium hikes because there was little transparency or accountability. People saw their insurance rates rise but had little way of knowing whether the increase was justified. In a market where consumers had little information, prices and insurance-company profits soared.

    The Affordable Care Act is putting consumers back in charge with two new rules that shine much-needed light on the health insurance market. The first requires insurers to justify premium increases of more than 10 percent and to post that information online. The second is the “80-20 rule,” which requires insurers to spend at least 80 percent of premium dollars on health care, rather than on advertising or executive pay. If they don’t, you get a rebate. Together, these changes are creating a health insurance market where premiums stay in check and Americans get their money’s worth.

    1. Ohh that evil advertising…its much easier to just buy some congress critters and force people to buy your product.

    2. One way to put consumers in charge would be to, I don’t know, de-link health insurance from employment and have people actually shop for insurance as opposed to have it chosen for them?

    3. The Affordable Care Act is putting consumers back in charge…

      Right. Can I negotiate with my insurer about what I want and don’t want covered without government clowns telling me what I must have? No? Then I’m not really in charge, and she can go fuck herself.

    4. “The second is the “80-20 rule,” which requires insurers to spend at least 80 percent of premium dollars on health care, rather than on advertising or executive pay. ”

      I note that “preventing fraud” was conveniently left out of the second category.

  37. Can Iran close down the Strait of Hormuz?
    The ayatollahs’ growing armoury is dwarfed by that of the United States. But any attempt to close the oil lanes is likely to lead to a major conflict.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..ormuz.html

    1. Honestly, this sounds like the runup to Desert Storm. “Iraq has the 4th largest army in the world. They have hundreds of tanks. What will the outcome be?” Lots of dead Iranians, a few dead Americans, and a 5-10 year occupation whose death tolls and monetary cost dwarf the initial fight?

      1. Don’t forget breeding a whole new generation of people that hate America enough that they’re willing to blow themselves up as long as they take a few Americans with them.

      2. But just think of the popularity of naming the inevitable anti-blockade war “Operation Strait Flush!”

    2. I hope they do shut it down – the howls of anger from the consumer/voting public might encourage more imports from other places and some additional drilling at home.

      1. US already buys no oil from Iran. Since oil is a fungible commodity, the price would necessarily go up, but there’s no direct effect on US oil consumption by an Iranian embargo.

        1. Other than the price of oil going up.

          The Iranians and Obamas are playing global game of chicken. We know we can destroy them, but only in the short term. In the end, it justifies the mullahs and they go back to preaching against the evil America when we get tired of occupation and leave.

        2. The Straight of Hormuz is the choke point for sea shipping lanes into Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries. A very significant portion of the world’s oil production is shipped through there, 40% IIRC.

          1. Yep, so let everyone else pay to keep it open.

      2. The u.s. gets only a small fraction of its oil from the mideast in general. While a blockade would cause worldwide prices to rise it would not have a disastrous effect on our ability to source crude.

        1. I retract the previous statement. I was considering the fraction of electricity generated in the u.s. using mideast oil, not overall imports. I need more in fo on toal imports to make an accurate statement.

    3. They don’t have the capability to do it for more than a few days or so, and if they even seriously tried, nothing would unite the entire western world against them faster. The regime would be utterly destroyed and toppled within a couple of weeks. These guys are crazy, but I don’t think they’re suicidal crazy.

      1. Agreed. The notion that Iran could accomplish this agaist even a single US carrier strike group — not to mention our many land-based aircraft in the region, the likely participation of Isreal, and the deployment of additional US ships to the region — is ridiculous. I doubt we’d invade Iran over this, but if they try to block the Strait their navy will be obliterated.

        1. I doubt the mullahs are concerned about a few naval ships in order to prove a point about America and why the country needs to be united against it.

        2. Considering that we get only 15% of our oil from the Persian Gulf, why should we keep it open? How about we contribute 15% of the force necessary to keep it open why those countires that do depend on contribute the bulk of it?

        3. They don’t need a navy to do it. Land based anti-ship missiles should do the trick.

          They also have some Oscar class subs that could cause a great deal of mischief if I recall correctly.

          1. Kilo, not Oscar. Oscars are big-ass nuclear powered cruise missile boats, Kilos are quiet little diesel-electrics (which are quite effective in areas like the Gulf)

          2. You really think they could close the straight for more than a few days with land-fired missles against even one carrier group that alone (a) has more air power than their entire country and (b) has massive missle-launching capability itself? Iran’s missle sites would be bombed to kingdom come. Of course they’d do damage to the US ships but that’s not the same thing as keeping the Strait closed.

        4. I think the Chinese would be more than happy to reopen the Strait, myself. Its more important to them than it is to us.

