Ron Paul Defends Mitt Romney, Stephen Colbert Out-Polls Jon Huntsman, People in New Hampshire Vote: P.M. Links

|

Advertisement

NEXT: The EPA Had a Bad Day at the Supreme Court

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. Boobies!!

    1. Fark regular?

    2. Proof there is a benevolent God: Salma Hayek admitted that as a little girl she had prayed to Jesus to give her a large chest.

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

      1. Sarah’s prettier.

        1. Tits or GTFO.

      2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..ether.html

        Check out KD Lang’s soon to be former girlfriend. She is pretty cute. Lang looks like a man. What is up with cute girls and butch lesbians? I get being on the other team. But if you are going to go for a woman, why not go for a woman?

        1. Amber Heard’s gf looks feminine.

        2. Some men prefer feminine looking women. Some men prefer more masculine looking women. Some women prefer feminine looking women. Some women prefer more masculine looking women.

          Every conceivable taste happens. Deal with it.

        3. In the state of California, a domestic partnership creates community property rights in a relationship, along with spousal support.

          Ooouuuchh!

        4. My cousin is super butch – drives 18-wheelers, has a mullet, smuggles drugs. Every single one of her girlfriends was smoking hot.

      3. So she prayed for a Jewish plastic surgeon?

    3. “Amanda Seyfried will be naked in ‘Lovelace'”

      http://www.wwtdd.com/2012/01/a…..-lovelace/

      1. I was going to replay with “And?” but the story handled that.

      2. Who is Lauren Sanchez? Wow.

        http://www.wwtdd.com/2012/01/l…..-a-bikini/

        1. TV anchor, apparently. I am very impressed by her ab definition.

          I wish I could convince more women that getting strong will make them look good. They steadfastly refuse to believe me.

      3. More from that Cajun bastahd.

        the definitive Alex Rodriguez picture

        http://www.wwtdd.com/2012/01/t…..z-picture/


        The reason people think Alex Rodriguez is gay because he does things like spend the day working on his tan with his manly looking girlfriend and a little dog with a pink bow in it’s hair.

        There’s no follow up point to this by the way, I’m just explaining why people think Alex Rodriguez is gay.

        1. Manly looking? She’s fucking hot.

  2. GMO scientishic rant fails to understand the difference between analogy and reality:

    “The news that we’re ingesting information as well as physical material should force the biotech industry to confront the possibility that new DNA can have dangerous implications far beyond the products it codes for. Can we count on the biotech industry to accept the notion that more testing is necessary? Not if such action is perceived as a threat to the bottom line.”

    1. I was about to post that one. That article is hysterically bad.

      “We are absorbing DNA”
      “Why is that bad?”
      “We are absorbing DNA”

      1. I consumed some DNA from completely different kingdoms today. I now have super plant and herbivore powers.

        1. Just wait until you swallow a fly and turn into Jeff Goldbloom.

          1. turn into Jeff Goldblum

            Will he get to schtup Gina Davis?

            1. Sure. But it ends badly.

        2. What about your brother Luigi?

          1. He can fend off mushrooms as well. Our powers against fungi are pretty much unlimited.

      2. When I studied abroad I had an awesomely retarded professor who said that GMO should be illegal because she was a vegetarian and she might accidentally eat some scorpions that they put in her tomatoes (or some other plant, whatever). When I explained that all DNA currently known was made up of the same 4 components she said I was missing the point.

        1. …she said I was missing the point.

          There was a lot of that going around, apparently.

      3. I consumed some DNA today too!

  3. “They are either just demagoguing or they don’t have the vaguest idea how the market works.”

    A little from Column A and a little from Column B.

  4. People in New Hampshire are voting RIGHT NOW.

    THE VOTE IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE STATE!

    1. Mostly. Unless Paul wins.

    2. That’s fucking funny. I wonder if anyone actually got it?

      1. It’s a bit of a fragile jest. The babysitter-threatening call urban legend, I assume?

        1. Or the movie. Or was the urban legend first? I can never tell. I’ve become this guy. But without the looks or talent.

        2. Old 70s movie “When a Stranger Calls”

  5. The people of South Carolina are not worthy of voting for someone as brilliant as I am.

    1. Behind Colbert? A more definitive mark of what a loser Huntsman is you will not soon find.

      1. Colbert is a native son of South Carolina.

        1. Aziz Ansari for President.

          1. Naaah, Ron Swanson for president.

  6. “How to Build Your Own Firearm

    You see, there’s a quiet revolution taking place in the home manufacturing and materials industries. You can now buy desktop milling machines and 3D printers for under $800.”

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c…..n-firearm/

    1. My brother builds them all of the time or buys old rifles and remills them into competition quality. More reason gun control advocates are pissing in the wind.

      1. And with “3d printers” and internet that wind will be much stronger in the future.

        1. The future is going to be cool. Think about “printing out” your own 1911 at home? Or building your own car with a body you design on a cad system.

          1. Even better, you’ll just be able to download the file and send it to your printer (or take it to a “print” shop).

          2. I suspect it will be a while before fabs are up to high pressure alloys, and even longer before the consumer models (even the high end ones) are ready for that kind of fun.

        2. That’s what you’d think. But technology always disappoints.

          (I hope you enjoy the view, John)

          1. From the sidebar:

            Counseler Troy’s cleavage:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

      2. Sure, but the first move the Sweep Back The Tide and Save Twentieth Century Civilization Brigade will be to try to Clipper them.

        Then we’ll the War on Fabs, and won’t that be peachy?

    2. Uh.. I’m not gonna be the first person to use the cured-resin barrel. Sure it will take the pressure. Until it doesn’t. Or the mix is wrong, or it cures poorly. Dear Zod, no thanks you.

      1. you make proper moulds out of the resin parts, then cast them in metal. problem solved.

        you have an induction heater, right?

      2. Well, currently the only serialized part of a gun is the receiver, and there are already AR-15’s with polymer receivers (GRP if I remember correctly). So there is nothing stopping anyone from buying a barrel. Although eventually, this technology will be able to create things out of other materials besides plastic.

        1. No, no, I get it. And if I had a safe QA process for testing my cured-resin barrels, I’d probably do it. But as I don’t have a good reference on it (and I’d need a good profile on the resin’s stress-strain behavior), I’m not ready to apply my 3-D printer to this particular application. Magazines, stocks, etc, okay. Barrels and receivers and chambers and firing apparatuses, not so much.

