A.M. Links: Mormons Divided Over Romney and Huntsman, Democrats Divided Over Hillary and Barack, ACLU Hearts Gary Johnson

|

  • Youths heart Ron Paul.

  • Rich Mormons in Utah are divided over who is the better Mormon running for the GOP nomination.
  • Rich Democrats want Hillary Clinton to primary her boss.  
  • Gov. Gary Johnson scores higher than Ron Paul and Barack Obama on the ACLU's report card
  • Iran has sentenced a former U.S. Marine to death for spying
  • A pregnant teenager who was deported "accidentally" returns to the U.S.

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

New at Reason.tv: "Nick Gillespie Talks Nanny State Tales from 2011 & "Pint-Sized Sparticuses" on Stossel"

Advertisement

NEXT: It's Not Easy Being Green

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. Tebow > BakedPenguin

    /just in case Baked shows up for this thread.

    1. who knew Our Lord & Savior could throw accurate bombs & then pound the ball over the guard into the endzone! truly inspiring

      1. I didn’t know Obama played FB yesterday.

    2. Well, Jesus still can’t play rugby.

      /rugger joke

    3. “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.”

      -Matthew 6:1

      1. “winning aint just anything, its everything”

        -Lombardi 1:1

        1. you didn’t even get it right

          1. killjoy. just having fun

      2. “No one lights a lamp and then puts it under a basket. Instead, a lamp is placed on a stand, where it gives light to everyone in the house.”

        – Matthew 5:15

        1. “I don’t care.”

          -I

        2. There is a difference between the truth of Jesus as redeemer and prayer as a display of public righteousness.

          “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

          -Matthew 5:5-6

          1. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
            This is how Joe Namath won Super Bowl III. True story.

            1. No scripture reference, -3pts.

          2. There is a difference between the truth of Jesus as redeemer and prayer as a display of public righteousness.

            So why worry about it? According to the verse you cited, Tebow’s received his reward in full.

            One of the most compelling things about this guy is how he brings out his critics’ inferiority complexes for everyone to see.

            1. I really dont get all the hatred for Tebow. Admittingly, i don’t follow this much, but as far as I can tell, its not like the guy is going around telling everyone what to do. Hes just openly being a christian.

              The reaction of some people for him doing this is just like people who think gay people should be shoved back into the closet. Be religious, just not in me view.

              Ifsomeone isnt telling others what to do, wtf should anyone care? Leave people alone to express themselves as they see fit. You’d think libertarians around here would understand that.

              1. I really dont get all the hatred for Tebow.

                Personally, I think its because he’s got the worst throwing motion in football (and I include college and high school). Seriously, he throws like a girl.

                How could that not have been coached out of him by now?

                1. Personally, I think its because he’s got the worst throwing motion in football (and I include college and high school). Seriously, he throws like a girl.

                  By that logic, Byron Leftwich and Bernie Kosar would have been the most hated QBs in football.

                  Vince Young throws like a goon and no one chimps out about him as bad as they do Tebow, even after VY was shown to be a mental case.

                2. I dont particularly care about Tebow, but I want to see more option football in the NFL.

                  If that means Tebow has to succeed, then so be it.

            2. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SCRAPED FROM HIS MOTHER’S WOMB!

          3. And there is a difference between “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them” and “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others.”

            I think religion is a bunch of hooey but I don’t get why people want to go after Tebow on this.

            1. It’s really nothing more than insecurity. A lot of the same people who have no problem telling others to “let your freak flag fly,” get completely bent out of shape when they see a UGH XTIAN BIGOTS who aren’t ashamed to publically express their religious beliefs. It’s amazing how those types never shut up about being able to express themselves, but then criticize Tebow for doing the same thing, just because he happens to be expressing something they don’t like. Look at that passive-aggressive goon Bill Maher as Evidence #1.

              Personally, as long as Tebow and the Broncos are winning, he can plant a maypole on the 50 yard line after the game and dance around it for all I care.

              1. Yup. It’s insecurity. You sure nailed me.

                1. Yup. It’s insecurity. You sure nailed me.

                  You wouldn’t be limping out about it otherwise.

              2. I just get bent out of shape because it’s all so very very stupid.

                I want people to let their freak flag fly, but if someone was walking around pretending that their pet rock had telekinetic powers and was fixing the outcome of football games, I would think that person was a dumbass. And I would think the same thing about anybody who applauded that person and talked about how great it was that he was giving a shot in the arm to other people with telekinetic pet rocks so they could follow their dreams.

                Because that’s what the Tebow phenomenon is: it’s rooted in the belief that Jesus is personally intervening to cheat and fix the outcome of NFL games. And that is pretty damn stupid when you think about it, even if Jesus exists in the first place.

                1. Bullshit. That is a projection. Tebow has stated unequivically (and I heard him do so) that G-d has better things to do than impact the outcome of a football game.

                2. I just get bent out of shape because it’s all so very very stupid.

                  And it doesn’t personally impact you one way or the other–so why do you let it bother you so much?

                  Because that’s what the Tebow phenomenon is: it’s rooted in the belief that Jesus is personally intervening to cheat and fix the outcome of NFL games.

                  No, it’s rooted in the media looking for a unique story to beat into the ground. They did this shit all throughout Tebow’s college career, too, and the religious angle was a very small part of that story. He’s going to have expectations that are way out of proportion to someone with similar skills and experience because of the narrative the media has built up around him since his freshman year at Florida.

                  The fact that SugarFree and yourself get so viscerally worked up about it says a lot more about you guys than it does about Tebow or the attention that’s paid to him.

                  1. I assure you that you have never really seen me viscerally worked up about a subject.

                    I think the whole thing is silly. That it is antithetical to the beliefs he claims to hold is just icing on the cake.

                    1. I think the whole thing is silly. That it is antithetical to the beliefs he claims to hold is just icing on the cake

                      Funny Troy Polamalu crosses himself after every play, yet somehow that escaped your inquisatorial gaze.

                    2. I assure you that you have never really seen me viscerally worked up about a subject.

                      Is that where your malfeasant pancreas claws its way free and tries to do unto us what it’s done unto you?

              3. @ Red Rocks Rockin
                just because we don’t all enjoy all this religious huey rubbed in our faces doesn’t mean we’re insecure about it. We are insulted by the stupidity of it. If he were Muslim, I bet You’d have a issue with it.

        3. “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.”

          1. F#*& – that’s NOT what I meant to post.

    4. Tebow > BakedPenguin

      Tim Brady > robc

      1. New England has no defense. If yesterday’s Denver offense plays on Saturday, Denver will win. The big difference in this game coming up is that Denver looks willing to actually throw the ball.

        1. Yeah, I would love to see the Pats lose. It definatly looks to be a better game then I would have thought a week ago. Tebow threw some nice passes but you can still see the inexperience. If I were betting my money would br on the Pats but I’ll be rooting against them. That Giants/Packers game should be pretty good if the Giants play as well as they did. Of course GB is not Atlanta.

        2. Denver surprised me this week (along with damn near 99.9% of the country), but I doubt they’ll keep the run going in New England, even with NE’s horrible pass defense. Unlike a lot of other coaches, Belichick’s not going to underestimate Denver the way Pittsburgh did.

          1. New England’s defense really sucks. It’s really all going to be about Denver’s defense. If it shows up, especially if it shows up in Brady’s face, could be a long day for New England.

            1. They aren’t going to get in Brady’s face rushing three linemen like they did most of the game against Pittsburgh. Denver’s secondary isn’t good enough to play for “coverage sacks.”

              If they sit back, Brady’s going to pick them apart anyway, so they might as well go for broke.

              1. I completely agree. Pressure is the key to defending Brady. When he gets smacked around, they tend to lose. It’s great for them this year that defense is unusually bad, league-wide.

        3. If yesterday’s Denver offense plays on Saturday, Denver will win.

          That’s a big if. If Denver’s offense from the Buffalo or KC game shows up, they’ll be toast.

          Having said that, Tebow and Denver were impressive yesterday.

          1. I think I had a religious moment during the overtime. Hard to tell, it was too quick to measure.

            1. [Insert St Thomas of Demaryius reference here]

          2. Having said that, Tebow and Denver were impressive yesterday.

            No they weren’t. Tebow completed 10 fucking passes all game, and every single bit of that was from break downs in the back end coverage. It had nothing to do with Tebow or the Broncos playing well, but with Pittsburgh not playing well enough to beat a pop warner team.

            1. New England has been having breakdowns on the back end all season. That secondary is awful. Denver should be given credit for disguising routes to confuse Troy Polamalu and Dick LeBeau. If they have some new wrinkles for new England they can get some big plays again. They can also run the ball which NE allows. Can they get to Brady? That is the key.

            2. It had nothing to do with Tebow or the Broncos playing well, but with Pittsburgh not playing well enough to beat a pop warner team.

              Oh, bullshit. Tebow hit one guy for over 200 yards against the number one pass defense in the NFL. The Denver defense had five sacks in the game, and could have iced the win in regulation if Champ Bailey hadn’t come up with a case of stone hands on the interception attempt.

              Your team has breakdowns on the back end, what the fuck do you expect an opposing professional football team to do, let them get away with it? Isn’t a decent team supposed to take advantage of the other team’s mistakes? Just because Tebow and the Broncos didn’t resemble your Madden vidya games doesn’t mean the team didn’t play well, especially when they had to in overtime.

