A.M. Links: "White Gun" Is the Other "Fast and Furious," Romney Defends Bain Record in New Ad, Pentagon Outraged Over Desecrated Taliban Corpses

|

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: "Who's Lethal? Police or Tasers"

NEXT: Obama Belly-Flops Into Political Silly Season with Bold Plan For "leaner, smarter and more consumer-friendly" Govt

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. Stephen Colbert will be running for president.

    So President Obama is going to have a primary challenger after all?

    1. colbert’s polling at ~5%…and it aint dems

      1. I’ll kick his ass.

      2. Of course it is not Dems. They will vote for Obama no matter how foolish he makes them look.

        1. They don’t need him to look foolish.

    2. You know, that’s an asshole move. This isn’t some everything’s groovy election.

      1. It’s just in SC.

        1. I know. Still a jerk move.

      2. On the other hand, we can finally end Huntsman if he loses to a joke candidate.

        1. Do you think Ending Huntsman = Automatic Paul nomination?

          I may have some real estate that you might be interested in.

        2. He’s holding out until the promos for Snow White and the Huntsman really get going.

      3. It’s funny. Chill out. There’s no such thing as an election that matters too much to be made fun of.

    3. He’s not actually running so much as “running, ha ha.” The filing deadline has passed in SC and write-ins aren’t allowed for president.

      1. Oh, okay, it’s not a jerk move then. I don’t think it’s particularly funny, either, but that’s a different matter.

        1. Please tell me there is someone else out there that doesn’t find Colbert even remotely funny.

          1. Here. Same for Stewart.

            1. Col-Bert not coh bear, yer not from France as-swe-pay…

  2. Olivia Munn is still hot!

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

    1. Maybe, but she’s shilling for PETA. Blech.

        1. hey guys, what’s up?

    2. See, judging from that picture, I believe that I would “do” her.

    3. In other news, rabbit is still delicious.

    4. Sarah’s prettier.

  3. Chubby chaser special.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..alist.html

    1. once they drop a pup, the assplosion will be enormous

    2. The only chubby one in there is that first girl. IMO she shouldn’t model two piece lingerie, but she looks pretty good in the thing with the stockings. I think they all look pretty sexy.

      1. the thing with the stockings

        My cue to shill

        First page should be totally SFW but I think Pip is still selling apples in the snow and crashing at the mission.

        1. It’s all good, SIV, I didn’t get the boot.

    3. Some of those women are hot but they chose to focus on the fattest ugliest one. Why?

      1. That’s how you fight the manocentric manocracy.

        1. I preffer to think of it as a tyrandry.

          1. Moar coffee, fewer random f’s.

      2. Psychology. Because it makes the smaller, prettier customers feel good about themselves. “Damn, if it can make that ugly cow look good, think what it will do for me.”

    4. Yeah, I’m not seeing any deal breakers there, except for the one with all the tats. Ugh.

      One redhead, please.

      1. They are not super models. But I think anyone who claims they would kick them out of bed is either lying or gay.

        1. John, I have different standards for “willing to stick my dick into” and “enjoy looking at a picture of”. You should too.

          1. I suppose they could have annoying personalities or a social disease. But you really can’t tell that from a picture. If she is attractive and you like her, why wouldn’t you sleep with her?

            You people have some weird ideas about sex. It is like you are some sort of monk only allowed to screw other members of the caste or something.

            1. I’m not in my 20s anymore.

            2. Actually, my point was the reverse. My standards for consequence-free sex are lower than my standards for looking at.

              1. Ok. Meh I will look at them all. No harm in looking.

            3. This actually causes me to wonder something. Serious question: If a person you want to sleep with has a morally repugnant stance (such as shilling for PETA), would you still do him/ her? (I would not, personally, because I wouldn’t be able to overlook the moral repugnance regardless of how hot they were.)

              1. Yes. And then I would donkey punch her at the end.

              2. Two words Advocate; “Grudge Fuck”

                1. Hmm. OK, I can see that, although I don’t necessarily think everyone I have a grudge with is morally repugnant.

              3. Are you seriously asking men this question? I dont know of a man alive who wouldn’t bang a hot neo-nazi (that includes men of color).

                1. I am seriously asking, hence my use of the phrase “serious question.” I am not a man, and it’s a bit of interesting psychological data point to me, is all. I realize that no one speaks for the group. As I said, from my own perspective, I wouldn’t be able to get over it.

                  1. Oh, yeah. No problem with it at all. But I get you. Had a FWB go south because, literally, I gave her dog a dirty look when he came sniffing around my plate of food. Treating fur-babies like pets (there’s a reason I have a cat) has ended about 3 relationships for me.

                  2. I just figured it was common knowledge and you were trying to make a point.

                    Do you now understand why we laugh at the feminists and their “impossible standards” women are held to?