          1. I’d need a good profile on the resin’s stress-strain behavior

            testing rig, some sensors, a microcontroller to interface them to your computer, easy peasy. Slacker.

            1. “Advances in plastics and resins mean that right now you can get resins you can use at home with a ten-thousand PSI (69MPa) tensile strength. For reference, an AR-15 develops about fifteen-thousand PSI (104MPa) as the bullet travels down the barrel. “

              Yeah. Hopefully the shards won’t be sharp. Also, resins suffer fatigue differently from metal, but if you start busting cross-linkages every time you fire it, you might get 100 shots or 10000 or 10 depending on how it cures. No thanks.

              1. Yeah. Steel fails nice and predictably. Composites and thermosets? Not so much. The failure mechanism are also usually a lot more destructive.

              2. SAAMI max pressure for the 5.56×45 is more like 55,000-60000 psi I think.

                1. Which should not be confused with .223 and their pressures.

                  5.56 Nato and .223 are different specs.

                  1. Yeah. Believe me i know this. My point is that. 223 rem is much higherthan 10kpsi aswell.

                    1. .223rem: 55,000 psi
                      5.56×45: 62,366 psi

  7. The Spinsters of Slate get their panties in a wad over Christie oral sex joke that wasn’t.

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2…..s-gov.html

    1. Wait, now blowjobs are misogynistic?

      1. In Slate land I am sure they are. I can’t see the triple X ladies giving many of them.

        1. Stick it in her pooper?

          1. That is sexist and misogynistic robocain. Anal sex is only appropriate between two men in feminists’ view. Otherwise it is just the ultimate statement of male domination.

            1. Or two lesbians…

            2. But I bet they’re cool with women pegging men.

              1. Not if the man likes it.

      2. Unless the Democratic POTUS is getting one.

      3. If blowjobs are misogynistic then cunnilingus must be misandristic?

      1. Do NOT read the comments if you want to keep your head unexploded.

      2. This has widely been taken as a blowjob reference?although some dissenters read nothing sexual into it. Since his spokesman wouldn’t clarify what he meant, let’s assume that Christie is a sexist asshole.

        Yes, let’s just assume it. Why not?

  8. NYC councilman demands that Manhattan DA drop gun charges against Marine

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/01…..st-marine/

    (Oh, and there was fourth NYC arrest of a gun owner from out of town…)

  9. “Obama’s job approval continues to plummet.”

    LOL. You’re great at seeing trends in charts.

    1. But I thought he won the payroll tax fight?

  10. Obama’s job approval continues to plummet.

    This must be true. DailyKos no longer has the presidential approval ratings widget on their main page.

    1. No way. That is funny.

  11. Companies face fines for not using unavailable biofue
    A Fine for Not Using a Biofuel That Doesn’t Exist

    WASHINGTON ? When the companies that supply motor fuel close the books on 2011, they will pay about $6.8 million in penalties to the Treasury because they failed to mix a special type of biofuel into their gasoline and diesel as required by law.
    But there was none to be had. Outside a handful of laboratories and workshops, the ingredient, cellulosic biofuel, does not exist.

    In 2012, the oil companies expect to pay even higher penalties for failing to blend in the fuel, which is made from wood chips or the inedible parts of plants like corncobs. Refiners were required to blend 6.6 million gallons into gasoline and diesel in 2011 and face a quota of 8.65 million gallons this year.

    “It belies logic,” Charles T. Drevna, the president of the National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association, said of the 2011 quota. And raising the quota for 2012 when there is no production makes even less sense, he said.

    Penalizing the fuel suppliers demonstrates what happens when the federal government really, really wants something that technology is not ready to provide.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01…..ofuel.html

    1. “It belies logic,”

      Government action, in a nutshell.

  12. Madison police arrest man named Beezow Doo-Doo Zopittybop-Bop-Bop

    http://www.greenbaypressgazett…..op-Bop-Bop

    1. He is just Zaphod Beeblebrox’s emissary on earth.

      1. Holy shit, second Hitchhiker’s Guide reference I’ve seen in an hour. Weird coincidence.

        1. The Infinite Improbability Drive must be working.

    2. Is that Diamond David Lee Roth’s son?

      1. I am thinking about splurging and going to see the reformed Van Halen.

        1. It could be fun. I got excited for a second when I heard, but then I remembered that they are a couple decades past their prime. The who put on a pretty good show when they did the Super Bowl, but it was nothing compared to the shows in their hey-day (from what I’ve seen on video and heard from my father). I wonder if Eddie can still sound like Eddie.

          1. I am old. I saw them in 1982 at their peak. And they gave a great show. I don’t expect it to be that good. But Eddie can play. And I bet they are decent.

            1. as a guitarist myself, i was never “into” van halen (i was more into stuff like the jam and the police and U2 etc.) but eddie van halen is a fucking MONSTER on guitar and it’s not just about speed (a la malmstein and that crap) but there is a great lyricism to his guitar playing, GREAT tone, a wonderful rhythm guitar sense (amazing how many great lead guitarists are shit at rhythm) etc.

              he also did SO many things FIRSt that are now commonplace.

              when eruption came out, that was fucking groundbreaking

            2. Okay, I just watched the video on their website and I take back all reservations about their performance abilities. Not the best song they ever wrote, but Eddie and David can still perform.

            3. John|1.10.12 @ 5:23PM|#

              I am old. I saw them in 1982 at their peak. And they gave a great show. I don’t expect it to be that good. But Eddie can play. And I bet they are decent.

              I am, I think, a little older, saw them in 1982 (snuck in, saw them for free). And I would say they were not worth the price of admission. Easily the worst arena rock band of the era…and I saw most of them back then. I mean, come on…a bass solo from Michael Anthony Sobolewski, really?

              Their first album was great. We loved it. Nothing after that worth hearing.

              1. I knew there was a reason I didn’t like you.

                  1. Is it cuz you’re jealous I saw VH back in the day? Or is it because you find my dislike of their work after 1978 threatening in some way?

          2. Wow I think you are the first person I’ve ever heard describe the SB Who performance as anything other than god awful.

  13. Grow up, Ron Paul

    Libertarian views of government regulation are very similar to how the 6 year-old views the authority exerted by their parents. Ron Paul’s every-individual-for-themselves rhetoric appeals to young, radical libertarians with simplistic viewpoints of authority, and an ignorance of why government exists in the first place.

    When you’re a mature grownup like me, maybe I’ll let you occupy the dinner table with me.