  2. Time to admit that your racist hero Ron Paul is dead in the water and that your new beloved Santorum is yet another bigoted Republican who wants a “small government” that imprisons minorities and robs from the poor.

    Instead, it’s time to be real Americans and roll up your sleeves so you can get to work and start supporting the most libertarian candidate in the race. So you can get behind the party and candidate who base their policy in a rational, secular, science-based process focused on not just providing a basic safety net but improving the standard of living for all Americans no matter what the corporate powers of the nation want to cart off to their vaults.

    If we don’t all make the only rational logical choice and vote for President Obama and the Democrats we might wake up in a theocratic corporatist state where science and wages are outlawed, the sick and old are thrown in the streets, children are dying in factory machinery and the world has plunged into World War III due to the absence of our global leadership.

    The church, the corporations and the military industrial complex have done enough damage to this country, let’s revitalize and rebuild the government we’ve let the Republicans leave in tatters so it can be strong and have the power to protect our rights like it used to.

    Let’s make America that shining city on the hill again.

    1. Some sort of weird left wing Donderoooooooo.

      Easy incif.

      1. That’s when I reach for my ignore button….

    2. +1
      Funny rant, would read again

    3. We’re going to have to put up with you shitheads every day for the next ten months, aren’t we?

      Man, do I hate election years.

      1. Don’t respond to them and maybe they’ll jerk off someplace else.

      2. Nearly 60 million people voted for Johm McCain in 2008.

        We have a long way to go before we have an educated electorate.

        1. Scumbags like you always talk this way when you know your guy is going to lose. Enjoy your upcoming ass-kicking.

          1. So… Voting for John McCain wasn’t a sign of ignorance?

            Ok, sure buddy.

            1. It was on my part.

        2. And even more voted for Obama who has turned out to have all the competence of Hoover but makes up for it with the ethics and likability of Nixon. Yeah, we are doomed.

          1. bin Laden, Mubarak, Gadhaffi, need I go on? A saved economy, quality health care, excellent justices, want more?

            Far better than that Bush fool you all got down on your knees for.

            1. the stupid… it burns!

            2. 11.3% unemployment rate (the only reason it is lower that that in the official statistics is that so many people have given up looking for work), worst recovery in modern history, trillions in new debt, disastrous health care plan, giving away billions to cronies, assassinating an American citizen, continuing all of Bush’s anti-terror policies and making them even worse, selling guns to Mexican drug gangs for the purpose of justifying gun control. Need I go on?

              In terms of pure corruption and incompetence, Obama beats every President in my lifetime by a mile.

              1. John, they won’t let the facts get in the way of their perception of Greatness towards Obama.

            3. You clearly weren’t trolling this site during the Bush years, otherwise you’d know that noone around here or any other libertarian site ever got down on their knees for Bush.

              Although it’s clear that you’d get down on your knees in front of Obams wouldn’t you. slurp, slurp, gulp

            4. Ugh, it’s just Shrike trolling under a different handle.

              1. “we might wake up in a theocratic corporatist state where science and wages are outlawed”

                and evidence of the medical benefits of, say, cannabis is mocked and ignored for ideological reasons.

                “the sick and old are thrown in the streets”

                Or dying in the hospitals as health care gets rationed.

                “children are dying in factory machinery”

                Or in “reproductive health” clinics.

                “and the world has plunged into World War III due to the absence of our global leadership.”

                Or using our leadership to start new wars and keep unaffordable and provocative military bases in tons of countries.

    4. we might wake up in a theocratic corporatist state where … wages are outlawed

      But I thought Republicans were all for wage slavery. Doesn’t outlawing them kind of defeat that goal?

    5. “that your new beloved Santorum”….

      You must be new here.

    6. You sound like one of my California friends. Only with more stupid.

      1. I’m blessed to have only been to California once, and that was on a layover flight.

        Luckily, I did get to meet Carmen Electra. Man, she is -short-.

    7. Oh Slapdick McGee! Will you ever learn?

    8. Nice troll spoof. Lol. Got everyone fired up on a Monday morning.

    9. Where were you when I was still alive? That’s some real top quality propaganda; I could have really used someone with your talents. I’m sure my son could use you.

      How would you feel about moving to the glorious workers paradise/ monument to “juche” that I turned the Peoples Republic of Korea into to work for my son? Don’t worry, as a government apparachik you’ll get more than twice the rice that we feed our proletariat.

    10. “The church, the corporations and the military industrial complex have done enough damage to this country, let’s revitalize and rebuild the government we’ve let the Republicans leave in tatters so it can be strong and have the power to protect our rights like it used to.”

      How has Barack Obama stood up to the powers of the Military Industrial Complex and the corporations? Honest Question. How does supporting the re-authorization of the Patriot Act without reform, signing the NDAA, and backing an individual mandate once touted by Mitt Romney and Bob Dole not exclude him from being the most libertarian candidate in the Race?

      “Time to admit that your racist hero Ron Paul is dead in the water.”

      Um, there has only been one Caucus/primary so far.

      “and that your new beloved Santorum is yet another bigoted Republican who wants a “small government” that imprisons minorities and robs from the poor.”

      Do you even know what website your posting on?

      1. Do you even know what website your posting on?

        The first of many necessary diagnostic question, including but not limited to other gems such as:

        “Do you know what day it is? What month? What year?”
        “Do you know your birthday.”

        (i forget what else they asked me at the hospital, I was pretty out of it. I did get my birthday right though.)

  3. Ryan Seacrest has one hot girlfriend.

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

    1. Hough has no taste.

      Then again, she used being a pro dancer on Dancing with the Stars to get herself a singing/acting career, so maybe Seacrest is the next step in her career path.

      Or she has no taste.

    2. I thought Seacrest was, you know, a little light in the loafers?

      1. Are you implying that Julianne Hough is a chubby chaser?

      2. Actually, he’s supposedly quite the playa.

    3. She is hot. And very young.

    4. He’s dating his daughter?

    5. I’d hit.

      I mean, I’d punch ryan Secrest’s smug face repeatedly.

    6. Professional ballroom dancers can be a little wild. It’s almost part of the job description.

    7. Not the scene from Titanic I was hoping for.

    8. She’s very pretty.

    9. she could stand to lose ten pounds

      1. Considering she’s a dancer, a lot of that weight is probably muscle.

    10. Sarah’s prettier.

      True story.

  4. No pants on the subway!

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

    1. Look at me! Look at me!

      1. …But not with your MALE GAZE.

        1. YOu forgot the trademark symbol.

    2. That’s a whole lotta’ nasty with an occasional hmmmmmm.

      1. the majority of people look better with their clothes on, or really dim lighting. I include myself in that category.

      2. Yeah, I would have skipped the subway that day. Dear fucking Zod, that was a lot of flabby flesh I could lived without seeing.

        1. Ha ha! Made you look!

    3. I think we’re probably no more than a year or two from that being standard acceptable attire. People already are wearing their pjs everywhere. Its a natural progression.

      1. Those girls are WAY too thin.

        /John impersonation

    1. So the President isn’t allowed to have leisure time?

      He should have to work more than already he does?

      Why do I imagine you’d only be happy if he and his family were out in the fields?

      1. White House officials were so nervous about how a splashy, Hollywood-esque party would look to jobless Americans ….

        You must be very proud of that part. I’m sure the President fired all those killjoys.

      2. “Why do I imagine you’d only be happy if he and his family were out in the fields?”

        Because you’re an idiot.

      3. He can have leisure time, but when you left-tards criticized Bush over the occasional round of golf, and then get all defensive when Obama plays more rounds in his first 2 years in office than Bush did in all 8, it kind of makes you look like a bunch of hypocritic twats.

        This guy is so loaded with stupid I’m wondering if this is a piece of “performance art”. It’s got to be, noone is this retarded.

      4. It takes a lot of effort to hold the US economy down!!!!

      5. Why do I imagine you’d only be happy if he and his family were out in the fields?

        Barack Obama’s Presidency is the most ironic political concept since Reagan ran as a “conservative”. Here you have a Black Master in charge of the Plantation, only this time he routinely beats on some of the wealthiest and most powerful White People in America and they still come back and ask for more. White Liberal Uncle Toms – slaves by choice to Obama Lagree.

      6. So the President isn’t allowed to have leisure time?

        He should have to work more than already he does?

        Yeah what the fuck?

        Forcing a black man to work more than 2 hours a week means you want to re impose slavery.

    2. It was so over the top that “Star Wars” creator George Lucas sent the original Chewbacca to mingle with invited guests.

      Michelle stopped shaving for a week.

      1. I’m sure many of us will enjoy this, for several reasons. As Huntsman might say: Trust me.

        1. I bent my wookie.

      2. No. Steve Smith crashed the party.

    3. Matt Lauer was interviewing the author this morning and was incredulous over the accusation that there was anything secret about it. It’s amazing how they find a healthy skepticism once their guy is in the crosshairs.

    4. When I was in college, Alice in Wonderland parties required the use of LSD in order to gain entry.

    5. Was Alice wearing thigh-high fishnet stockings and a bustier?

      1. Why yes, she was.

    6. I, for one, am happy that P.Bo is spending time on partying rather than spending time plotting on ways to destroy our republic.

      1. To be fair, Obama does have a talent for multi-tasking.

    7. One morning during his Senate campaign, Obama didn’t show up to a meeting with donors. “After a frantic search, a white staffer named Peter Coffey called Obama’s barbershop to find that, yes, he was there.”

      The president confronted Coffey about the call later that day.