          We could probably chip in by sinking the subs and taking out the land-based missiles. Let the Chinese have the ship-to-ship stuff. The hegemons who play together, stay together.

          1. I like this idea.

      2. The regime may be toppled, but so was the taliban…

  38. Repeating a mistake by downsizing the Army again
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    Here’s what the lessons of the past 70 years really teach us: We cannot pick our enemies; our enemies will pick us. They will, as they have always done in the past, cede to us dominance in the air, on sea and in space because they do not have the ability to fight us there. Our enemies have observed us closely in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they have learned the lessons taught by Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh and Saddam Hussein: America’s greatest vulnerability is dead Americans. So our future enemy will seek to fight us on the ground, where we have traditionally been poorly prepared. His objective will be to win by not losing, to kill as an end rather than as a means to an end. And we will enter the next war again tragically short of the precious resource that we have neglected for six administrations: our soldiers and Marines.

    1. So, if I understand this, Americans greatest weakness is dead soldiers, so the way to address that weakness is to have a lot more soldiers to be killed?

      1. Well, we should be spending more on R&D to equip troops with better, lighter armor, suits that can immediately react to injuries, such as stopping bleeding in limbs, etc.

        We spend a lot on aviation, and I do mean a lot. I work in aviation, and the cost for parts is incredibly high.

        1. The highest technology in the world would only get our soldiers killed in new, more novel ways, all at the expense of continuing to drive the US economy into the ground.

          1. Technological changes in warfare will always take place, and tactics will continue to change. Yes, our troops will get killed, but trying to minimize the casualties is not a bad idea. Money will always be used to change the technology of warfare, or do you think we’d be just as good in today’s world standing in lines with muzzle loaded rifles firing minie balls at our enemies?

            1. f-22’s are hundreds of millions of dollars each. I think we could live with some F-16’s a while longer.

              1. I was talking about arming individual soldiers. And I also support more Unmaned vehicles. Not saying I support the drone strikes our president has been using, but I don’t have a problem with actually having drone strikes.

      2. Yeah, it seems having less soldiers would be a way of addressing that vulnerability.

        Iranian General: The 600 series had rubber skin. We spotted them easy, but these are new. They look human… sweat, bad breath, everything. Very hard to spot. I had to wait till he moved on you before I could zero him.

      3. Also, I assume the Mao part of that comment is attributable to Korea. Shit, we didn’t stop fighting Korea because of dead soldiers. We stopped because any further fighting was going to lead to a tactical nuclear exchange with China. Also, I don’t think spending 65000 lives over 10 years to hold no territory is the same as being squeamish about lost soldiers.

      4. Since we dont lose many soldiers when they are acting as soldiers, maybe the obvious solution is stop using soldiers as policemen.

        If we had pulled out of Afghanistan/Iraw after deposing the Taliban/capurint Hussein, they death toll would have been much less.

        We dont need many soldiers if we let them use their primary skill set.

    2. The lesson taught by Saddam, who was overrun in two consecutive wars, was captured hiding ina ditch and then executed, and whose countrymen’s IED attacks led to a 10 year occupation and a US military surge?

      1. The lesson taught TO IRAN by Saddam, who was overrun in two consecutive wars, was captured hiding ina ditch and then executed, and whose countrymen’s IED attacks led to a 10 year occupation and a US military surge

        is that having Nukes might be a good idea.

    3. Because we need more aircraft carriers and battalions because otherwise people with boxcutters will hit us again…

      1. I wonder if this highights the issue of spending priorities. Carriers and battalions of soldiers/marines fulfill the principle responsibility of the federal government and can be justified. The fact that a couple of guys with some box-cutters couls kill 3,000 people doesn’t necessarily delegitimize spending for the carriers and battalions, but it might for other things.

        1. Carriers and battalions of soldiers/marines fulfill the principle responsibility of the federal government and can be justified.

          Up to a point. Which I think we passed long ago.

    4. Underneath the jeremiad of a drawdown is actually a very cogent point–that America can’t place the burden of its military readiness on technology. He doesn’t say it (likely because it would undercut his overall thesis that spending should be maintained across the board), but weapons systems aren’t getting any cheaper and we’re always buying fewer than we originally intended because contractors under-estimate costs–first in the development phase, and then in the operational phase when the need for maintenance and spare parts arises.

      Western armies have always had a robust infantry as their core component, and when they begin neglecting the readiness and capabilities of their ground troops, that deterioration tends to filter over into other military branches.

      People first, ideas second, hardware third.

  39. South Carolina Primary: Romney 27%, Santorum 24%, Gingrich 18%. This 3-way race is good news for Ron Paul, since he can do better in states like Nevada and Colorado in February.

    1. “This 3-way race is good news for Ron Paul, since he can do better in states like Nevada and Colorado in February.”