    5. Ewww. That’s a lot of meat.

      Seriously, though, those English women all have exactly the same beak. I could have made the “Limey” call on that if that picture had come from any newspaper in the world.

      I, for one, am proud to live in a nation not run by inbreds where all women’s noses are identical.

      And the woman I’m in love with, which you all know, has the cutest most-perfect nose in the world.

      1. Jesus, you’re right! Can’t imagine why no one else noticed that.

      2. You kids don’t even know what love is.

        1. Damn, Tulpa. Why the hate?

          1. I was making a joke because you’re older than me.

            And Banjos? I have no idea what she’s like in person, and didn’t know she was a she until a few days ago, but I don’t think I could get over the name.

      3. Pics or it’s bullshit.

        1. I don’t understand why nobody believes either one of us. Are you people so cynical that you can’t believe for a second that Banjos and I met and fell in love with each other?

          1. What did ya’ll do with Mr. “I’d rather watch Captain America then have sex”?

            1. I broke up with him shortly prior.

          2. Are you people so cynical that you can’t believe for a second that Banjos and I met and fell in love with each other?

            I’m shocked you even have to ask that question.

            1. It doesn’t really matter how you finish that question, does it? If it starts off ‘Are you people so cynical…’, the answer is yes.

          3. The Bowl Pick ‘Em was an inside job!!!!!

            1. Nah, my brother actually won that. I signed up as a joke (having my brother make the picks) and wound up winning the love of my life. Best. Fucking. Joke. Ever.

              1. That’s what I thought when I got a part in a grade school production of the Lion King. I was wrong.

      4. I was at a wedding a couple years ago where almost all the attendees were Brits. My friend told me I’d “do really well” in the UK after looking at the female guests. Mean, but true, with a couple of exceptions.

        1. I have it on good authority that every single englishman is terrible in bed.

    6. The worst part about her is her tattoo.

  4. “ATF had a second gun-smuggling operation, called White Gun, and ‘apparently guns got away again.'”

    That’s racist, yo.

    1. It was a small weapons operation?

      1. Wait till Operation Yellow Derringer comes to light.

    2. guns got away again

      You know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.

  5. “The Senate could remove the basis for the president’s exercise of his recess appointment authority by remaining continuously in session and being available to receive and act on nominations, but it cannot do so by providing for pro forma sessions at which no business is to be conducted,” says a memo from DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel.
    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com…..pointments

    1. The Congress gets to set its own rules. Unless the House approved the Senate’s recess, it was not in recess.

      1. Actually, the Constitution says each house sets its own separate rules. The House can’t tell the Senate that filibusters are not allowed, for instance.

        1. IIRC, Tulpa, the Senate’s rules state that the House must approve their recess.

          1. Rally? That’s weird.

            1. Yep. They did it a while back when the control of the houses was split. It had something to do with making the House stay in session as long as they were to keep them from vacation.

              I’ll look for a link.

    2. Do these idiots really want to open this Pandora’s Box?

      1. Yes. Yes they do, because they know that Pandora is totally unwilling to actually punish them.

        If the Republicans held a majority in both houses the White House would probably be less willing to taunt them on something they could easily, and handily, destroy the WH on. But as long as Harry Reid is in charge 1/3 of our government is going to remain unwilling to defend their power against another branch held by the same team.

        1. umm…I am not sure what you meant but I agree wholeheartedly.

    3. Oh office of legal counsel said it so it must be true. I guess you are a big fan the Yoo torture memos aren’t you? Jesus dumb ass, you really think the rest of us are as stupid as you are don’t you?

      1. yea pretty much if you take radio memes as something resembling facts.

        1. Office of Legal Counsel tells the President what he wants to hear. Who would have saw such a thing coming? Take it elsewhere.

          1. u mean like enhanced interrogation was prosecuted? same office…

            1. God you are stupid. Just because your side’s hacks tells you what you want to hear, doesn’t make them less hacks.

    4. That’s a completely bullshit opinion. Pro forma has been accepted for other Senate business, so it’s pretty much impossible for the White House to object now. Whether the Senate is in session is determined by the Senate.

      1. There have been a number of rather enlightening instances in the past 24 hours of confirmation by unusual sources of the fact that the House and Senate are indeed in recess. In the very press release put out by a Republican congresswoman arguing against the recess appointment, she acknowledged that the Senate was in recess. I believe on the House Majority Leader’s website today it said the House was not in recess — I mean, not in session.

        So look, anybody who doubts this, any American who doubts that this is a recess appointment, should, through you, take a look at what’s happening on Capitol Hill and argue to — and have Congress argue that they’re in session, they’re doing their jobs on Capitol Hill, when in fact they’re not even around.