      ” ‘The relationship between a black man and his barber is sacred,’ Obama bellowed . . . ‘For failing to understand this truth, your punishment is to watch the movie “Barbershop.” And for further punishment, you will then watch the sequel, “Barbershop 2.” ‘ “

  5. Roofs collapsing in Cordova, Alaska under 18 feet of snow. National Guard called in to take advantage of critical break in the weather.

    Remember back when the Chicken Littles said that we would never see snow again pretty soon? Ahh, good times indeed.

    1. So you’re mocking people who are losing their homes due to climate change?

      Amazing that you’d rather sit around and laugh at the unfortunate than give up any amount of your planet destroying fossil fuels for advanced technology like wind and solar that will be powering non backsliding nations for the rest of the 21st cenutry.

      1. “wind and solar that will be powering non backsliding nations for the rest of the 21st century.”

        Good luck w/ your prediction.

      2. I haven’t seen waffles/pancakes in a while. Is this your new incarnation?

      3. non backsliding nations

        And people claim it isn’t a religion.

        1. Thus saith the prophet Markus: Woe, woe unto you, oh non-wind and solar dependent nations of the earth. You were given the gifts of Gaia for your use, only to discard them as one discards garbage to the pigs. Your lack of devotion in strip-mining the rare earth metals needed to capture the energy of Glorious Amon-Ra will be punished in both this life and in the life to come.

    2. This is just weather not climate. If the temperature goes up its climate, if it goes down its weather. If its snows its weather if it does not snow its climate.

      1. I’ve noticed the weather forecasters describe cold temperatures as “below average” and warm temperatures as “above normal” (abnormal).

        1. Confirmation bias. I’ve been paying attention to this since I first saw you mention it and I see just the opposite happen just as often.

          1. Maybe you don’t listen to the same forecasters. Ever think of that?

      2. Hey where’d all the ice go? And the polar bears? And what’s w/ blue whales & sharks in the Alaska bay? Damn that weather…

        1. Uh, if you haven’t been paying attention to the news, Nome, Alaska is having trouble with a fuel shortage because this winter is the earliest on record that their harbor has frozen.

    3. I’m pretty sure those “chicken littles” were talking about a specific location, not world wide. No one ever suggested that Alaska wouldn’t be getting snow and a bit of warming will in fact make places like that snowier. There are plenty of actual problems with what climate alarmists say.

  6. Just say no to spooftrollery.

    Dipshit.

  7. “Rich Mormons in Utah are divided over who is the better Mormon running for the GOP nomination.”

    Why is the religion (or lack thereof) of a candidate at issue here? They are not running for Pope or the head of any other church. They are running for a secular office.

    1. Two Mormons running for Pope sounds like a madcap adventure. You should try to sell that to Hollywood.

      1. If done by Tey Parker and Matt Stone, I’d watch the hell out of that. Especially if they include a scientologist as well.

    2. NEWSLETTURZ!!

      And UNDURWARE!!

    3. Isn’t the head of the LDS a living prophet? Which is why in 1978 God totally changed his mind and decided that he was suddenly cool with black people being priests?

      I mean, the Mormon Church WANTED to let black people be priests before then, but you know that God guy- real hardass on the whole race issue!

      1. Jesus is white after all…plus he throws great deep passes !

      2. Actually, there were black priests before then. So your “point” is moot.

        From the link below: “1832: Elijah Abel Baptized by Ezekiel Roberts
        Elijah goes on to become the first black man to be given the priesthood in the LDS Church.”

        http://www.blacklds.org/history

        1. Wiki, my friend:

          Following the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., Mormon leaders beginning with Brigham Young instituted a policy of excluding most people of black African descent (regardless of actual skin color) from Priesthood ordination and from participation in temple ceremonies. These practices continued in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) until September 30, 1978, when the highest bodies of church leadership lifted the ban after stating they had received a revelation.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B….._Mormonism

          And

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1…..Priesthood

          See, it wasn’t the man that had been racist, but God! Honestly, this has to be my biggest beef with Mormonism.

          1. I am not myself a Mormon, so perhaps if there is a Mormon reading this thread he or she could clarify. But my understanding is that the revelation affirmed what had be a pre-Young practice was correct, that people of any race could become priests. I do not see this as “blaming God for racism” but, again, I am not Mormon. I welcome comments by a reader who is.

            1. Well, it’s technically only allowed on paper, if you catch my drift. Like Joos at a country club, “we have no specific policy of excluding them.”

  8. I mean WE, not fucking Alaska!

  9. How ’bout that Tebow?

  10. She would bring to this year’s campaign a missing warmth and some of the voltage that has dissipated as Obama moved from campaigning to governing.

    Ouch. That’s just mean.

    1. When did Obama move off of campaigning?

  11. From Feministing’s greatest hits of 2011, The Feminine Mistake of Blogging Unsustainably

    Featuring gems like:

    So I’m sitting here, mindful of my own legacy and very struck that what one might reasonable argue is the most robust, powerful medium for feminism today is being created in a truly unsustainable way. I start to daydream about all of the amazing things we might be able to do if we actually had the funding, space, and time to do more than keep our heads above water. We could be more proactive rather than reactive. We could make sure that our bloggers don’t naturally gravitate towards an economic class that can sustain unsustainable work. We could be more intentional about collaborating with grassroots organizations all over the country. The possibilities seem endless.

    So as I plot new ways to bridge this divide?the older feminists who need the optimistic jolt that comes from realizing the next generation is kickin’ and screamin’, the young women who are working our arses off without enough resources and support?please weigh in. Do you have ideas for a more economically sustainable feminist blogosphere? What would the benefits be of a funded feminist blogosphere? What would the risks be (and let me be clear, I’m aware that there are some real risks to funding what we or other feminist blogs do)?

    I just can’t shake the feeling that one of the biggest mistake my own generation is making is accepting the status quo of an unsupported blogosphere and losing the opportunity to make an even larger impact.

    And this, one of the most immoral comments ever:

    It’s not a feminist problem. It’s a generational one. Those of us younger than boomers were taught from the start of our careers that the top rung was already taken. Add to that the culture of free stuff that the internet insists upon, and the only way out is a trust fund or a day job. I’m on food stamps and living off of my kids’ child support.

    Seriously, fuck that lady.

    1. a trust fund or a day job

      a trust fund or a day job

      a trust fund or a day job

      1. Y’know, I missed that the first time. Jesus H, that woman needs to be shot.

      2. I don’t want to live in a country where getting paid to produce nothing of value is no longer an option.

      3. The horror… expecting someone to have a day job to support themselves.

      4. OMG…a day job!!! The horror!!!

        Can someone please get a robust young gal to find this woman who steals from her child so she can be a self-important “professional blogger” and kick her stupid ass?

        1. Help us, Dagny T, you’re our only hope! Your Canadian blood makes you uniquely suited to fighting, provided you have a jersey to pull over the opponents head.

      5. It’s amazing how these women reveal their desire to stay home and take care of the kids without even realizing it.

        1. Well, to stay home, anyway.

    2. Masturbating publicly on the internets really should be kept to chatroulette.

    3. I’m on food stamps and living off of my kids’ child support.

      So, still being supported by a man. How very “Hear me roar”.

      1. Winter is coming, mother-fuckers.

    4. good lord – I run two blogs, write trashy books, post on here (lol), work a full time job, and I’m starting a little home studio to record synth music.

      Where is my handout?

      1. You can only do that because of your white, male, cis gender, straight privilege! You privileged bastard!

      2. Truly a Modern Renaissance Man.

        1. more like a bored ADD-type.

      3. By the way, I’ve been meaning to tell you that you should keep an eye on your use of the phrases”I’m afraid” and”I have to admit.” You use them several times a page sometimes.

        1. good catch – I’ll fire my proofreader 😉 It’s easy (especially writing in the drips and drabs that I do) to fall into well worn phrases.

          I’ll make some changes and put out a new edition. thanks.

    5. Wow. Just when you thought you’d read the most incipid thing ever. The fact that there’s people like this lady out there just makes want to nuke the planet from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

      1. This explaining some of my love for post-apocalyptic movies and books.

    6. You left out the best part: instead of having a real job, she podcasts for a “living”.

  12. Gov. Gary Johnson scores higher than Ron Paul and Barack Obama on the ACLU’s report card.

    Johnson’s pro-choice, right?

    1. AFAIK

    2. Yes, Johnson is pro-choice. But Ron Paul is NOT running for governor but for POTUS. Paul thinks this should be a state issue, not a federal one.

      1. Johnson also opposes Roe v Wade. So, really, on the presidential level, they have the exact same policy. Appoint judges who will overturn Roe v Wade and return it to state level.

        1. Good point. In truth they are not that far apart.

          1. Paul wants to take abortion away from federal courts and give it to state courts.

            1. So does Johnson. Your point is?

          2. While it remained legal, Johnson signed a number of restrictions on abortions while governor.

            He probably prevented more abortions than most pro-life governors do.

    3. Does anyone know how the ACLU views Paul’s position of sending it back to the states? Is it a 1,0,-1 type situation where not instituting a federal abortion policy is worse than federally requiring states to permit it but better than federally requiring states to outlaw it? Or is a federal solution the only one they’ll accept?

      1. Does anyone know how the ACLU views Paul’s position of sending it back to the states?

        Primitive fundie racism, would be my guess.

      2. It appears the ACLU is considering reproductive choice as a criteria in its report card. I didn’t read how they come to their conclusions or how things are weighted but that probably helped put him ahead of Paul.