      Indeed, let those f*ckers fight it out for the Southern states. Paul should concentrate on the West where libertarianism sells better.

    2. He can’t just skip SC and FL. Giuliani got destroyed by skipping everything before FL. Also, Gingrich? FFS.

      1. You’re absolutely right. He shouldn’t skip, but he should prioritize his time and resources.

      2. Paul could do well in the South as a whole. Romney isn’t popular down here, and no one else has any particular in. South Carolina isn’t a typical state by any means, so not doing well there doesn’t mean he’d fail in Florida, Virginia, etc.

        1. I see your point about S. Carolina not being Virginia or Florida. But Virginia has a lot of military voters and Florida a lot of seniors. Romney and Santorum will whisper sweet promises of continued goodies into the ears of both (“with common sense exceptions for out military and seniors”) while Paul has too much integrity to do that..

          1. He has problems in most states due to his stated goal of taking away the goodies. It’s all going to come down to whether voters are more scared of an economic collapse than of a libertarian, program-cutting president.

        2. S. Carolina, like a true Southern state, can be relied upon to line up and vote for who the establishment direct them to vote for. Even though it is a deeply conservative state socially they lined up and put McCain over Huckabee and Dole over Buchannan (and Buchannan defended their confederate flag flying over the statehoouse iirc), etc.

          Virginia is nice though because it is only Romney v. Paul.

          1. SO you’re saying you don’t have any bookmarks tht show you were “continuously attacked” for claiming f&f is “not novel”?

            We knew that because you’re a liar who thinks saying things like “yummy tears with my lunch” scores points in a debate with an adult.

            1. Dude, you should get help.

              1. SO you’re saying you don’t have any bookmarks tht show you were “continuously attacked” for claiming f&f is “not novel”?

                We knew that because you’re a liar who thinks saying things like “yummy tears with my lunch” scores points in a debate with an adult.

              2. “Dude, you should get help.”

                By the way, you’ve gone through the classics, the make claims you don;t expect to get called on, followed by the post things that don;t prove your point and claim they do, followed by the call names and be dismissive, followed by the “get help”.

                But you still haven’t supported your claim.

                1. What more documentation do you need? I’ve demonstrated I consistently said FF was a common LE practice. I’ve demonstrated I was attacked for that stance. I’ve demonstrated that some people were even quite explicit that it was the claim of commonality that warranted being attacked.

                  But like I said, it was never about evidence with you. Look at how you can have the gall to criticize me for not acting like an adult and calling names when you post identical responses to half a dozen of my other conversations under handles like “fuck you mng” and call me inter alia “cunt” and such. You’ve got no pretense to honsety, just juvenile rage. It’s laughable, but at this obsessive level a bit troubling.

    3. Face it: if Romney is leading in South Carolina, it’s already over.

    4. Funny thing is that this is Paul’s best showing (at 11%) in South Carolina, since ever. I think Romney will run away with it, but Paul and romney will be the last ones standing after Super Tuesday.

  40. Hollywood hates new ideas, and the public approves

    “Every single one of the 10 top-grossing films of 2011 was an installment in a franchise (if you assume that Rise of the Planet of the Apes, as its closing credits implied, will spawn more of its genetically mutated kind): Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 at No. 1, followed by Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Twilight: Breaking Dawn, The Hangover, Part 2, and on down the line.

    It’s not till you get down to numbers 11 and 12, Bridesmaids and The Help?one from an original script, the other based on a best-selling novel?that stand-alone movies start to appear.”

    http://www.slate.com/articles/…..arty_.html

    1. Looks like more of the same for 2012.

      I’m just gonna keep telling myself that the Disney version of Barsoom will not suck. WILL NOT SUCK!

      1. He missed The Dark Knight Rises

        Being part of a franchise is not necessarily a bad thing. We like it for books, but for movies it’s a bad thing? Bogus.

        Looking forward to The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises and Prometheus.

        1. Yeah, I think the whining can be overplayed. Franchises just signal something familiar usually because it has been shown to work. And of course every franchise started out as a new idea once. The article notes that the number 11 film was a new idea that is going to spawn its own franchise, so new ideas are still making it. They just have somewhat of a disadvantage vs. known entities.

          I’m also looking forward to those three films.

          1. SO you’re saying you don’t have any bookmarks tht show you were “continuously attacked” for claiming f&f is “not novel”?

            We knew that because you’re a liar who thinks saying things like “yummy tears with my lunch” scores points in a debate with an adult.

    2. I liked The Help. A little Disneyfied, but still a decent film.

    3. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 at No. 1, followed by Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Twilight: Breaking Dawn, The Hangover, Part 2,

      One of these is not like the others.

      1. They’re all sequels.

        It seems like half of Hollywood is sequels and remakes.