    1. Yeah and demanding that the government shield you from every risk and possible bad outcome in life no matter what the cost is entirely mature.

    2. 6 year olds can vote? Why aren’t we pandering to this demographic. Someone, quick, lollipops!

      1. You rang?

    3. “and an ignorance of why government exists in the first place”

      The first place is clear and its powers are defined in the Constitution. It is the subsequent places that the libertarian point of view takes issue with, methinks.

    4. Pretty interesting tell, if you think about it. The perspective is that libertarians are children who don’t like being told what to do by their parents. Obviously, the government should not be parenting the nation. The whole point is that libertarians don’t want to be treated like children.

      1. Read some of the writer’s other stuff. He’s a child.

        1. I see what you did there.

        2. Fuck me. He’s an “organizer” for an organization called “Uncut.” I don’t know where to start with the mockery.

          1. One of the best threads ever was MNG claiming the cartoon “Mohl man” about a Super Hero saving children from evil Rabbis was not anti-Semitic.

            1. This dude doesn’t have nearly enough dignity to be an annoying anti-circumcision activist.

              1. You mean the organization “uncut” does something besides fight circumcision?

            2. You know, because liberals can’t be racist.

        3. Read some of the writer’s other stuff. He’s a child.

          I did, because of your second link. And you owe me for the loss of a couple of IQ points. Nothing represents “full retard” more than claiming that Jesus was a Socialist who believed in complete government control through violence. How do they forget that the ONLY path to their Utopia is with the Iron Fist?

          1. They don’t forget. They ignore, and demand that the rest of us do as well.

      2. The dude is engaging in classic projection, which is an incredibly common trait in leftists for some reason.

        Unfortunately, they’re too stupid to see that they’re doing it.

        1. I want the government to take care of me from cradle to grave. Stop acting like a child and demanding personal independence Episiarch!!

        2. “Join Occupy and be as holy as Christ!”

          Just when I start to forget how much I hate hippies, I get dragged back in.

          1. Isn’t it funny that that line survived a completely bad movie? Because otherwise, all I remember from that film is (1) Michael’s confession to the Pope, (2) Hamiltonian Tan, (3) a cooking show hosted by Andy Garcia and Sophia Coppola, who apparently were making cameos for some inexplicable reason, and (4) Old Michael getting laughs falling over in his chair at the end.

            1. I never bothered to see it. To be honest, I was erroneously thinking of Carlito’s Way when I wrote that.

              1. Even more mysteriously, you are correct. As he ages, all Pacino films merge into one.

                  1. Don’t remember any mares. What did the mare do? Are you talking about one of the Corelone kids? Fuck, what was that movie about again?

                    Coppola should do it over, except this time, Fredo is undead and looking for revenge against everyone but Michael, who he strangely forgives.

                    1. Oh, I see. Okay.

                      Tracey Walter guested? Awesome. In fact, there’s nothing more awesome in supporting actors. Miller.

                    2. Of course it was Walter. All part of the lattice of coincidence.

                    3. You know how everybody’s into weirdness right now?

                1. The line is from Godfather 3, right before Michael gets felled by hypoglycemia in the kitchen.

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

            2. I actually don’t “hate” it… I mean, I hate Sofia Coppola in it and it’s not nearly as good as the first 2 but I can still sit through it and even enjoy some of it, and Bridget Fonda looks hot in it.

            3. I actually don’t “hate” it… I mean, I hate Sofia Coppola in it and it’s not nearly as good as the first 2 but I can still sit through it and even enjoy some of it, and Bridget Fonda looks hot in it.

              1. Apparently the squirrels DO hate it…

              2. I’ve never been able to make it all the way through.

              3. My anger when I went to see it on opening day still hasn’t entirely dissipated. What happens to directors when they get old, anyway?

                1. They make more and more movies, each one progressively worse. Because they’ve earned it, or something.

                  1. Yet II was arguably as good as or better than I. Something broke later. I’m figuring Apocalypse Now.

                    Which, incidentally, needs a sequel directed by Coppola. George Hamilton needs to be in there somewhere. Set in the 1980s, with Willard working as regional manager for a fast food chain. Or maybe running for president.

                    1. GF III was the perfect example of why nepotism is wrong.

                      she RUINED that movie. she hurt GF III more than jar jar hurt phantom menace

                      in fact, i think GFIII would have been improved if they replaced sofia coppola with jar jar

        3. YOU’RE ENGAGING IN PROJECTION!!!!

      3. it’s amazing to me how many people do want govt. to do it though

        friend of mine is a very smart guy, also well educated (doctorate) who has been absolutely brilliant in sports nutrition, etc. for years.

        he also told me today (how a propos) that he thinks govt. needs to tax twinkies and other stuff that is “bad for you”. he says “it’s as addictive as heroin and we BAN that, so why can’t we at least tax poison like twinkies?”

        dealing with attitudes like this makes me understand WFB jr’s quote about rather being ruled by names chosen at random out of the phone book, then by academic elite

        1. Did you tell him that legalizing heroin makes more sense?

          1. i actually did think about that, but he’s WAY into “dr’s are god, and only a dr should be able to determine if a person gets drugs” etc.type of philosophy

            1. I thought you said he was smart. Everything you say about him shows that statement to be demonstrably false.

              1. by smart, i am referring to “g” iow cognitive intelligence.

                i don’t fall into the trap that many ideologues do (here and elsewhere) which is to equate intelligence with whether a person agrees with my political viewpoint

                the guy has written some BRILLIANT papers and done some amazing research in sports nutrition

            2. Even better reason to beat him over the head with heterodoxy.

        2. Or like the stripper in New Orleans who told me that she wanted alcohol banned because it would prevent her alcoholic brother from being an alcoholic.

          I was going to make some comment about how it was good that they banned prostitution and thus prevented women like her from engaging in prostitution, but common sense prevailed.

          1. Oh, and then she asked me if I wanted to buy her a “lady’s drink”, although in her defense I suspect those drinks don’t contain actual alcohol.

    5. Re: HuffingtonPos,

      Libertarian views of government regulation are very similar to how the 6 year-old views the authority exerted by their parents.

      “I shall love the State like mein vater und meine mutter!”

    6. Unreal. The venality, dishonesty, lust for power, inefficiency, and complete focus on political gamesmanship to the exclusion of all else inherent in our government justifies placing it in loco parentis over me? Even bad parents would have to work at achieving one tenth of the ineptitude of government in its new role as “parent to us all.”

      What is wrong with these people? Holy shit. Who died and made the government my god?