        1. reproductive choice

          What does that even mean?

          I mean, I’d choose to reproduce with Beyonc

          1. c.f. We.

      3. Paul didn’t do well in the immigration, gay marriage, or abortion policy categories. He got 2/4, 1/4, and 0/4 torches (the more torches, the more a candidate is in line with the ACLU position) respectively.

        1. It sounds like the members of the ACLU will be voting third party this November.

          1. Oh ho ho! Chop busted, adult friend, chop busted!

          2. Such a sense of humor you have!

  13. A pregnant teenager who was deported “accidentally” returns to the U.S.

    When you give the cops a fake social security number and say you are from Colombia, you should expect a few mistakes by the cops. They have a hard enough time getting things right with correct information.

    1. I am surprised they haven’t charged her with lying under oath to a Federal officer. They got Martha Stuart on that.

    2. Also, while this isn’t really a point for the cops… uh, yeah, you’re going to get in a lot less shit if you were to say Spain or Portugal or European countries instead of Columbia.

      Which, yes, is kind of racist or nationalist or whatever, but in an imperfect world, every day is not the day to make some big political statement.

      1. Why don’t you test that out and write a story for reason about it?

    3. To be perfectly honest, if I were one of the police officers involved and if I KNEW she were lying I would be very tempted to deport her. She acted like someone who was ASKING for deportation. And I say this as someone who opposes abuse by the police. But in this case she really was asking for a deportation.

    4. Until I listened to the story, I parsed that sentence wrong. It should have been “A pregnant teenager who was `accidentally’ deported returns to the U.S.” I’d thought it was her return that was “accidental” until the linked report clarified.

  14. Gov. Gary Johnson scores higher than Ron Paul and Barack Obama on the ACLU’s report card.

    That’s, er, promising….

  15. The New Authoritarianism
    A firm hand for a “nation of dodos”
    http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon0106fsjk.html

    The problem for the clerisy lies in political reality. The country’s largely suburban and increasingly Southern electorate does not see big government as its friend or wise liberal mandarins as the source of its salvation. This sets up a potential political crisis between those who know what’s good and a presumptively ignorant majority. Obama is burdened, says Joe Klein of Time, by governing a “nation of dodos” that is “too dumb to thrive,” as the title of his story puts it, without the guidance of our president. But if the people are too deluded to cooperate, elements in the progressive tradition have a solution: European-style governance by a largely unelected bureaucratic class.

    paging Tony…

    1. Fap Fap Fap Fap Fap

    2. Joe Klein calling people “dolts” and “too dumb to thrive”. I think we may have hit peak irony.

      1. Probably not, unfortunately. We’ve still got another 9 months or so of this shit until election day.

    3. The thing is, the article contrasts Obama with a Truman or a Clinton. I just don’t see a big difference from the Truman/FDR strain of liberalism. Both are based on this idea that we’ll have people go to college, learn the “social” sciences like sociology, and then become disinterested experts running the technocratic state for the benefit of the common man.

      The difference is that in the 30s, the average level of education was at an 8th grade level, so that shit flew a lot better than the current shit does. And they still fucked up enough that people flipped a shit at them for things like drowning chickens.

      1. people flipped a shit at them for things like drowning chickens.

        Wait, is the drowning chicken part supposed to describe their manner of flippage or the cause of their flippage?
        If the latter: I’d like to know more.

        1. Maybe the cause, weren’t farm animals destroyed due to government price manipulation?

          1. Yes

        2. Google is only giving me that Nixon price controls did it, but I took a class on the 30s as part of my history major and definitely remember FDR’s quotas doing something similar.

          Basically, farmers were drowning chickens when people couldn’t afford goddamn meat. It pissed people off.

      2. The difference is that in the 30s, the average level of education was at an 8th grade level, so that shit flew a lot better than the current shit does.

        Yeah, but the irony is that in terms of intellectual ability, the populace was probably a lot more advanced back then. The literacy rate of CCC workers was around 90%, and if you look at old textbooks and exams from that era, they’re miles ahead of the dumbed-down curriculum being taught in schools today.

        The whole idea of bureaucratic “experts” benevolently running the country is largely the result of the US adopting and absorbing a combination of Prussian-style educational systems and Marxist labor theory in the late 19th and early 20th century. As these ideas became more fashionable amongst the academic class (and academics from that era forward are nothing if not fashion-obsessed), they began trickling down to the rest of the society until that mindset basically became the de facto view of government. The concepts of “blue-ribbon panels” and “commissions” and “czars” are really nothing more than this masturbatory philosophy in action.

    4. Again, nuke the site from orbit.

    5. How is this much different than what we have now?

  16. How Ron Paul’s libertarianism supports racism

    Key section:

    This is an analysis that makes sense only within the airtight confines of libertarian doctrine. It dissipates with even the slightest whiff of exposure to external reality. The entire premise rests upon ignoring the social power that dominant social groups are able to wield outside of the channels of the state. Yet in the absence of government protection, white males, acting solely through their exercise of freedom of contract and association, have historically proven quite capable of erecting what any sane observer would recognize as actual impediments to the freedom of minorities and women.

    The most fevered opponents of civil rights in the fifties and sixties ? and, for that matter, the most fervent defenders of slavery a century before ? also usually made their case in in process terms rather than racist ones. They stood for the rights of the individual, or the rights of the states, against the federal Goliath. I am sure Paul’s motives derive from ideological fervor rather than a conscious desire to oppress minorities. But the relationship between the abstract principles of his worldview and the ugly racism with which it has so frequently been expressed is hardly coincidental.

    Yeah, to my fellow white males: Sorry for missing the “Keeping the Womenz and the Darkies Down” meeting last week. Anyone have the minutes from that, or…?

    1. Well, mostly we talked about keeping the wimmen and darkies in place, although there was a pretty good discussion of whether or not there is sufficient dilution of Irish heritage to allow admittance under any circumstance.

      1. I vote Nay.

        1. It’s hard to sort out those octofitz from the WASPs.

          1. Octomicks? Fitz- is a Norman royalty thing, IIRC. All the Irish fitzs are probably either Cromwellian or anti-Stuart transplants. WASPs fo’ sho’ even if their grandkids converted to marry a Catholic girl.

            1. It’s a fair cop. “Octomick” it is.

              1. So would the great-grandchildren of our dark lords and masters be octokochtopi?

                1. Best word ever.

      2. “Al right, we’ll give some land to the niggers and the chinks, but we don’t want the Irish!”

    2. So Paul wants to end the Federal War on Drugs which puts millions of “darkies” in jail and you charge him with racism?

      1. I go further. EVERYONE who supports the WoD is a racist bigot.

        You cannot support the WoD and claim to not be racist at the same time. If you do, add liar to the list of things you are.

        See Obama, Barack H.

      2. Well, … those are bad darkies.

    3. …and anti-semitism!

      The same can be said of Ron Paul, who everyone has heard of. Paul has, according to The New York Times, refused to “disavow” the “support” of “white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists who have rallied behind his candidacy.” (These “anti-Zionists” believe that “Zionists”?Jews?control the world, were responsible for the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building, and caused the economic downturn, because “most of the leaders involved in the federal and international banking system are Jews.”) He allowed his “Ron Paul survival report” to espouse David Duke type racism and anti-Semitism for years during the 1990s, claiming he was unaware that they were being promoted under his name. Edward H. Crane, the founder of the libertarian CATO Institute, has said, “I wish Ron would condemn those fringe things that float around” his campaign, but he refuses to reject the support of these anti-Semites who form a significant part of his base. The New York Times has criticized Paul for his failure to “convincingly repudiate racist remarks that were published under his name for years?or the enthusiastic support he is getting from racist groups,” including those that espouse “anti-Semitism and far right paranoia.”

      Even now, Paul continues to accept contributions from Holocaust deniers, from those who blame the Jews for everything and from other bigots, thus lending some degree of legitimacy to their hateful views.

      Ron Paul is one bad dude!

      1. But is he a bad enough dude to savebe the President?

      2. *sings* Shut your mouth!

    4. The entire premise rests upon ignoring the social power that dominant social groups are able to wield outside of the channels of the state.

      Kerry Howley used to write shit like that on these very pages.

    5. The most fevered opponents of civil rights in the fifties and sixties ? and, for that matter, the most fervent defenders of slavery a century before ? also usually made their case in in process terms rather than racist ones.

      The abolitionist and early feminist movements argued on the same grounds. That’s easily ignored, though.

  17. Is the U.S. Still a ‘Land of Opportunity’?
    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor…..ef=opinion

    There is a growing consensus that it is harder to move up the economic ladder in the United States than in many other places, like Canada. Should more Americans consider leaving the U.S. to get ahead? Or can the U.S. make changes to be more of a “land of opportunity”?

  18. In Iowa, exploiting the Supreme Court’s laissez-faire ruling on campaign spending, [Romney] brought down Newt Gingrich with an “independent” attack machine of considerable firepower.

    Citizens United has, once again, wrecked democracy!

    1. ironic that the United decision is rending the gop field first…which expains the gop calls for further legislative reform in campaign financing

  19. You can’t really examine all the problems facing the country, the examples of what has worked in other countries, and the examples of what hasn’t worked in our own, and come out a modern Republican. Modern Republican ideology is almost entirely faith-based (see: their religion about free markets), because you can’t make a real argument for many of the policies (aka: low taxes, no regulation, cutting spending) they support. Most people who are into serious analysis will wind up as Democrats.