        1. You know what I am tired of? Reboots in franchises. I simply don’t want to sit through another retelling of Superman or Spider-man’s origin. There are so many stories to tell there and they keep telling the original one over and over.

          1. “I have a couple of posts bookmarked that say otherwise, ”

            Really? You have posts bookmarked that outline why you’re continuously attacked? Let’s see em.

            “want to put something on the line you “forgetful fuck?””

            let’s. Name an escrow and an amount cunt.

          2. My movie going has declined precipitously in the last few years. There is so much crap, and I can usually find something more to my liking on TV.

            1. So much this. There has to be one big, motherfucking movie for me to go and tolerate an actual theater.

              They closed the only local cinema and draft-house near me years ago. That alone made going worthwhile.

              1. TV really has improved over the past few decades. Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Deadwood, Mad Men. Often better than any given movie out and in much more time-manageable chunks.

                1. SO you’re saying you don’t have any bookmarks tht show you were “continuously attacked” for claiming f&f is “not novel”?

                  We knew that because you’re a liar who thinks saying things like “yummy tears with my lunch” scores points in a debate with an adult.

                  1. An “adult” like one who posts as “fuck you mng” as his handle?

                    You’re too funny cunty.

                    1. SO you’re saying you don’t have any bookmarks tht show you were “continuously attacked” for claiming f&f is “not novel”?

                      We knew that because you’re a liar who thinks saying things like “yummy tears with my lunch” scores points in a debate with an adult.

                2. I’m four episodes into Game of Thrones – quite good, I think. Deadwood was awesome. I liked Carnival and wished it had continued for a third season. Rome was excellent.

                  1. I was a big Rome fan. Not that many people rave about it, but I thought it was a real gem. I’m hoping to check out Carnival.

                    1. SO you’re saying you don’t have any bookmarks tht show you were “continuously attacked” for claiming f&f is “not novel”?

                      We knew that because you’re a liar who thinks saying things like “yummy tears with my lunch” scores points in a debate with an adult.

        2. As I noted above, big deal.

          Being a sequel doesn’t equal being a bad film. It increases the odds of it sucking, but in no way is it a kiss of death.

          Besides, I happen to *like* story arcs. This is what set Babylon 5 apart from it’s contemporaries.

          1. Sequels don’t bother me. Reboots of anything “classic” or less than 20-30 years old generally do. I also fail to see the need to take a title and some slight subset of the original to make something mostly different.

          2. Sure, and I agree that Harry Potter and Twilight are both on a narrative arc that everyone knew was coming. Transformers, though? Or Hangover? Distinctly not on narrative arcs. Just going through the motions.

            1. Consumers, of course, are the problem. And, as William Goldman is fond of saying about the decision-makers in Hollywood, “Nobody knows anything.” It’s a hundred million dollar crap shoot, almost every time.

              Another problem is the globalization of plots and characters. The world market is so important now that they make films that are more easily translated into foreign markets.

            2. Transformers, though? Or Hangover? Distinctly not on narrative arcs. Just going through the motions.

              Agreed. I would also present the first 3 Star Wars (Ewoks not withstanding) buttressing the argument for sequels. Granted, episodes 1-3 seriously undermine that statement, but Empire makes it tolerable.

              We’ll just pretend that 1, 2 & 3 never happened.

              1. You can’t un-see Jar Jar Binks. Ever.

                1. You’sa right, boss! Me’sa sufferin the loooooong Ja-Ja nightmare!

            3. I see your “narrative arc” and raise you a BOOOOMMMM!!! EXPLOSHUNS!!!!

    4. Movies are basically catering now to three audiences–nerds, kids, and women, because they’re the most likely to bring in bucks to theaters right now. The 18-35 year old male demographic, which has been the most desired for a long time, makes up a large portion of the first, but not enough to filter over into other genres. They’re a lot more likely nowadays to stay home and spend $60 on a video game that they can get over 100 hours of their time out of, or watch streaming video of their favorite television shows. They don’t see the point anymore in spending upwards of $20 for two hours of entertainment when they have more appealing, cost-effective options that cater to their sensibilities.

      1. Ah, but what about the experience of playing hooky from work on a Wednesday afternoon in order to roll a fatty and enjoy a matinee?

        1. I used to play hooky from work, but then I took an arrow to the knee.

        2. I did that to see It Might Get Loud, sans the fatty. Still a great friday afternoon.

    5. Since it’s been covered pretty heavily on Reason, I thought I’d mention for those unaware in the Chicago area that Battle For Brooklyn is playing tonight, Tuesday and Thursday at the Gene Siskel Film Center downtown on State Street.