    5. Did anyone else notice that Obama’s Solicitor General previously argued in the SCOTUS that the Senate had to be in recess for at least three days for it to be considered a “recess” such that the president legitimately had the power to make recess appointments?

      So this most recent power grab violates his own legal counsel’s publicly-argued opinion presented to the SCOTUS.

      But what else would one expect from this administration except disingenuous and cynical arrogation of more power?

  6. Now members of Congress who have spent months scrutinizing the Fast and Furious debacle are seeking to determine whether White Gun was another weapons investigation gone wrong.

    Again with the homoerotic operational monikers. Just wait until the somewhat larger Operation Black Cannon makes headlines.

  7. Now we know how to intimidate elected officials.

    “It’s okay to say that “our law supersedes your law,” but it’s not OK to intimidate me, and it’s not OK to tell me that if I don’t do it ? I am going to be taken out of office,’ Bower said. ‘That’s real intimidation [emphasis mine] from the National Rifle Association, without a gun. Look what they can do without a gun.'”

    Fuck you, bitch. Follow the law.

    1. Microagression!!

    2. imagine what they could to WITH a gun…

    3. Voting against incumbents == violence

      1. Actually, the Legislature told sub-jurisdictions last year that it planned on enforcing the law it passed in 1987 — the state is the only authority for gun control regulation in FL — with penalties that could include fines of city officials (not cities) and their removal from office. Notice that the mayor is butthurt about part B. I say we Constitutionalize this. “Any legislator voting in favor of an unconstitutional statute shall be barred from holding Federal office immediately and in perpetuity.”

        1. Censor Pro Libertate, clean up in aisle FL

          1. Fetch me my Staff of Removing.

            1. Your staff sir.

              1. And don me with my Robe of Indignant Retribution!

                1. How ’bout I just hand it to you.

                  1. Okay. I’ll anoint myself with the Oil of Righteous Rage.

  8. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ory_1.html

    On Thursday, the Fed released transcripts of its meetings in 2006, offering a new window into what was on the minds of some of the nation’s top economic and financial thinkers just ahead of the financial crisis and subsequent great recession. The transcripts, which are customarily released after five years, show that Fed leaders, armed with the best economic data available, had little idea of what was looming less than two years off.

    Top Men

    1. its tough to predict malfeasence & misrepresentation

      1. It is not tough to predict that supply and demand also applies to the housing market and that housing prices can’t go up forever or that the government forcing banks to loan money to people who couldn’t pay it back and then guaranteeing those loans was going to end badly.

        1. course the AIG & CUNA suits vs BoA & JP Morgan cite malfeasence & misrepresentation as proximate causes.

          >no federal reg or agency mandated malfeasence or misrepresentation

          1. The AIG and CUNA suits could have told you BoA & JP Morgan started the goddamn Chicago fire, but that don’t necessarily make it fucking so!

            1. evidently the law firms feel they have the proof of the proximate cause

              1. Yeah, or they figure they can foment so much public opinion against those banks that they can strongarm a large settlement out of them.

                If they felt they had proof or the proximate cause, as you say, they would try the case in a courtroom as opposed to the court of public opinion.

                1. interesting that libtoidz will defend misrepresentation to shareholders, investors, reinsurers, plus regulatory & rating agencies.

                  1. I’m not defending them. I’m saying I don’t know that they did willfully misrepresent themselves. I sure know Congress and the WH does on a regular basis. Is there a court I can take them to?

          2. When those private companies do bad things, they should 1) be allowed to fail and not bailed out, and 2) their customers can abandon them in droves. We cannot escape the government who also do horribly stupid or terrible things. We just end up paying more for it and getting fucked over every step of the way. I’d much rather “fire” a company that provides services to me when they suck ass.

          3. which of course haz fuckall to do with fannie and freddie and cra but fuck it i luv being an idiot

            1. Are you the new MNG?

              1. How dare you compare my unparalleled brilliance to this nincompoop’s drivel!

            2. poar spoof failz. >it tries moar harder

          4. Of course, the SEC is now suing Fannie Mae.

      2. Except a bunch of people did predict it, including Peter Schiff on national television, with other ‘experts” openly laughing at him. John Paulson is now a billionaire several times over because he saw it coming, as did several people profiled in The Big Short.

        1. Ron Paul called it, too. On the House floor, no less. I think it was in 2002…

          1. Friedrich Hayek beat them all, bitchez!

      3. its tough to predict malfeasence & misrepresentation

        Not really – just look for the little (D) after the person’s name.

    2. Funny how laypeople without all their fancy data could see the problem coming even sooner.

    3. This information should lay to rest for all time the argument that “more regulation” could have prevented the housing bubble and financial crash.

      In order for that to happen, you would need an omniscient regulator who would look at the data and choose the right action. As we can see here, in 2006 that regulator would not and almost certainly could not have existed.