    Just the nature of the beast.

    1. Go away, stop trying to get a rise. No one is this dumb.

      1. I’m hoping this douche is at least getting college credit toward his “sociology” for this shit.

    2. derp de derpity derp

    3. Have I mentioned how glad I am that you’re my job competition for the next 30 years or so?

      1. He’s not mine. Anybody this dumb can’t get an engineering degree.

        1. Sadly that is false.

  20. Feministing explains how Obama only hits them because he loves them.

    Lastly, two important points. In this situation I see Obama with two choices: veto that crap and have troop pay delayed and the bill passes anyway because of the veto override. OR, sign it and issue a signing statement assuring everyone that your administration isn’t going to go full dictatorship and start locking up everyone until the end of time (obviously, it’s not the Obama administration that is the cause for concern but how future administrations use this power). Obama chose the latter.

    Secondly, the detention provisions in the bill are unconstitutional (any readers we have who are lawyers might want to chime in here) and will more likely than not be challenged in court. Things like the 4th, 5th, 6th, oh and the 8th Amendment come to mind? Even a conservative Roberts Court will take issue with these provisions.

    The most important point of all here is that President Obama doesn’t make laws. Congress makes laws. So if you want better laws that don’t clearly violate the constitution and infringe on civil liberties, we need a better Congress that the one that just essentially blackmailed our Constitutional Law professor President to sign a bill you just know he didn’t want to.

    So, go friggin’ vote in November.

    I’m waiting for when Obama bangs an intern and they explain how it isn’t THAT big a deal, guys.

    Also, it is amazing that the Feministing editors can read minds. How did they know he didn’t want to? Based on his history of restraint with executive authority?

    1. They are right that Congress makes laws. I guess they don’t cover that whole “veto” part of the Constitution in feminist constitution class.

      1. Once again, the tsar’s bad advisors forced him to increase his own power in an oppressive way. Our good tsar needs our support more than ever!

        Long live the tsar and long live feminism!

    2. At this point if he banged an intern, it could only make me think better of him.

    3. Is going “full dictatorship” anything like going “full retard”? Speaking of which, that dumbass has definetely gone full retard. How else to explain “obviously, it’s not the Obama administration that is the cause for concern but how future administrations use this power” Right, obviously…

      Arming the nuclear payload now…

  21. God’s quarterbacks: What Tebow and Roethlisberger reveal about evangelical politics
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    But what makes Tebow loved by his coaches and teammates is that it isn’t just talk. It is an authentic personal piety that can build qualities essential for football success: courage, coolness under pressure, leadership, servanthood. And that is what unites him and Roethlisberger.

    1. Ben “I corner women in bathrooms and rape them” Roethlisberger is not who you want to represent the evangelical faith.

      1. Few things could make me happier than to see Ben Rapesburger lose yesterday, especially to someone who is in many regards his polar opposite.

        I’m still not fully sold on Tebow’s QB abilities, but at least those of in Denver don’t have to worry about reading about him forcing himself on women in public restrooms, or running a dog fighting operation from his basement. Kind of refreshing.

  22. Mirzaei appeared on Iranian state television in December and purportedly confessed to working for the CIA. It is unclear whether the statements were made under duress.

    No, of course they weren’t made under duress. It was in his best self-interest to make statements that would lead to his execution.

    1. Enhanced interrogation not duress.

    2. Yeah, if you’re unclear about whether it was under duress, then I suppose the bar you’ve set for clarity is so high that you should really be questioning whether that wasn’t a robot wearing a Mirzaei costume.

  23. Vermin Supreme for President !

    Vermin Supreme is an American performance artist, anarchist and activist who is known for his being a satirical candidate in the United States in various local, State, and national elections.[1][2][3] Supreme is known for wearing a boot-shaped hat and carrying a large toothbrush.[4]

    >He claims that if elected President of the United States he will pass a law requiring people to brush their teeth.[5][6][7][1] He also campaigned in 2012 on a platform of Zombie apocalypse awareness, and promises a pony for every American.[8]

    Supreme claims to mock the political system. [9][1] He participated in the Occupy Boston protests.[10]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermin_Supreme

    1. I want my pony dammit!

  24. Record-High 40% of Americans Identify as Independents in ’11
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/151…..sion=print

    The percentage of Americans identifying as political independents increased in 2011, as is common in a non-election year, although the 40% who did so is the highest Gallup has measured, by one percentage point. More Americans continue to identify as Democrats than as Republicans, 31% to 27%.

    1. The question is whether the Independent voters will actually vote for a different party than they have in the past. If they wouldn’t consider jumping ship, then they’re not independent, just disgruntled.

  25. ‘A slippery slope’: U.S agents HELPED Colombian drug lord ‘The Rabbit’ to launder millions of dollars
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ds-newsxml

    U.S drug enforcement agents secretly helped a Colombian cocaine supplier launder millions of dollars in drug proceeds so they could infiltrate cartels working through the Mexico border, it has been revealed.

    An extradition order by the Mexico Foreign Ministry against Harold Mauricio Poveda-Ortega – known as ‘The Rabbit’ – revealed U.S. narcotics agents, Mexican law enforcement and an informant worked together for months in 2007.

    They carried out wire transfers for tens of thousands of dollars, smuggled millions in bulk cash and even escorted a shipment of cocaine through Ecuador, Dallas and finally Madrid.

    1. This is a one time thing. It is not like agents going under cover haven’t turned into outright criminals before. Except of course the ones working with Whitey Bulger and about a hundred other times. But they will get it right sometime.

      1. one reason I really like the flick “To Live and Die in L.A.” is the morality of the two main characters – both Masters and Chance are morally repugnant – and on different sides of the law.

        1. Real criminal organizations do not let you in the door because you are a nice guy. You have to commit crimes to get in. IN movies like Donnie Darko and such, we never hear the full story. No fucking way does some cop infiltrate some outlaw motorcycle gang or the mafia or some Mexican drug gang without committing God knows how many crimes. We only hear about the meaningless arrests that happen at the end. We never hear about the crimes they committed to get those arrests.

          1. Real criminal organizations do not let you in the door because you are a nice guy.

            Neither do police departments. Not that there’s much of a difference.

            1. Will you be here all week?

          2. Wait, Donnie Darko?

            1. He’s got a crush on Jake Gyllenhaal.

              1. I agree with him that Donnie Darko is a fantastic movie. I just don’t remember the scene where Donnie commits terrible crimes in order to infiltrate a gang on behalf of the police.

                Maybe it’s in the Director’s Cut.

            2. Yeah, remember where he infiltrated the drunk teenage drivers club by stealing beer for them?

              Pretty sure he meant Brasco.

          3. not Donnie Darko

        2. And it was Wang Chung’s masterpiece as well

    2. Of course, a Justice Department that signs off on laundering drug money and facilitating coke shipments would never sign off on gunrunning.

      1. That was just an accident.

    3. Yet another argument for ending the WoD

      1. Yeah, right after the DEA takes responsibility for the tens of thousands of dead Mexicans on their conscience. Any day now!

    1. “You’ll be Sofa King satisfied!”

    2. That sign would have made a certain amount more sense in Tokyo’s Kabukicho.

  26. http://www.infoworld.com/d/the…..ipa-183328

    This just in, Congress doesn’t give a shit what voters want.

    1. That’s news?

    2. Well, you can’t possibly expect Congress to understand the internet, now can you?

      On that note, I guess I’m torrenting a shit ton over the next few weeks before that bullshit passes.

    3. It’s for our own good, doncha’ see?

  27. I have a rule: Whenever Feministing cracks 50 comments, I link to it. Because shit storms over there are always fun.

    A shitstorm over home birth

    Honestly, I’m not saying you shouldn’t home birth, but I think I’d rather have my kids born in a hospital, just in case the midden hits the windmill.

    1. That last bit puts me in exact agreement with you.

      I had friends who did home births for their 4 kids. And one died in childbirth (or stillborn, not sure on exact situation). To be fair, being in a hospital wouldnt have changed anything in that situation, but in a more borderline situation, I want that medical team right there.

    2. I would bet most of the commentators on Feministing consider themselves to be part of the “Reality Based Party” yet when confronted with statistics, half of them have nothing other than, “My totally anecdotal experience completely disproves those statistics.” It goes to show that anti-science sentiment is not confined to one party.

      1. Yeah, you do have to love that when someone comes on talking about how stats and science show hospital birth to be superior, suddenly everyone turns into and Earth Mother Shaman Hippie type.

      2. H&R has its share of mystics. The anarchists, for example.

    3. Home birth is one of those things that I would have thought was freaky and risky until I met people who did it.

      The odds of having an unpredictable complication during birth requiring hospital care are very high. Most difficult births such as twins or breach births are known in advance and midwives won’t do them at home.

    4. Home births really sucked back in the ’30s and ’40s when my parents and stillborn aunts and uncles had no choice. I’m sure they’ve gotten safer. Know what else has gotten safer? Hospital births! Yay, hospitals!

  28. Seriously, all of the hand wringing over Super PACs simply makes me think of this…

    Do you remember when the worst political attack ads simply consisted of implying that your opponent would start a nuclear war that would kill adorable little girls? Pepperidge Farm remembers

    1. The vast majority of the $14 million in spending from “super PACs,” a new type of political group, has been spent on behalf of three candidates: Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman Jr., federal records show. Those are the same three candidates already most reliant on money from large donors…Combined, those three candidates are receiving 80 percent of all super PAC spending.