  41. The Other Reason Europe Is Going Broke
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01…..lobal-home

    But G.D.P. per capita (an insufficient indicator, but one most economists use) in the U.S. is nearly 50 percent higher than it is in Europe. Even Europe’s best-performing large country, Germany, is about 20 percent poorer than the U.S. on a per-person basis (and both countries have roughly 15 percent of their populations living below the poverty line). While Norway and Sweden are richer than the U.S., on average, they are more comparable to wealthy American microeconomies like Washington, D.C., or parts of Connecticut ? both of which are actually considerably wealthier. A reporter in Greece once complained after I compared her country to Mississippi, America’s poorest state. She’s right: the comparison isn’t fair. The average Mississippian is richer than the average Greek.

    1. But there’s less inequality!

      Better for everyone to be equally poor than to have someone to envy!

      That and free health care, trains, health care!

      1. Social Justice man.

  42. As if we didn’t have enough reason to hate New York.

    Marine arrested for volunteering to check his firearm at the Empire State Building.

    Here’s my advice regarding traveling to NYC… stay the **** away!

    1. and if you want to get your blood pressure up, read some of the comments from people defending the law.

      1. To be fair, he is a baby-raping, kill-crazy Marine. Plenty of New Yorkers probably support locking him up on the basis alone, as a preemptive measure.

        1. Fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, etc.

    2. It’s actually a bit of a trend, as there have been 3 similar cases in the news lately.

      1. Yeah, I noticed that as well. Maybe a coordinated setup for a SCOTUS challenge?

        1. I doubt it was deliberate as they all have a substantial risk of going to prison for a long time. Although it is interesting considering HR 822.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..97997.html

  43. “Federal dollars also paid a Utah dance company to teach children in 10 elementary schools how to dance for environmental justice. “Kinesthetic learning,” the EPA reports, “will be used to examine air quality issues and encourage youth and their families to adopt healthy living practices.””

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/01…..ce-grants/

    1. This is just a backdoor effort to get PE back into schools.

      1. Why not teach the kids something less lame, like Karate?

        1. If we teach them self-defense, they might not feel the need for state interference in every part of their life.

    2. Apparently all the poz from California is now filtering into Utah as well.

      1. It’s spreading like a disease.

    3. Examining air quality issues through kinesthetic learning — I just lost a little bit of my soul reading that.

    4. “how to dance for environmental justice.”

      What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

  44. From those terrible right-wing hacks at CBS News…

    Documents: ATF used “Fast and Furious” to make the case for gun regulations
    By Sharyl Attkisson

    Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation “Fast and Furious” to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

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

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

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

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

    1. Lord, this was posted here, what, two weeks ago? As I said then this doesn’t change much. Of course they were going to point to the sales that were going on, most of which were not ones they were allowing (“emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF,” note “including”), to justify things like funding or new tactics.

      This is common. LE agencies often form task forces or units to target illegal sales of X, Y or Z. A common way to target them is to let them walk under surveillance. LE agencies enact such programs BECAUSE they see a problem in what is going on, and for the SAME reason they will push for funding and tactics to address the problem. That’s just so unremarkable…

      1. My issue with this, aside from the cover-up and whitewashing of it, is the attempt by a US government agency – one that presumably works for the taxpayers/citizens – to advance an agenda that infringes on my second amendment rights.

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

        INFRINGE
        1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

        1. Restoras
          Do you think reporting sales “infringes” on the right?

          1. “I have a couple of posts bookmarked that say otherwise, ”

            Really? You have posts bookmarked that outline why you’re continuously attacked? Let’s see em.

            “want to put something on the line you “forgetful fuck?””

            let’s. Name an escrow and an amount cunt.

            1. You want to dispute that I was attacked because I argued the tactic was not a novel LE tactic? Because I take that bet. But your money bets are silly. Let’s have some real fun. When I provide them you email Reason and have them identify your usual handle, and then you come on here under that handle and say “My God I’m an idiot, MNG was right and I was wrong.” I’ll put up the same.

              Deal?

              1. “You want to dispute that I was attacked because I argued the tactic was not a novel LE tactic?”

                No, you disingenuous goalpost moving twat, I want to dispute that the reason you are “continuously attacked” is because you claim this program was “not novel”.

                Don’t change your argument now that you have to back it up asshole.

                And I want MONEY. YOU care about the motherfuckers here, but that currency is worthless to me.

                1. I’ve always rested my argument on that this is a not novel LE tactic

                  MNG|9.27.11 @ 10:00AM|#
                  The problem with all the conjecture is that Art P.O.G. is wrong; there’s a perfectly sensible (though damning also) explanation for this operation. Allowing, even fostering sales of illegal materials in order to investigate networks involved in that trade is a not unheard of or uncomprehensible practice in law enforcement.