      1. Even bad parents would have to work at achieving one tenth of the ineptitude of government in its new role as “parent to us all.”

        With all due respect, bad parents are usually neglectful of their children– essentially letting them run wild with no authority whatsoever.

        What we want is the government to start acting like a bad parent.

        The problem we have now is the government wants to act like I do with my [9-yr-old].

        1. I think you mean “Like I would do with your 9-yr-old”

    7. Libertarian views of government regulation are very similar to how the 6 year-old views the authority exerted by their parents.

      Yes, they are, with the somewhat importance difference that the government is exerting power over adults, not 6-year-old children.

      Its funny, but libertarians think that adults and 6-year-old kids are different.

      Don’t you?

      1. Excellent riposte.

        1. exactly. people naturally tend to resent authority (note: tend to… please spare me counterexamples)…

          so do kids

          the difference is that parents do and should have LOTS of authoritah over their kids

          govt. should have very limited authoritah and only via the consent of the governed.

          1. exactly. people naturally tend to resent authority (note: tend to… please spare me counterexamples)…

            As they should, as those who aspire to have authority typically do so to have power.

            the difference is that parents do and should have LOTS of authoritah over their kids

            Right! No way should a person have rights until they reach an arbitrary age decided by those who wield the authority in the first place.

            govt. should have very limited authoritah and only via the consent of the governed.

            51% of the people who vote wanting something does not equal consent of the governed. It’s called a tyranny of the majority.

            1. well, true that. of course we should also have constitutionally protected civil rights which are not overruled by majority rule. excellent point

    8. I really don’t understand where this “libertarianism is simplistic and immature” thing comes from. Does anyone have any idea – or is it just that any smear will do?

      1. The latter, just like the “liberatarians are for unfettered state government” meme that has been flying around lately.

      2. Because it takes a complex mind to twist reality to the extent that these people do.

      3. Because, more often than not, we follow principles (or try to).

      4. Submit to a more knowledgeable authority or you’re just being a child. I don’t think it really goes deeper than that.

        1. Too wordy. Here’s what they’re trying to say: “Submit.”

      5. The Ingenious Hidalgo|1.10.12 @ 5:38PM|#

        I really don’t understand where this “libertarianism is simplistic and immature” thing comes from. Does anyone have any idea – or is it just that any smear will do?

        It may come from the tendency for libertarianism to come up with pretty much the same answer for almost any problem posed to it. Simple responses to a problem posed to it can easily be seen as evidence of “simplistic” or lacking nuance. How true that impression is may be up for debate, but I think that may be at the root of the impression.

        That and the fact that most people don’t know what “libertarianism” means.

    9. Libertarian views of government regulation are very similar to how the 6 year-old views the authority exerted by their parents.

      Wait, it seems that evidence shows that that’s exactly how Liberals view government!

    10. From the article:

      In Ron Paul’s ideal America, safety regulations imposed on employers by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration would be a thing of the past. Clean air and water regulations imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency would be no more. Taxpayers would save money since Ron Paul would abolish the Department of Education and cut the Food & Drug Administration budget by 40%. Employers would save money by paying workers as little as they wish, since Ron Paul would abolish the Davis-Bacon Act. Corporate giants would be free to monopolize markets, since Ron Paul opposes federal antitrust legislation. And employees would no longer be required to pay into Social Security.

      If only a politician would actually do all that stuff (ignoring the economic idiocy in the commenter’s braindead statements like “Employers would save money by paying workers as little as they wish”, which assumes that employers aren’t subject to marketplace competition, and that employees can’t refuse to work for an employer paying sub-market wages.)

    11. Families grieving for loved ones lost due to Massey Energy’s negligence in the Upper Big Branch coal mine explosion would have to accept that their relatives were casualties of the invisible hand of the unfettered free market.

      There is this newfangled tort out called ‘wrongful death.’ Assuming that Ron Paul in his wacky Constitutionalist America hasn’t abolished the court system.

      Oh, and I have a message for Carl from the Strawman Local 857. They said stop beating their members or they’ll be forced to retaliate.

  14. Have we won in Iran yet?

    1. Is Iran the future?

  15. Snoop Dogg arrested for possession of marijuana:

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/b…..est-657490

    1. Does Dogg bite man?

      1. Couldn’t say, but that arrest happened right after the Snoopster called for legalization?

        Coincidence?

        1. The article says it is the same checkpoint that recently busted Willy Nelson, so probably yes.

      2. The Man bites Dogg.

    1. Sounds like a good idea to me.

      1. Also shows how far gone Perry is. He’s tried every different group of voters to pander to this year.

        1. Not like he has anything to lose.

          1. That one guy, you know, the one voting for him in New Hampshire.

    2. Paul, a Houston-area lawmaker…

      Oops.

      1. My bad. I read that as ‘Houston-area lawyer’ for some reason.

  16. In Rochester, a former mill town of 30,000 people, John Tibbets, 71, voted for Newt Gingrich “because he’s going to straighten out America. He ain’t like these other wiffly-waffly guys.”

    DOOOOOOOOOOMED.

    1. Oh wait, someone quoted this moron earlier today. The next part is mind-blowing:

      Tibbets’ priorities: “Secure the border and be tough on terrorism. ? If Iran gets nukes, I think we should nuke them. Because if we don’t, I think they’ll do it to us.”

      1. I wonder if this guy supports the 2nd Amendment?

        1. I wonder if this guy supports the 2nd Amendment?

          Only for shooting that annoying kid that skateboards down his street.

          1. Well he shot the kid because he heard the kid had a gun at home.

      2. “The Trouble with Tibbets.”

        1. “The call me Mr. Tibbets!”

          1. Big Tibbets in Little China.

            1. We have some hockey fans here I know, anyone remember Billy Tibbets? If you know Billy’s backstory, this guy John sounds just about as nuts. Hell he might be related, Billy is a New Englander oo.

              1. I remember him, he played for the pens for about 6 minutes.

                Real scumbag. He was like the Ben Roethlisberger of hockey.

                1. He won two Stanley Cups as a starting center? Lucky bastard.

                2. One of my good friends grew up with him (my buddy was a couple of years younger) in Scituate and knew all the specific details of all the Tibbets incidents, and knew the girl. Just a bad guy, worse than Roethlisberger I think.

      3. “If Iran gets nukes, I think we should nuke them. Because if we don’t, I think they’ll do it to us.”

        Rock, scissors, paper, SHOOT!