      Paul and Bachmann received more than 60 percent of their money from donors giving less than $200.
      Campaign finance regulations passed by Congress in 2002 have a “stand by your ad” provision requiring candidates to appear on screen stating their approval of the spot. But rules prevent super PACs from coordinating the campaign operations, allowing candidates to say the ads are out of their control.

      “It changes the dynamic for candidates who are more reliant on small donors,” said a Paul strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to talk freely. “You have two tiers of candidates: those with super PACs that can have negative messaging without having to take the heat for it, and those who have to do it themselves.”

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..l?hpid=z11

      1. Eh, I see your point, MNG, but people seem to think that negative campaigning is solely because of things like Citizens and Super PACs.

        I actually think it was better when you could just give shit tons to the party, but then at least the party had to stand by their ads.

      2. So should Paul go all utilitarian and call for finance reform to address the “problem?”

        1. It’s been pretty much non-stop political ads in NH this weekend and Paul seems to have as many as anyone, including a lot of stuff not paid for by Paul’s campaign directly.

          1. Zeb, you live in NH? Can I ask you, why isn’t Paul more popular there? It is the “Live Free or Die” state, often called the most libertarian state. I would think he would play perfect up there.

            1. Probably because so many Massholes have moved up there.

            2. I heard a guy on the radio this morning covering a similar question because he’s been in NH this week. Manchester is something like 26 mi from Boston? That makes it essentially a suburb. NH is basically Mass, so Romney is their people. Romney can’t win all voters up there, but the R’s, definitely b/c they’re liberal. Allegedly, Huntsman and his family have been basically living in NH for the past year (like Santorum did in Iowa). Now that Romney’s been there more, his numbers are declining, but if RP can come in 2nd or 3rd, he’s done well.

        2. I think this is an interesting question.

          I suppose libertarians are ok with the tax money that is used to actually conduct elections. You know, buying the ballot boxes and hiring the elections board folks and such. Could a libertarian be for some kind of public funding (maybe just regular publicly funded debates that would have to let anyone in who gets x signatures just like ballot access)? Because ironically what seems to hurt many libertarian candidates is they can’t get noticed.

      3. I’ll be interested to see the Super-PAC and direct independent expenditure tally after the general election. Right now, I’m betting on Obama by a nose.

  29. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/20…..nces-baby/

    These people need a beatdown. Is there anything more loathsome, other than Congress critters, than a celebrity?

    1. A Kardashian? I’m fairly certain that they shouldn’t be considered human for legal purposes.

      1. They are certainly not “celebrities”. And probably not human beings. I am told that when the Lakers traded away Lamar Odom they were able to claim over $20 million in good will on their ledger for ridding Los Angeles of a Kardashian.

        1. “were able to claim over $20 million in good will on their ledger for ridding Los Angeles of a Kardashian”

          Ok, that was funny.

      2. So Santorum would oppose Kardashian marriage?

        1. Probably. But if the Kardashians were sitting in their living room and expressed a deep desire to form a committed, loving relationship what would he say?

          1. Of course a Kardashian’s idea of a “committed, loving relationship” is any that lasts beyond foreplay.

            1. To be fair, Kim seems to be the only one that’s a homey-hopper. The other two older sisters have been with their respective man for a while now, and Bruce and Kris have been married for 20 years.

          2. The LvMI’s take on Kim Kardashian:

            http://mises.org/daily/5861/De…..Kardashian

    2. Celebrities at least tend to get that way by successfully using some actual skill (though in the age of reality TV, the proportion of those that do is surely declining). That being said, can’t these people just home birth? Sterilizing a room and bringing in all the necessary medical personnel must cost less than the $1.3m they paid for a hospital floor. Hell, they could have just temporarily reopened St. Vincent’s for that.

      1. I’m trying to imagine a scenario where some hired goon tries to stop me from seeing my preemie twins, that doesn’t end with him lying on the floor spitting out his teeth.

        1. He leaves in the 30 secs it takes me to grab one of those metal levers off the hospital bed?

  30. I want a Chinese bodyguard.

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

  31. Can I have a Chinese bodyguard?

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

  32. What do I have to do to get a Chinese bodyguard?

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

  33. I caught CNN’s broadcast of the debate last night. I loved when Paul stood by his labeling of Newt and others as “chickenhawks” but the rest of the debate reminded me of everything I detest about the current GOP and conservative movement. The unwillingness to stand by a right to privacy, the warmongering, the whining about “anti-Christian bigotry” (as if!), the “fair weather federalism” (Santorum: gay adoption, up to the states; gay marriage, feds need to move in!) etc., was nearly vomit inducing.

    Also, is Dianne Sawyer not the most condescendingly stupid human being on television today? How is this woman allowed to moderate anything?

    1. Obama never served a day in the military. Is he a chickenhawk? He certainly has no problem supporting wars.

      And if there is such a thing a “chicken hawk”, doesn’t that make veterans a privileged class? By that logic anyone who has not served has no right to have an opinion on a war.

      I didn’t know you were such a follower of Heinlein. I also didn’t know you were going to give up your voice in such matters. You loved the war in Libya. Yet, by your own logic had absolutely no moral standing to support such a thing.

      1. “You loved the war in Libya.”

        Wrong. I said it was in violation of the WPA and that it would likely lead to “adventurism.” The only thing remotely like a defense of it I made was in arguing it was not on the level of the Iraq invasion. But of course I don’t expect you to pick up on such nuance…

        “He certainly has no problem supporting wars.”

        I think the one war he initiated has a casualty count of 0…But I do think that he should get scrutiny when he keeps us or order us into wars when he himself doesn’t seem willing to go fight in them, yes.

        1. Now boys, we’ve discussed this- use a condom and plenty of lube, and clean up the santorum when you’re done.

        2. That is absurd. Either Obama was right to go into Libya and Pakistan or he wasn’t. Whether he served in the military has nothing to do with it. So what if Paul was a doctor on in the Air Force. Big fucking deal. That doesn’t give him the right to claim his opinion is more or less important than anyone else’s. The last thing this country needs is to set the military up as some privileged class. And that is the last thing Paul would want. But that is exactly what he is advocating in the name of scoring cheap political points. That is stupid and short sided.

          1. It doesn’t mean the military is priviliged, it doesn’t get rid of military command, it simply means that when someone who is unwilling to put their life on the line in war advocates putting other people’s life on the line they should get more scrutiny. The scrutiny can be overcome, but when the person supports war after war without being willing to serve, well, it should be higher and higher.

            1. “The scrutiny can be overcome, but when the person supports war after war without being willing to serve”

              Who is to say Gingrich wouldn’t serve? Most people in politics are too old to serve. It is just irrelevant. If you disagree with a war, make your argument. Calling out someone’s service is just a school yard taunt and you know it.

              1. “Who is to say Gingrich wouldn’t serve?”

                As Paul noted Gingrich was certainly once young and able to serve and he didn’t.

                “Calling out someone’s service is just a school yard taunt and you know it.”

                Nope. It’s a legit factor for scrutiny as I pointed out.

            2. You mean like Bill Clinton in Somalia or the Balkans?

              1. I marched against the Balkans war, but to his credit Clinton, the draft dodger not just the not-joiner, limited our involvement in ways that iirc left our body count as 0.

                That’s what I’m talking about. In general a US Pres should prioritize US lives when we help another nation; but it’s particularly compelling when the Pres has never been willing to put themselves in danger.

                1. I’m pretty sure the body count wasn’t 0. We did have a few planes shot down, and this was in the pre-drone era. And not all of the pilots were as fortunate as Scott O’Grady.

                  Of course, if anyone wants to do some research on that I’d be willing to admit if I’m wrong, but like I said I’m pretty sure we lost at least a few pilots.

                  1. At least two chopper pilots were killed in a crash during the Kosovo fight. They weren’t listed as casualties, but if the crash had happened in either Iraq or Afghanistan they would have been.

        3. I think the one war he initiated has a casualty count of 0

          This just in, MNG thinks Arabs don’t count as people.

          1. This is more than silly. The entire justification of the war was to save Arab lives. Yes, since the Arabs that were threatened were threatened by Arabs that involved, you guessed it, some killing of Arabs.

            But yes, I do prefer military actions with lower American casualties than ones with higher ones. Nutty me.

            1. You are completely silly. Every war involves sending people to their deaths. If Libya was worth killing Libyans for, it was worth Americans dying for. And if it wasn’t worth Americans dying for, then it wasn’t worth killing Libyans for.

              There are few things more disgusting and immoral than the idea that wars are okay as long as only our people die. No, there is either a moral case for it or there isn’t. And if you are unwilling to sacrifice your own lives for it, you shouldn’t be doing it.

              1. You’re the one being silly. When we risk our lives and money to help someone in a conflict that is not our business we can certainly prioritize protecting our troops. We are putting our troops in harms way to help them, there is nothing wrong with limiting their risk.

                1. If Libya was worth doing with zero American causalities, it is also worth doing with 100 or a 1000 American causalities. The fact that we took no casualties, doesn’t make the war any more or less morally justified.

                  1. Certainly the potential cost of a war should be factored in when considering whether to do it or not? My god, are you such a warmonger that you just want to go regardless of the costs? Oh, I forgot your Iraq cheerleading, so I guess that’s answered…

              2. There are few things more disgusting and immoral than the idea that wars are okay as long as only our OTHER people die. No, there is either a moral case for it or there isn’t. And if you are unwilling to sacrifice your own lives for it, you shouldn’t be doing it.