                  MNG|9.29.11 @ 10:04AM|#
                  I’ve been telling people caught up in Gunwalker conspiracy fever for weeks now that it is common practice for law enforcement agencies to allow and even supply people with illegal goods in order to make cases and track networks. Viola, duh.

                  1. “”You want to dispute that I was attacked because I argued the tactic was not a novel LE tactic?”

                    No, you disingenuous goalpost moving twat, I want to dispute that the reason you are “continuously attacked” is because you claim this program was “not novel”.

                    Don’t change your argument now that you have to back it up asshole.

                    And I want MONEY. YOU care about the motherfuckers here, but that currency is worthless to me.”

                  2. ‘ve always rested my argument on that this is a not novel LE tactic

                    Liar.

                    My contention all along has been that I don’t buy the conclusion that this program is so wacky and unfathomable that its only explanation must be politically motivated to spur gun control

                    You lie.

                    1. “‘ve always rested my argument on that this is a not novel LE tactic

                      Liar.”

                      MNG|10.18.11 @ 10:54AM|#
                      And of course I have much more to support my theory that, as it stands, this looks like a routine (though morally reprehensible) LE program

                      MNG|9.27.11 @ 10:00AM|#
                      Allowing, even fostering sales of illegal materials in order to investigate networks involved in that trade is a not unheard of or uncomprehensible practice in law enforcement.

                      MNG|10.18.11 @ 10:27AM|#
                      I’d said its routine

                      Poor lil’ cunty…

                    2. SO you’re saying you don’t have any bookmarks tht show you were “continuously attacked” for claiming f&f is “not novel”?

                      We knew that because you’re a liar who thinks saying things like “yummy tears with my lunch” scores points in a debate with an adult.

                    3. “”‘ve always rested my argument on that this is a not novel LE tactic

                      Liar.”

                      So I provide demonstrable proof that this is where I’ve rested my argument and you…change the goalposts (now I’m not lying about that, now you want to talk about if I have posts show I was attacked for claiming it was common).

                      But what would we expect from one so rage-filled and deranged as you seem to be?

                      And what can we say of the regular commentators here that they can’t muster a “WTF” to someone who posts under an abusive spoof-type handle the same posts over half a dozen times in the middle of totally different conversations being carried on? If WI or rather did this there would be howling and ridicule. But not one word? I suspect this has to do with the juvenile click that has such a problem with WI/rather, but which mirrors her in many ways, being in on this…

          2. I think this definition of infringe is the better one btw:

            2.Act so as to limit or undermine

            I’m not sure my right to keep and to bear arms would be limited by the fact that the initial purchase of the gun were recorded. That’s like saying my right to travel is infringed by recording the sale of my car.

            1. “I have a couple of posts bookmarked that say otherwise, ”

              Really? You have posts bookmarked that outline why you’re continuously attacked? Let’s see em.

              “want to put something on the line you “forgetful fuck?””

              let’s. Name an escrow and an amount cunt.

            2. Cars are not something that the government views as a threat to its authority.

          3. My distrust of government runs deep, MNG. No, it does not strictly speaking infringe on my right. But it could in the future.

            1. I agree it probably should be opposed on slippery slope policy grounds and deserved mistrust of the government. But I don’t think it itself infringes.

              1. SO you’re saying you don’t have any bookmarks tht show you were “continuously attacked” for claiming f&f is “not novel”?

                We knew that because you’re a liar who thinks saying things like “yummy tears with my lunch” scores points in a debate with an adult.

            2. Of course it does.

              The 2A does not provide that the state gets to license / register ANY sales of guns.

  45. And we will enter the next war again tragically short of the precious resource that we have neglected for six administrations: our soldiers and Marines.

    Jesus sheep-fucking Christ in a hot air balloon.

    What if we trick ’em, and just not send any of our troops to “nation-build” some gravelly, destitute shithole. Wake me up when they storm Venice Beach.

    1. Wake me up when they storm Venice Beach

      Only if you promise to go to sleep until then. Deal?

  46. This is like the worst chat room ever.

  47. Anyone else having fun watching Obama cheerleaders react to Glen Greenwald?

    1. Not really, but I thought Greenwald’s piece was most excellent.

      http://www.salon.com/2011/12/3…..singleton/

      1. Yeah, I had a “Hell must be freezing over, because I am agreeing with Glen Greenwald!” epiphany myself this morning.

        1. While people describe him as a liberal, he is refreshingly non-partisan.

          1. He’s a liberal who actually believes in civil liberties, instead of pimping for the TEAM that allegedly represents him. I totally disagree with his economics, but I respect his integrity.

            1. He may be the successor to Nat Hentoff.

              I don’t regularly read Greenwald, in fact, only when he’s linked here, but I do respect the guy for said integrity. Partisans’ true colors are always revealed when one of “their own” gores their beloved, chosen ox.