    2. Newt is sure of himself and full of himself. He wins over the asshole demogrpahic.

  17. Gambol Lockdown: “Tourists pay for jungle drive which treats primitive tribe like zoo animals
    They toss scraps of food to half-naked tribespeople and order them to dance”

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

    1. Is monocle polishing included in the tour package?

    2. “and order them to dance”

      That is fucking awesome!

    3. Will they carry your luggage?

      1. Maybe I can get them to polish my spats.

        Hey primative man, go get your fucking shinebox.

  18. The EU and Japan are planning to embargo oil from Iran.

    The economic sanctions against Iran appear to already be taking their toll in the form of hyperinflation. There are reports of the price of a laptop computer there having tripled within the last few days.

    Much more of this, and the regime will be back up against the wall and forced to decide between war or dismantling those nuclear facilities.

    1. I think you may be right. How long before they start sinking tankers in the Gulf? But if they do that, the whole world will be against them.

      1. How long do you think their refineries will survive after they sink a tanker?
        Lots of non-site hardened infrastructure that can be blown up quickly. Iran is just rattling its pathetic saber.

        1. Which makes people’s fear of them even more pathetic.

          1. I’d like to think so, but I don’t know if the regime is filled with rational actors. Or at least, I don’t know if they’re responding to the same incentives we think they’re responding to.

            The Iranian economy isn’t just in the crapper, the people hate the govt, and they’ve shown they can get restless. Diverting people’s attention with a war might actually sound like a good idea to a certain kind of nutjob leader. Especially a war against the Great and Little Satans.

            1. Iran is just rattling its pathetic saber.

              If their saber is pathetic everything you just said is irrelevant to whether we should fear them. Even in your (i think unlikely) scenario we and the rest of the world would squash them and move on.

        2. Since you put it that way I’m surprised it hasnt already happened. Elevated world oil prices will play jnto Obama’s alternate energy plan, making histhe evil not-Halliburton cronies fabulously rich at the expense of American blood and treasure. No Blood for Solar! No Blood for Wind!

    2. It’ll justify them hiding their nuclear ambitions better, thats for damn sure.

      1. It’s just a chocolate chip factory!

  19. I have nothing substantial to add.

  20. Ogden drug raid’s 12 SWAT members took heavy casualties. 1 dead, 5 wounded.

    Of the wounded: 1 is in medically induced coma, another took a shot to the face, another is still critical in ICU.

    Fuck that dude could shoot.

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/j…..csp?page=2

    Here’s another story on it where the dad addresses a few of the leaked rumors:

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/n…..s.html.csp

    1. The most dangerous thing you can do is go into a building with someone waiting on you armed and meaning you harm. The military avoids it like the plague. Better to call in direct fire and avoid the thing entirely or get the guy to surrender.

      Only someone as stupid as a cop would want to do it rather than wait for the guy to leave his house and arrest him then.

      1. You know what this means next right?

        “Sir, the perp is hold up and might be heavily armed”

        “Call in the airstrike”

        1. We are not far from that. They are called flash grenades.

          1. Great. How long do you think before they upgrade from flash grenades to predators firing hellfire missiles?

              1. See, Philadelphia and how they handled the MOVE group, back in the 80s.

    2. Does Utah have the “felony murder” law? You know, in case it turns out the search was illegal, so that all the cops involved can get the death penalty.

      1. an “illegal” search doesn’t necessarily kick in, and in fact almost always wouldn’t kick in a felony murder rule.

        again, it’s those damn pesky things like statutes, etc.

        (cue : DOUBLE STANDARD derp derp derp)

        1. Dunphy, you bring something to these discussions, you really do.

          But your insistence that cops don’t benefit from a double standard is puzzling, to say the least.

          1. actually, i have said MANY times in some ways they benefit, and in some ways they are penalized by it.

            but that aside, what i am saying is that an “illegal” search almost always wouldn’t kick in the felony murder clause not because of some double standard but because it wouldn’t meet the elements

            the point is that people here who believe in such double standard will always ignore evidence to the contrary.

            1. Wouldnt the fact that a felony that can only be committed by law enforcement not meeting the standards be a pretty fair example of a double standard?

              1. As an aside, my state (KY) abolished the Felony Murder Rule in 1984.

                In KY, murder requires intent (or operating a motor vehicle with extreme indifference for life).

                1. i lean towards being against felony murder laws

              2. i am not sure what exactly you are saying here.

                i am saying, assuming arguendo the search was “illegal” does not mean the search would have been a felony in the first place.

                that has nothing to do with double standards

              3. which FELONY are you talking about?

                the vast majority of illegal searches are not FELONIOUS illegal searches

                darn that pesky mens rea, etc.

            2. Apologies for not recalling, but an example of cops being burdened by a double standard?

              1. After committing rape or murder, they’re often forced to take painful vacations to Hawaii.

              2. among many

                1) dual sovereignty. cops are FAR more likely to take the one/two punch of local and federal prosecution, especially when the former is unsuccessful

                2) ime, judges often (actually. usually) will give more cops a harsher PENALTY for the same crime than if a noncop had committed it. some will even admit it – e.g. “i hold police to a higher standard” type thang. i gave a link to another of those cases where a cop was given 27 yrs for ASSAULT and the judge in that case made exactly such a comment.

                i don’t have a lexis-nexis account, but i asked one of my prosecutor friends if he had ever heard of a guy with no felony priors (or even WITH) get 27 yrs for felony assault. answer: no

                paul schene, who i said from the beginning, i thought was guilty as fuck was tried TWICE (after hung jury) for misdemeanor assault.

                again, very very rare, but more common with cops imo -retrying after a hung jury. in general, a retrial on a hung jury for a misdemeanor is swimmingly rare, espeially in cash strapped king county where he worked

                in the rodney king case, interviews with jurors after the fact (in the second trial) made it clear a substantial influence towards a guilty verdict was fear of further riots btw.

                in brief, i would argue that
                1) cops get harsher sentences for the same crime, ESPECIALLY when you factor in priors, etc. iow, not unusual to get X months for crime Y with two felony convictions, but unheard of to get it with no priors – unless dood was a cop
                2) dual sovereignty
                3) retrials on hung juries

                are all examples where a double standard works against cops

                1. 2) ime, judges often (actually. usually) will give more cops a harsher PENALTY for the same crime than if a noncop had committed it. some will even admit it – e.g. “i hold police to a higher standard” type thang. i gave a link to another of those cases where a cop was given 27 yrs for ASSAULT and the judge in that case made exactly such a comment.