                I am pretty much with John on the larger point about war here. I think the bar for “willing to kill” is actually higher than the “willing to die” bar.

                1. “I think the bar for “willing to kill” is actually higher than the “willing to die” bar.”

                  Perhaps so, but I don’t think that is the essence of the “chickenhawk” charge.

                  But more to your point, you don’t think when one party helps another they could limit their own risk, even when such limiting might heighten that of the one being helped (but of course it would still be lower than if no help were proferred)?

                  1. But more to your point, you don’t think when one party helps another they could limit their own risk, even when such limiting might heighten that of the one being helped (but of course it would still be lower than if no help were proferred)?

                    That’s off topic, really. Sure there are lots of situations where I am morally justified in limiting my risk while offering help. Most situations are that way. But a war is a case where you are saying your justification is worth murdering others who may be only tangentially connected. If your justification is worth that, you are way past the “worth dying for” bar.

                    1. But it also involves sending people to potentialy die (be murdered). Surely you can act to limit that potential, even in ways that might heighten the risk of those you are fighting (and even fighting for) being killed, as long as the latter < what would occur sans any help on your part.

                2. To clarify. The moral bar for “worth dying for” may include lots of things that do not make something “worth killing for”

                  1. To me, if something is worth a death, I’d prefer it be the other guy’s.

              3. The object of war is to make the other bastard die for his country.

            2. Yes, since the Arabs that were threatened were threatened by Arabs that involved, you guessed it, some killing of Arabs.

              Well, that’s not exactly 0 casualties now is it? Keep moving those goal posts. I hear it’s great for strength training.

              1. This is what is so tiring about the internet. Did you not know wtf I was talking about? I was talking about American casualties. The reason was that the whole “chickenhawk” narrative revolves around the willingness of one to advocate the putting of lives in danger but being unwilling himself to be one of those lives. Since Obama and Newt do not live in Libya the only relevant category for them to fall into for that discussion is “American troops.” And the casualty count for THAT is 0.

                Sheesh.

                1. “Since Obama and Newt do not live in Libya the only relevant category for them to fall into for that discussion is “American troops.” And the casualty count for THAT is 0.”

                  No we just didn’t think you were that retarded. It is hardly better to order people to kill others when you wouldn’t do so yourself. The “chickenhawk” argument relates to both the act of risking one’s life and killing for the country. Just because we didn’t take any casualties doesn’t relieve Obama of the charge, false that it is.

                  1. “The “chickenhawk” argument relates to both the act of risking one’s life and killing for the country.”

                    I certainly disagree. As you seem to concede it’s often an implied charge of cowardice, not lack of bloodthirstiness.

                    1. I can’t help but notice that, if we’re talking about keeping American casualties to 0, nothing works better than nukes.

                      So, since (a) having Americans die in Iraq is bad, and (b) there isn’t any justification for intervening in Libya in 2011 that didn’t exist in spades in Iraq, however (c) “we” couldn’t get rid of Hussein with a lightweight bombing campaign.

                      I’m left with the conclusion that that nuking Hussein would have been the preferable option?

                    2. Did you really go to Harvard?

                      Saying we should prioritize American lives doesn’t say we shouldn’t take other lives into consideration, or that there is not some point at which a very high toll in the latter might justify a somewhat higher toll in the latter. After all, even in a military action designed to greatly limit American casualties, like Libya or Bosnia, there is going to be SOME potential risk to American lives. The best way of preserving American lives is not to engage at all. Doing so at all implies you are willing to risk some lives. But that still doesn’t mean that within that framework we can’t correctly work to limit American casualties in the way I describe @ 10:34.

                    3. “a very high toll in the latter might justify a somewhat higher toll in the latter”

                      Should be: a very high toll in the latter might justify a somewhat higher toll in the former

                      Not saying American lives should be worth everything and foriegn lives should be worth nothing to an American commander (if that were the case we wouldn’t be involved at all), just that they are rightly worth more to the American commander.

                    4. Did you really go to Harvard?

                      Yeah, but I learned logic as an undergrad.

                      Just yanking your chain, MNG, to get you to do the total walkback into mush that you delivered at 11:10 am.

                    5. I say we take off and nuke the planet from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

                      Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

          2. He’s not the only one.

    2. “unwillingness to stand by a right to privacy”

      Paul’s answer to this question demonstrates how awful of a candidate he is. To a question about the Griswold right to privacy he rambled on about the 4th Amendment, seemingly because the word “privacy” is associated with both. Apart from his whistling while Iran and Islamo-fascist work to destroy us and Israel it’s things like this that show him unfit to be President.

      Newt Gingrich is the only candidate with a proven and consistent record of cutting government and standing up for our national security.

      1. The joke’s on you dude. Paul’s answer was perhaps not the best, but the Fourth Amendment is directly discussed as a source of the right to privacy in Griswold itself.

        1. I agree with the argument that the constitution heavily implies a right to privacy, but how did a right to privacy somehow leap to states cant ban the sale of contraception? and abortion for that matter?

          States ban the sale of all kinds of stuff. Maybe a state cant in practice enforce a law banning the use of constriception cause that would require raids of your house. But thats not how the court case work.

          Where is the connection between right to privacy —> state is not allowed to ban the commercial provision of abortions?

          I ask this seriously.

    3. I’ve been very disappointed by Paul’s chickenhawking.

      And the little bit of the debate that I saw was just terrible. It looked like the Committee to Re-elect Obama had lured the Repubs into a “let’s make raw material for attack ads” session. This election is about contraception? Really?

      1. It is almost like the DNC put together the Repub field based on a survey of folks that independents are unlikely to vote for…handed it to the RNC and said, “we thought we’d do you a solid.”

        1. One is reminded of the “Seven Dwarves” talk about the Dem field in 92. Of course, they won that year…

          1. Okay…

            So I guess Ron Paul is Jerry Brown…
            But who is Clinton in this analogy?

            1. I would have said Johnson. Governor of a small state, etc.

              The Repubs really don’t have a charismatic political knife artist like Clinton, though.

              1. Maybe, but the nation under Obama is in much worse shape than the nation under Bush I.

      2. In Paul’s defense he was asked during a CNN interview to respond to an attack Newt made against him. Gingrich attacked Paul as being the most dangerous candidate that has run for President in recent history & being against everything a decent American stands for. Paul then gave a lengthy response about why is it considered dangerous to follow the constitution. Unfortunately he ended that with the chickenhawk remark. I’m no apologist for Paul but it was completely unfair in the debate to bring up the chickenhawk remark without mentioning what Gingrich had said.

  34. Krugabe weeps for America, ch 735:

    And if you ask why America is more class-bound in practice than the rest of the Western world, a large part of the reason is that our government falls down on the job of creating equal opportunity.

    The failure starts early: in America, the holes in the social safety net mean that both low-income mothers and their children are all too likely to suffer from poor nutrition and receive inadequate health care. It continues once children reach school age, where they encounter a system in which the affluent send their kids to good, well-financed public schools or, if they choose, to private schools, while less-advantaged children get a far worse education.

    Once they reach college age, those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds are far less likely to go to college ? and vastly less likely to go to a top-tier school ? than those luckier in their parentage. At the most selective, “Tier 1” schools, 74 percent of the entering class comes from the quarter of households that have the highest “socioeconomic status”; only 3 percent comes from the bottom quarter.

    And, of course, as he melodramatically bewails the loss of upward mobility, he completely ignores (is utterly unable to recognize) the effect of his own side’s fetish for large top-down hierarchical organizations at the expense of the sort of small scale entrepreneurship which allowed multitudes of poor people to raise themselves to a higher economic level and improve their lives, and the lives of their children. You cannot succeed in life without going to Princeton, for heaven’s sake; that’s preposterous. If you’re not a success as I define it, you’re not a success!

    1. geez-o-pete.

      My old man came from a family of eight kids. They were dirt poor. Even in the 1950s/early-60s, he lived in a house with a hand-operated water pump and an outhouse. The grey water from the kitchen sink dumped out behind the house. They went to Salvation Army for their clothing. My dad’s first car was a Model A!

      His older brother dropped out of high school after his GF got pregnant. But he eventually started his own tool and die company. Even after he sold that business, he still designs machinery for GM. Needless to say, he’s not a poor man.

      After dropping out of college, my dad started out as a frickin’ shoe clerk and managed to work his way up the chain, and eventually became the director of a large chain of local retail stores. He retired at age 55, and lives year round on a house on Lake Michigan.

      What’s changed since then is not opportunity, but the gateways. Now many companies don’t necessarily recognize skill, but the credentialed.

      /rant off

    2. “his own side’s fetish for large top-down hierarchical organizations at the expense of the sort of small scale entrepreneurship which allowed multitudes of poor people to raise themselves to a higher economic level and improve their lives”

      The problem with this argument is that more and more evidence shows greater mobility in Europe. Do you want to argue they have less of a “fetish for large top-down hierarchial organizations” than we do?

      1. Being a Santorum liberal, you love the idea of people being forced to work for the collective and greater good. That works better in more homogeneous societies like Europe. But of course Europe has a terrible record of assimilating immigrants.

        When you and the SOCONS finally agree on the new world order for Americans, you are going to have to eliminate all of the non hackers and get a society that looks more like Sweden and less like Brazil.