    2. I read both pieces and admired both them.

      And yes, I love the idiots at Salon frothing at the mouth over the brutal assessment of Obama’s war and civils rights record.

      1. While I was sure that Obama was not going to be an economic conservative, I had honestly hoped he would have at least been somewhat of a social liberal.

        1. Looking back at 2008, one would have expected Obama to be a disaster on economic matters but at least a positive influence on the imperial presidency and civil rights. McCain would have been the mirror image (with obvious limits because McCain has always been a dickhead).

          But, Obama has, in fact, turned out to be an utter disaster in both economic and civil matters.

          I made a comment a couple of days ago that no one responded to. I got hooked on the new Starz show “Boss” last fall, and suddenly I recognized Obama as a corrupt Chicago-machine politician with a degenerative brain disease. It makes his entire presidency so easy to explain.

          1. Obama was a total product of the Chicago machine, which was perfectly obvious 4 years ago.

            Why anyone would expect him to be better on those very things (executive power, civil rights, ethics) that the Chicago machine is famously bad on has always puzzled me.

            1. True that.

              But hoping that he has a degenerative brain disease that works rapidly at least gives me some hope for a change regardless of how unlikely that might be.

  48. there have been 3 similar cases in the news lately.

    It’s a form of entrapment. Apparently, there are signs saying “No GUNZ HIER!!!!”

    People apparently make the completely erroneous assumption that those signs are there because the multitude of people otherwise legally packing need to be made aware of the specific local restriction.

    HAHA, SUCKERS!

  49. How CNN describes the House bank incident:

    Santorum noted his role in the “Gang of Seven,” a group of freshman Republican lawmakers who exposed a scandal at the House bank in the early 1990s, before Gingrich rose to power as speaker.

    How the National Journal describes the same events:

    He enlisted in the “Gang of Seven,” a group of young firebrands (including, among others, the current speaker, John Boehner) who exploited operational defects in the House bank and post office to insinuate Democratic corruption.

  50. he is a baby-raping, kill-crazy Marine.

    We apparently need more of these; maybe the AUTHORITIES can offer him clemency if he re-enlists.

  51. So why did you propose that these positions, which have nothing to do with left-right, would please and anger based on left-right status?

    He has a stick, and he wants somebody to throw it for him.

  52. Looks like they may well be onto something dude.

    http://www.Privacy-Pros.tk

  53. Biggest Threat to US Comes From Within Our Own Government!
    A Tyrannical Dictatorship! Dictatorships with the military might to yield on US soil with the reversed comme positatus! And now the powers that be, can use the mere suggestion that anyone can be a “enemy combatant” because of a person’s belief and/or opinion that can be considered rebellious if it’s not the same as the Tyrannical Dictatorship’s view.
    This Violation should Never Happen Again! Impeachable! http://www.exposeobama.com/201…..ity-fraud/
    Now, you can help make the corrections to Our Republic, Help Save Our Constitution!
    When the people fear the government, that’s Tyranny!
    When the government fears the people, that’s Liberty!
    All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing!
    Now Is the Time for All Good Men and Women to come to the aid of Our Country!
    Make the Difference and Take a Stand with other Good Men and Women.
    Info @ http://www.wakeupamerica.com/constitutionalbelievers
    Take Care and GOD BLESS The Whole World!
    Sincerely
    Mr. Harris
    ConstitutionalBelievers@hot.rr.com

  54. An Army reservist who took the stage at a political event for Ron Paul and expressed his support for the Republican presidential candidate could face legal troubles, the military said Thursday.

    Cpl. Jesse Thorsen, 28, stood at a podium at the Paul rally in Iowa on Tuesday night wearing his military fatigues and said meeting the Texas congressman was like “meeting a rock star.”

    1. If he shouldn’t have been wearing fatigues, he shouldn’t have been wearing fatigues. He’ll probably have shit-can duty for a month. Maybe it was worth it, maybe it wasn’t.

      1. Don’t they give the yutes a Hatch Act briefing anymore?

    2. Yeah, the military frowns on making any political statements in uniform. When I was in the AF, three of my coworkers were part of a counter-protest to PETA’s protest of a KFC. Our bosses were cool with us taking a little extra time at lunch, but they reiterated “no uniform” about a dozen times.

      1. *coworkers and I

  55. This was fifteen or sixteen years ago. Since then I have wandered
    aimlessly about the earth, sometimes at work, sometimes idle; sometimes
    with money, sometimes with none; but always tired of life, and wishing
    it was done, for my mission here was finished, with the act of that
    night; and the only pleasure, solace, satisfaction I had, in all those
    tedious years, was in the daily reflection, ‘I have killed him!’