                  You insist on telling us that he would have gotten 2 years if he wasn’t a cop, yet you fail to offer anything that would substantiate the claim. Also, you fail to address that he was found guilty of both 1st degree and 2nd degree assault. Plus, there were mitigating circumstances, like the 10 guilty pleas of violation of protective orders and the earlier case where he was given pretrial diversion, which the 2 assault and 10 guilty pleas voided.

                  Here’s a much more detailed story of what dunphy has described as “basically a DV assault.”

                  Oh, and it was 23 years. And also, it’s pretty strange that even his attorney expected 15 to 17 years, even though you claim a non-cop would get 2.

                  1. 2 yrs is too little, i agree

                    and yes, it was 23 yrs, that was my mistake

                    again, i cannot find ONE example (one) in all of WA jurisprudence where a guy with no felony priors got over 20 yrs for assault

                    not ONE

                    can you?

                    i’m not saying it wasn’t a serious crime. duh

                    i am saying the 23 yrs was WELL in excess of what a NONCOP defendant with no felony priors would get

                    and if you disagree, show me ONE assault case (he was charged with Ass I and II. that is correct. it is still ONE assault, just liek a guy can get charged with burglary and theft from ONE burglary) in WA where a guy got more than 20 yrs for ASSAULT and was not a convicted felon

                    just ONE

                    1. His attorney expected 15-17 years. He was obviously not taking itno account the penalties for the ten convictions for violation of a protective order, which would be punishable with up to 900 days in jail (if served consecutively), the penalty applied for the crime he nolo contendere‘d and got pretrial diversion, or the fact that, regardless of what you say, he was convicted of both 1st and 2nd degree assault.

                      As far as the last point, cops overcharge people all the time in hopes that it will get people to plea down. Fuck one of them if it bites him in the ass when the tables are turned.

                      And you persist with this “first time offender” nonsense. He NC’d a prior charge and was given pretrial diversion. As stated in the links I posted, that was nullified when he pushed her out a second-story window and confined her to a wheelchair. Therefore, this is no longer considered a first offense. Jesus, can you not read?

                    2. again, evasive on the facts

                      fact: he only had a prior misdemeanor conviction. and yes, as i have explained in the WODV, many charges can stem from one incident. he BURNED SOME OF HER CLOTHES

                      that was the heinous misdemeanor conviction. omg

                      so, again, we have a prior misdemeanor

                      we have a charged felony assault

                      show me one… ONE case where a convicted misdemeanant got over 20 yrs for an assault case,

                      again, i did not say it was a first offense. i said it was a first FELONY offense

                      read what i wrote

                      and again, show me ONE guy in WA state who got over 20 yrs for an assault case who was not a convicted felon

                      for fuck’s sake,i’ve seen attempted murder get 10 yrs

                      23 yrs WAS excessive and the judge in this case DID say he thought cops should be dealt with more harshly.

                    3. to explain the multiple charges from one incident thang in DV’s

                      like the case i had a few nights ago

                      guy had a protective order against an ex.

                      she sent him 4 emails in the same day (actually within an hour)

                      guess what?

                      that’s FOUR CHARGES i charged him with

                      all misdemeanor DV charges

                      FOUR!!!!

                      OMG!!!! WHAT A HEINOUS CRIMINAL!!!!!

                      get my point. my understanding is the 10 COUNTS were all from the same INCIDENT. and it was a MISDEMEANOR

                    4. get my point. my understanding is the 10 COUNTS were all from the same INCIDENT. and it was a MISDEMEANOR

                      I think I understand your logic now, but I’m gonna have to correct you. The 10 convictions of violating a protective order–which he pleaded guilty to–were for the assault. They did not, in fact, result in a misdemeanor. His violation was in showing up and pushing her out a second story window, not burning her stuff. The way I’ve always understood the law was that they would be considered contributing factors to the assault.

                      Please correct me if I’m wrong, but the more I look at this case, the more I look at the sentence as reasonable for anyone who violates 10 protective orders while pushing his ex- out a second story window causing her to be confined to a wheelchair.

                    5. so, again, we have a prior misdemeanor

                      No, we have 10 guilty pleas of violation of a protective order. 10 of them. Read the fucking story.

                      And what about the conviction for the actual fire he set? Motherfucker got the pretrial diversion revoked and the conviction imposed. That is another conviction of a violent crime prior to the assault.

                      Come on, man. And as far as “attempted murder get ten years,” I say citation please.*

                      *Of course, why this wasn’t considered attempted murder as well is beyond me.

                    6. and i am saying again, it’s ONE incident

                      regardless the facts are this

                      NOT a convicted felon

                      got 23 yrs for an assault incident

                      you can’t violate “10 protective orders”.

                      seriously. don’t take this the wrong way, but you don’t know what you are talking about

                      please don’t buy into the WODV bullshit.

                      again, let me quote: She asked the judge to consider not only the counts of a first and second-degree assault, which McCarthy denied, but also 10 counts of violating a protection order, to which he pleaded guilty after his arrest in November 2010.

                      The violations were related to an incident in November 2008 in which he was alleged to have set fire to the woman’s belongings”

                      it was in relation to a prior INCIDENT (note the singular)

                      2 yrs before the assault.

                      and like i am trying to explain to you, the 10 counts mean jackshit. like if you burn 10 items of her clothes, they can charge you with TEN COUNTS

                      do you get it

                      it was *a* prior incident. a MISDEMEANOR

                      you are wrong/. admit it. it was a PRIOR incident in 2008 that got the 10 counts thing. get it?

                      so, again, lemme tell you the facts

                      ONE: NOT a convicted felon – inarguable
                      Two: prior misdemeanant (again, he got diversion, which IS par for the course for DV misdemeanor first offense, but it got vacated DUE to the instant case). get it?
                      three: got 23 yrs for the assault incident

                      those are all indisputable facts

                      so, i say… again…

                      show me ONE… ONE (out of the THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE in WA state who have been charged with assault(s) from *an* incident) person other than this guy who got more than 20 yrs for AN ASSAULT CASE who were not convicted felons

                      one.

                      just one

                    7. OK, let’s try this again:

                      FTA: but also 10 counts of violating a protection order, to which he pleaded guilty after his arrest in November 2010.

                      From dunphy: you can’t violate “10 protective orders”.

                      Then why the hell did he plead guilty to 10 counts of violating a protective order?