        1. “Being a Santorum liberal”

          Haha, that is one ugly baby you got there John, but again, I won’t take it off your hands!

          BTW-did you ever answer my question the other day about who you are voting/supporting for? You’ve mocked Paul’s foriegn and domestic policy stances and agreed with Obama’s Bush strategies on national security, and you identify as a national security conservative. So who is it?

          1. You are totally in line with the SOCONS. You just can’t agree on the ends. But you totally agree on the methods and the need. And the ends are just details. Ultimately if the SOCONS would make peace with the gays, you wouldn’t really have much to argue about.

            And I don’t support anyone. All of the Republicans would be better than Obama but not good enough to save the country from the damage done over the last three years. I would rather see Obama re-elected and liberalism finished once and for all, than for some idiot like Romney or Santorum be elected, continue Obama’s policies but relieve liberalism of the blame.

            1. “You are totally in line with the SOCONS. You just can’t agree on the ends.”

              Yeah, except for being totally opposed to their ends I’m in line with them. That’s funny.

              “All of the Republicans would be better than Obama”

              Now I detect disengenousness here. You claim to be a national security conservative. I should think that would imply you prioritize certain foriegn policy stances because they are critical for our safety. Paul is opposed to your stances and you’ve admitted in the past that where he and Obama differ you have to acknowledge that usually Obama has the better stance. So wouldn’t you have to prefer Obama over Paul? Or are you just pandering here?

              1. Paul is not winning. And even if he did, he would be driven by circumstances to act in ways he claims to object to now just like Obama was.

                There would be one big advantage to a Republican winning. People like you would start caring about civil liberties again and someone would hold the President to some standard of behavior.

                1. I’ve never stopped caring about civil liberties. But one way to make me care less about them would be if Paul wins-because they would be less threatened then.

      2. The problem with this argument is that more and more evidence shows greater mobility in Europe.

        Does that include downward mobility?

    3. And if you ask why America is more class-bound in practice than the rest of the Western world, a large part of the reason is that our government falls down on the job of creating equal opportunity.

      You gotta love how he qualified that, considering India’s had a religiously instituted caste system for thousands of years.

    4. Jeebus H. Tebow, what a fucktard.

    1. That’s creepily similar to The Cure of elden times

    2. I like it! It is reminiscent of The Cure circa Three Imaginary Boys.

  35. Chinese bodyguard anyone?

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

  36. What these two (Mormon) Republicans disagree about is who is the most qualified presidential candidate.

    Uh, no it’s not.

  37. http://centralny.ynn.com/conte…..ning-guns/

    NY: More women owning guns

    Gun counters usually crowded with men, are now seeing a new trend across the country. More women are purchasing pistols, but it’s not surprising many firearms departments. Gander Mountain Firearms Sales Associate Nigel Lopez said, “I’ve seen more women interested in obtaining a pistol permit to carry concealed for personal protection. That’s been the number one thing.”

    ————-

    Feministing: I N S U R R E C T I O N I S T ________ S E X – T R A I T O R S !

    1. Wasn’t the handgun once referred to as “The Equalizer”? The idea being that it put people on an equal footing with one another. This, of course, should be of interest to women who are concerned with personal safety issues.

  38. http://www.washingtontimes.com…..un-part-2/

    Over the past couple months, I’ve been trying to get a legal gun in the District. I always knew this would be a challenge, but I had no idea how time-consuming it would be to complete all 17 steps the city requires. I’m not even halfway done.

    My quest started in October at the D.C. Gun Registry at the police department. I met with Officer Brown, who put piles of paper on the desk between us. “Here’s everything you need to know,” she said, pointing to a stack about a quarter-inch thick.

    ———–

    Very informative

  39. http://www.wdrb.com/story/1646…..t-dead-man

    Cops go full retard

    Louisville Metro Police are filing charges against a dead man. Last month, police say two officers were hurt when Norman Smith opened fire on them near the intersection of 10th Street and Jefferson Street.

    Police say Smith later committed suicide and he was found in his car. WDRB News has learned that police have posthumously charged Smith with four counts of attempted murder and four counts of criminal mischief.

    Submitter’s note: Will they arrest him at his funeral and read him his Miranda rights to inform him that he has the right to remain silent?

    1. Yeah. Well maybe those cops should give him a chance to confront his accusers.

    2. This is stupid. Even if convicted, it will be thrown out if he can’t serve his sentence due to being dead (see Ken Lay).

  40. http://www.ahwatukee.com/news/…..d0f78.html

    Refugees flee Dumbfuckistan, pollute media with horseshit

    “What did the Founding Fathers mean by the above? What is the interpretation of this amendment, from a late 1700’s perspective? For those who have studied history, these questions should not be difficult to answer. The answer can be readily seen in the War of 1812. This country had no large, standing army and feared that, if attacked by another country we would need all of the weapons and militia possible in order to defend ourselves. At that time, this justification for the Second Amendment was very rational and defensible. Today, it is obviously not so and really has not been so since the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848. The “…regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” argument does not hold.

    1. Easy fix. Amend the Constitution through the process outlined… Oh wait, that’s hard.

    2. Brilliance in the comments:

      I was once asked by a citizen disarmament advocate who belonged to Handgun Control (now known as the Brady Campaign) what my position was on another, complete ban on semi-automatic rifles of military utility. As I began to explain, he irritatedly cut me off, saying, “Give me the short answer.” I thought for a moment.

      “Okay, if you try to take our firearms we will kill you.”

      Couldn’t agree more.

      Gun ownership is a matter of life and death. If you try to forcefully disarm a law abiding citizen, you are effectively taking away their ability to defend themselves. You are no different than someone actively trying to murder another individual, and you should be treated as such… ie. given a dose of lead aspirin.

  41. The utter stupidity of sociology and other social “sciences”. Bonus explanation of the symbiotic relationship between fraudulent social “scientists” and fraudulent and gullible journalists.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/…..?nopager=1

    1. Sociology’s awesome. It means we know who’s full of shit or deluded by looking at who’s studying it. Awesome detector tool.

      1. Ain’t that the truth.

      2. Can you say Tony?

    2. Look, there’s nothing provable by direct scientific inspection in sociology. You can’t run the time series twice. However, there are some statistical tools available. Unfortunately, many social scientists view statistics as some form of arcane magic to dress their ideas rather than a rigorous system for determining how likely it is that a certain occurance will happen by random chance (or not) in a given circumstance.

    3. Andrew Ferguson might want to contemplate his own methodology a bit. From the transgressions of this fraud social psychologist, Stapel, this guy Ferguson coins the “Chump Effect”, which essentially indicts all social scientists. I scoff at many of their pursuits myself but this statment: “Most such claims of social science, we would soon find, fall into one of three categories: the trivial, the dubious, or the flatly untrue,” which is the gist of his piece, is proffered in this article by Ferguson without a bit of supporting discussion – other than to explain to us in detail what a charlatan Stapel is. Trash article.

      1. “Trash Article” describes about 99% of all “reporting” these days, especially of the opinion variety. He right though in that social sciences are bullshit.

  42. Gingrich on Bain: “I don’t think a Milton Friedman or a Hayek would say to you, rich guys have to go and rip off companies and leave a wreckage behind.”

    You know what Milton Friedman called military spending Gingrich? A socialist activity.

    1. Newt Gingrich: “I’m going to be the nominee.”
      America: “No, you aren’t.”

  43. I recently received my complimentary copy of the alumni magazine put out by The Colorado College (my alma mater); it included, among other delights, a thoroughly vapid and utterly substanceless essay by some “economics and business” professor on the fascinating question of Debt: Good, or Bad? (her conclusion, apparently- “Perhaps.”) and an article, complete with artist’s renderings, about the luxuriously monstrous new athletic center currently in the works, which will undoubtedly be far nicer than anything those crass peasants in Palo Alto or Cambridge have. The actual price tag was not readily apparent, but suffice it to say, they can always use a little more money, and are anxiously checking the mail each day for my contribution.

    But- if you ask Krugabe, we don’t spend enough money on higher education in this country.

    1. As always, fascinating.

    2. Fellow Alum, and much more recent. They’re putting in a new building after that goddamn white elephant that is cornerstone?

      Also, I have yet to recieve my magazine yet, but I got my first one a few months ago. No wonder the school has no alumni network to speak of- that shit is terrible, especially when they put in my former classmates vapid “poetry”.

      Still, Pikes Peak is nice, they have solid drugs, and the chicks ain’t half bad looking.

    3. AHHH you went to CC?!?!?!

      Pioneers LOVE kicking your asses.

      jsut sayin.

      1. I agree with my esteemed colleague P Brooks. Fuck DU.

        1. I would like to fuck DU but they took all my moeny.

  44. This is like the worst chat room ever.

  45. Article in Reuters today…

    “Occupy 2012: Firmly disorganized, driven by dreams”

    http://www.reuters.com/article…..7P20120109

    It is amusing.

    1. you know who else was driven by dreams…

      1. Martin Luther King, Jr.?

  46. Anyone who offers to sell you explosives in the US is a Federal agent.

    1. Generally, I take that attitude with anyone unknown who begins an unsolicited conversation with me about acquiring anything illegal.

      1. I was watching Moonshiners last night at a friend’s house and the ATF sends some guy to a ‘shiner’s house to ask for a case of liquor and the moonshiner just says, “Lord, I’d love to sell you that much but I just took 4 cases up to somewhere. I got a gallon, though.”
        What? Hell no. Get off my lawn.

  47. D U sucks.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.