  56. Fast Food Chain Serves ‘Darth Vader’ Burgers

    Make sure to read the comments. A+.

    2,378 comments
    Popular NowNewest Oldest Most Replied

    1099Please sign in to rate!Please sign in to rate!16Gulfranger ? Ocala, Florida ? 20 hours ago
    These are not the burgers you’re looking for.
    21 Replies

    1002Please sign in to rate!Please sign in to rate!21Charles 20 hours ago
    I find your lack of taste disturbing
    35 Replies

    705Please sign in to rate!Please sign in to rate!6Matt ? Memphis, Tennessee ? 18 hours ago
    I feel a great disturbance in the force. As if a million colons screamed in terror and were suddenly silenced….
    29 Replies

    177Please sign in to rate!Please sign in to rate!3DonC ? Pigeon, Michigan ? 15 hours ago
    Help me Alka-seltzer Plus……. you’re my only hope.
    1 Reply

    1. The circle is now complete. When I left you, I was but the cashier; now I am the manager.

      1. “No. I am your Whopper.”

        “No… that’s not true! That’s impossible!”

        [Whopper Jr. lets go of railing]

        1. “But I was going into Tosche Station to pick up some fries and McBurgers!”

          1. “Get in there, you big furry oaf! I don’t care what you smell!”

        2. “Look, Your Worshipfulness, let’s get one thing straight. I take orders from just one person: the customer.”

          1. It’s a wonder you still have a job.

            1. Are you sure he does?

              1. “It’s a wonder you’re still alive employed

                better?

    2. “Good. good! I can feel the grease running through you.”

      “That’s no burger…”

      “Never tell me the odds!”

    3. After that last burger I had the Kessel runs for, like, twelve parsecs.

      1. At last, that line is explained.

    4. You’re going to eat that thing? You’re braver than I thought.

      1. We don’t serve your kind here!

    5. “She may not look like much, but she’s got it where it counts, kid. I’ve made a lot of special modifications myself.”

      1. I’ve made alot of special condiments myself.

    6. “Don’t try to frighten us with your culinary ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient hamburger has not helped you conjure up the stolen pickles, or given you enough clairvoyance to find the rebels’ hidden bathroom…”

      1. I find your lack of taste disturbing.

    7. “And I thought they smelled bad on the outside!”

    8. “What good’s a Happy Meal if you ain’t around to use it? Besides, attacking that hamburger ain’t my idea of courage. It’s more like… suicide.”

      1. Okay. Take care of your toy JW. I guess that’s what you’re best at isn’t it?

    9. Close the bathroom door!

      Open the bathroom door! Open the bathroom door!

    10. Never. I’ll never cook the french fries. You’ve failed, your highness. I am a cashier, like my father before me.

    11. So this is how a toilet dies.

      1. Foul! The prequels aren’t canon.

        1. So this is how a series dies…with thunderous scorn.

          For the record, the originals suck too.

          1. I will say this for the first two: At the time, they were revelations.

            1. Before watching ESB I’d never more looked forward to a sequel, and after watching ROTJ I never psyched myself up for a sequel again.

    12. I don’t whether to be impressed or frightened by this virtuoso display of nerdosity.

      I guess impressed, because I recognized every single line.

      1. I feel more at home. Here’s the real question: Who else is playing SWTOR?

        1. I’m a republic trooper on the Davin Estates server.

    13. These grill marks–too accurate for high schoolers. Only Hamburger U graduates are so precise.

      1. Nice try, but Hamburger U is run by McDonalds and their food doesn’t have grill marks.

        1. Very good. I was thinking that but didn’t let it stop me. Besides, who is to say what arcane arts they teach at Hamburger University?

    14. Don’t be too proud of this gustatorial terror you’ve constructed.

      1. …the ability to a destroy a digestive tract is insignificant next to the power of the fries.

  57. And what can we say of the regular commentators here that they can’t muster a “WTF” to someone who posts under an abusive spoof-type handle

    He’s throwing your stick for you, what else do you want?

    1. Shhh. If you don’t say anything, maybe the moron won’t realize he’s arguing with rectal.

      1. I like how it’s our fault that he’s arguing with her. It’s all our fault. I had no idea I had that sort of power. For my next act of board omnipotence, I plan on making Tulpa and Ken tongue kiss.

        1. Maybe if you guys fostered a less hostile atmo in the comments it would be easier to tell the trolls from the regulars.

          1. Yes. It’s all our fault. You and Ken and MNG have been running that meme for a couple of months now. joe, Dan T and your little buddy MNG had a hostile “atmo” going here long before I showed up.

            By the way… That was her yesterday on the car thread. Epi didn’t post even once. See how far being on her side has got you?

            1. I’m not the first man to be taken in by the promise of some action.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.