                      I would assume the judge considered those contributing factors when sentencing. If the sentence had been unjust, it would have been struck down on appeal. That’s what the appellate process is all about.

                      I don’t know of any similar trials in WA that resulted in shorter sentences for a similar crime committed with the same contributing factors, history of violence and resultant permanent disability to the victim. If you do, and they resulted in shorter sentences, I’d like to see them.

                      Oh, and I’m still waiting on that link supporting your “attempted murder conviction resulting in under 10 years” claim. Patiently waiting.

        2. If the illegal search was a felony, I would think it would, or the statute is misnamed.

          1. What’s in a name…

          2. They had a “knock and announce” warrant, so I think this dude is going down — regardless of whether they knocked or announced.

          3. you WOULD think that. it just makes no sense under the law

            kind of my point

  21. I just saw 2 leftist acquaintances on facebook say “fuck bureaucracy” because they are having problems with a government agency.

    but I don’t really want to gloat.

    1. I recommend gloating.

      1. “Ain’t government great? No, seriously, I love it! I say we let it just handle everything with the efficiency, aplomb, and customer service we’ve come to expect from it.”

      2. Ugh they think the service sucks because there’s not enough funding.

        1. Folly, thou conquerest, and I must yield!
          Against stupidity the very gods
          Themselves contend in vain. Exalted reason,
          Resplendent daughter of the head divine,
          Wise foundress of the system of the world,
          Guide of the stars, who art thou then if thou,
          Bound to the tail of folly’s uncurbed steed,
          Must, vainly shrieking with the drunken crowd,
          Eyes open, plunge down headlong in the abyss.
          Accursed, who striveth after noble ends,
          And with deliberate wisdom forms his plans!
          To the fool-king belongs the world.

          1. Was she about to burn at the stake when she said this?

  22. “You know I want to,” Harold said, turning away, “but it feels wrong.”

    Ricky, reclining nude, leaned forward and gently caught Harold’s
    earlobe in his teeth and then began to suckle it. Harold closed his
    eyes and groaned. Ricky’s hand ground into Harold’s half-hard penis
    through the thick denim of his jeans. He let go of Harold’s earlobe
    and whispered into his ear, “Harold, oh Harold. We can do whatever we
    want. We are adults. We can make decisions for ourselves.” His breath
    was hot in Harold’s ear, tongue moist as it darted in and out, a
    promise.

    “Can’t we just do it with our hands?” Harold pleaded. He was
    weakening, his protest becoming feeble as his penis grew harder. Ricky
    undid the button of Harold’s jeans and slipped his hand inside, unzipping
    with his thumb as he went. The dorm room was dark, a chair pushed up
    under the door knob. Harold’s roommate was gone for the weekend, but
    it was stupid to take chances.

    “I can’t put a baby in you, Harold. Stop being such a girl. It’s 1977
    and we can do what we want.” Ricky stroked Harold’s erection quickly,
    and then bent to lick off the milky pearl of Cowper’s fluid that
    formed. Harold shifted his dancer’s hips and let Ricky pull of his
    jeans and underwear.

    “Just don’t hurt me, Ricky,” Harold said, turning over. On all fours,
    he looked back a Ricky, expectant and afraid, his cow eyes glistening
    in the dark.

    “Just relax. I went to Catholic school. I know what I’m doing.”

    As soon as Ricky slipped his penis in, Harold ejaculated forcefully,
    shuddering and moaning.

    “Yeah, you like that, cunt?” Ricky grunted, thrusting. “You like it
    when I fuck your cunt? Yeah. You like getting your cunt fucked? You
    fucking whore. Stop fucking crying, you goddamn pansy. Faggot. Faggot
    whore!” Ricky fell over backwards onto the filthy rug.

    While Harold struggled to his feet and pulled on a robe, Ricky pawed
    through his own jeans that were puddled on the floor. Harold pulled
    the chair away from the door and stumbled out of the room, the light
    from the hallway slashing across Ricky . Ricky lit the joint he found,
    and stared at the ceiling. Harold came back in as he was almost
    finished. Harold lay down beside him and Ricky passed him the joint.

    “How does this work,” Harold asked, “Do I do you next?”

    “Don’t be ridiculous,” Ricky said, yawning. “I’m not a faggot like
    you. I don’t take it in the ass.”

    “Fair’s fair,” Harold whined.

    “Shut up, Harold. I got big dreams and being a faggot like you isn’t
    one of them.” Harold began to sob. Ricky ignored him. “I’m going to
    find some dumb bitch to marry and pump her full of kids. I’m gonna be
    lawyer. Maybe go into politics. This country needs somebody like me to
    set commie faggots like you straight.”

    Harold’s sobs became low laughter, rising steadily in volume. Ricky
    sat up, and began pulling on his clothes. Harold was howling with
    laughter by the time he got dressed.

    “What’s so goddamn funny?” Ricky asked.

    Through the peals of laughter, Harold managed, “You’ll never be
    anybody. No one’s ever going to take you seriously.”

    “Why not, faggot?” Ricky kicked him in the leg.

    “Your name,” Harold managed, “Your stupid name.”

    “Yeah, yeah. Everybody laughs. But I’m going to change it. And faggots
    like you won’t ever laugh at me again.”

    With a final kick, Ricky Cumfart stormed out of Harold’s room.

    1. It’s like you can read my mind, NutraSweet.

      Wait, did I just say that out loud?

    2. tl/dr and you can’t make me.

    3. Pure genius. Too bad there isn’t a wider audience, because funny, that’s why.

    4. I imagines this as a bio-pic, but done in a TV after-school-special style.

    5. Most excellent.

    6. Excellent

    7. Jesus. I wasn’t expecting to find something like this on here tonight. Ick.

  23. In new PPP poll, Stephen Colbert gets more love from South Carolina than Jon Huntsman.

    Soon enough, a video will mysteriously appear from a supposedly pro-Colbert camp showing Hunstman buying a Hyundai or something…

  24. For those who missed it, Microaggression Tumblr. Featuring gems such as:

    In a teacher professional development session, the facilitator says, “Think about the process you went through to learn how to drive.” After talking for a few minutes, she finally asks, “everyone knows how to drive, right?” I meekly raise my hand and say I never learned. People chuckle in the room and even say “Aww”. I know what’s coming: “Well, think about the time you learned how to ride a bike.” “I never did that either,” I say. I come from a low-income area of NYC where people don’t drive and where most of my friends and I have no space or money to buy/store a bike. In a room of 70 people, I felt so embarrassed and alone. I am 22, Chicago, June. Made me feel like my experience was invalid

    1. “What’s up with all these girls dressing like streetwalkers lately? If women don’t want to be known as sex objects they shouldn’t dress like one.”
      Quote – Permalink
      One of my facebook friends on their status and in their comment on the status. I am a woman who has had sex for money.

      uh…

      …uhhh…

      *walks away*

      1. I like that one because it makes so little sense. Is she objecting to the use of the term “streetwalker”? Her Facebook friend’s tenuous grasp of the English language? Just havin’ a generic sad about being a whore?

        1. Maybe she was offended by how slutty girls are nowadays compared to her own professional cohort.

          1. I think she was saying that, since she is a whore, there should be no stigma against whorishness.

            1. Even if they totally legalized whoring, I’m thinking it’s going to carry a stigma. Until Alliance times, anyhow.

              1. Companions are more than just whores!

                1. They took the perfectly good term “companion” and made it all dirty!

            2. That’s what I thought at first too but it could also be that old feminist chestnut that just because you dress slutty or even actually are a prostitute that doesn’t mean men should be allowed to look at you like a sex object. Or, at all. Avert your eyes, gentlemen!

              1. You know, when all of that augmented reality stuff is in place, whores and the whorish should identify as such. Maybe with a purple glow?

                1. OK, you’ve been playing Shadowrun again, haven’t you…

              2. you dress slutty or even actually are a prostitute that doesn’t mean men should be allowed to look at you like a sex object.

                Like an iPod shouldn’t be listened to for its music.

                1. Yes, that’s wrong, too, as you are subjugating the AI to your unhealthy desires.

                2. to paraphrase dave chappelle “you may not be a whore, ma’am, but you are wearing the uniform of a whore”

        2. Hey! Whores got rights, too! They should be one of those protected classes. Whorin’s an ancient, reputable profession. Don’t hear much about whores not comin’ through on their end of the deal, do ya?

        3. She’s upset because she can’t get men to pay anymore. Too many hussies giving it away for free.

          1. Real whores belong to the whore union! These women are SCABS!

          2. Sluts are like the Walmart of whoring.

      2. Honestly, men look at everything as a sex object. “Will this get me off or help me get laid” is pretty much the first criterion applied to everything we look at.

    2. “Well, think of a time you first posted your angst on a blog. Alright, that should have covered everyone.”

    3. Clearly that kind of blatant assault should be illegal, so I suggest you send that to Al Franken immediately.

    4. I was talking about how biased the SAT is for low income students who can’t afford SAT prep. A friend (who goes to a prestigious university) said, “Well, those kids probably can’t afford these great schools anyway.” I couldn’t afford SAT prep and go to an expensive, private university on scholarships, grants and federal aid.

      You realize that by going to school on the largesse of others, you are proving your friends point that you “can’t afford” to go to your current school, right?

    5. Seriously, move over Jezebel, Feministing, et. al. we have a new stupid in town:

      Every single time I am standing in a line, people use the space in front of me, no matter how small, to cut through. I am a female and short in stature. If it only happened sometimes, I’d shrug it off as coincidence. But as it is, it makes me feel invisible, like my presence doesn’t count.

      1. Oh. My. God. How can it be worse than this?

        What I don’t get is, if this is microaggression, what the fuck is what the government routinely does that we complain about, but is somehow okay?

        1. Microaggression is “every imagined slight against me no matter how tiny”.

          It’s like hypochondria for the ego.

    6. Oh, shit, we got a Godwin:

      We’re discussing the benefits of the Scandinavian-style welfare state. A liberal friend says, “Well, it’s a lot easier for them because their society is a lot more homogenous. You know, no racial tensions and what not.” Because if I’m not Aryan I’m just a source of “tension” standing in the way of progress.

    7. I have an older sister, who likes to work out at the gym everyday. On the other side, I usually go no more than twice a week. However, my parents insist on me doing tasks such as carrying heavy bags or furniture when we move.

      The worst thing is that my sister also sees it as something natural: men must do the hard job. I’m a 18 year old man, and she’s a 21 year old woman. Made me sad and confused. Why do genitals need to determine our roles?

      Que?

      1. Poor emo kid. Go cry it off or cut yourself.

    8. Also, plan: Troll this site’s comments from a public library. When they get tired of you and ban the IP, hop on another computer with a different IP and talk about how not being able to submit your microaggresion from a public place is classist and othering to you.

      1. Dude, knowing that that site exists is othering to me.

      2. All the library computers will almost assuredly have one static outgoing address for the router. The internal IPs of the individual computers are just that: internal.

  25. When Stewart attempted to point to documents from an environmental group that seemed to indicate the Sacketts had early warning that their land might be subject to regulation and could have negotiated before the EPA’s compliance order, Roberts said sternly: “If they weren’t in the record, I don’t want to hear about them.”

    That sounds like attempted extortion by the environmental group.

    And what’s with Stewart bringing in evidence not in the record? Is new evidence typically subject to cross examination at the Supreme Court?

    1. And, of course, whether they had advance warning of a possible order, and whether they chose to negotiate with the EPA, is all irrelevant to the question of whether EPA orders are subject to court review.

  26. Animated Tebow Highlights
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f…..F1VoJwFf4#!

    1. So wrong and so funny.

  27. Hornets vs. Bees
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f…..HEkjBDWKs#!

  28. Court: Okla. Ban on Islamic Law Unconstitutional

    The amendment read, in part: “The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.”

    The amendment was approved by 70% of Oklahoma voters. On the one hand, obviously, they voted for it because they hate brown people, but on the other, is there actually anything wrong with this? Shouldn’t U.S. legal considerations be based solely on U.S. law? In fact, isn’t this amendment actually redundant?

    1. Here’s the decision –

      http://courtlistener.com/ca10/4btT/awad-v-ziriax/

      Strictly, the court said that the plaintiff made a “strong showing” that he was likely to succeed in showing the amendment to be in violation of the Establishment Clause. In practice, it’s probably all over but the shouting unless they go to the Supremes. But in theory the court didn’t say the plaintiff *would* succeed, just that he had a really good chance of succeeding.

    2. Singling out Sharia is probably the problem. If they had just said that courts could only base decisions on the laws and constitution of the US and the state the case occurs in, treaties, and the common law, then it probably would have been OK. Though ianal as always.

  29. OWS continues to act retarded:

    http://www.racialicious.com/20…..ers-to-me/

  30. I love Banjos.

    1. Banjos madly loves you.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.