      The problem is that while the bubble is happening it looks like economic health. Businesses are profiting, people are employed, bank default rates are low, securitizations are all performing. There is no way a democracy produces a regulator who looks at that data set and says, “Let’s stop this NOW!” It won’t happen. And it didn’t happen. The guys who could have tapped the brakes didn’t, because as an epistemological matter they couldn’t.

      1. More market would’ve been nice.

      2. There is no way a democracy produces a regulator who looks at that data set and says, “Let’s stop this NOW!”

        Uh, isn’t that the whole reason for having a Federal Reserve insulated from the democratic process?

        1. That kind of proves the point. Even insulated they couldnt figure it out.

        2. And the Fed’s recent “white paper” or whatever they called it on how to fix housing — shocker, they want to spend a fuckload of money — gives lie to any notion that they’re apolitical.

        3. Also, imagine they did see it coming and, in an effort to head off the crash, said we’re going to start jacking up interest rates. Bernanke would’ve been hauled before Congress within days with banking committee members of both parties raking him over the coals for being the party-pooper who was trying to put an end to this awesome explosion of “wealth.” Then they’d bring in a parade of ordinary people who would say “if rates go up I won’t be able to afford my ARM payment” and “subprime lending is so wonderful, it allowed me to finally buy a home.” tear-jerking, American pie shit. And that would be the end of any effort to have fixed the problem. Politically, it is way easier to let the bubble burst and the blame the bankers for everything. And that is exactly what we did.

          1. Paul Volcker did roughly exactly what you’re saying back in 1981, and yes there was a congressional attempt to override him, but it failed because they couldn’t override Reagan’s veto. Would Bush have stood up for Bernanke/Greenspan? Possibly.

            1. Exactly? He was trying to tame double-digit inflation, not stop an asset bubble that was producing the illusion of a robest economy.

            2. Roughly exactly?
              how fucking stupid are you

        4. The Federal Reserve is not insulated from the major banks in any way and the major banks are most definitely part of the political process.

          Besides which, the Fed committee members are political appointees.

  9. Romney rolls out ad in South Carolina defending his private sector record.

    No mention in the NYTimes blog post that Ron Paul defended Romney against his party’s anti free market attacks.

    1. But he isn’t srs bsnss like Huntsman and Santorum and Perry.

    2. I find this line of attack totally insane. What’s the difference between the parties again?

      1. It makes perfect sense when this isn’t about ideas, this is about Team Huntsman and Team Gingrich vs. Team Romney.

        1. The strategic problem with this is making a big deal out of it, then having it thrown back at you in the general (whether it’s Romney or one of his critics). It won’t hurt Romney, as there doesn’t appear to be any real ethical lapses or other problematic issues at hand, but it does potentially hurt the party. It’s hard to view this as anything more than “Capitalism bad.”

          1. Including the likes of Santorum, Gingrich, and Huntsman is bad for the party in itself.

            1. Well, to be fair, anyone who meets the bare qualifications can run. Still interesting who didn’t run this time.

  10. Apparently this is a direct transcript of the conversation that took place in the Suderman household when Megan found out that Peter pirated Skyrim.

  11. **I** called the housing crisis in 2004.

    I was late to the party, as Dr Paul was on the issue well before that.

    How the fuck could the Fed not see it well before 2006?

    1. Because they were narrow minded and dogmatic.

      1. Actually, isnt that how Paul saw it coming? Well, the dogmatic part anyway.

        1. Sometimes you get lucky and your dogma turns out to be correct. Paul is pretty narrow minded and dogmatic too. But this time at least his dogma was on the right side of things.

          1. Seems to happen a very large percentage of the time.

            Is it narrow-minded when you are almost always right?

            1. He was wrong in the 1990s. Paul has been predicting hyper inflation since the dawn of time. It is not as simple as either side makes it out to be.

              1. Its coming.

                Well, either high inflation OR 20+ years of blech growth. Those are the only two options. Predicting the first doesnt seem wrong to me. its the better solution.

                1. Well, either high inflation OR 20+ years of blech growth. Those are the only two options.

                  I’m going with the latter. We’re the new Japan.

                  1. Agree. Stagflation here we come. 15 years from now people will talk with nostalgia about the 1990s when Americans could still afford things.

                2. It all depends on how bad the rest of the global economy sucks.

              2. His timing may have been a decade or two off, but he wasn’t wrong.

                1. I could predict an asteroid hitting the earth every day. Eventually I would be right if I just kept predicting long enough.

                  1. That’s as ridiculous as saying if you play the same lottery numbers every day you’ll win eventually.

                  2. But can you tell me the exact trajectory and size of said asteroid?

                    Paul’s been on hyperinflation for a couple of decades, and though his timing is off, he’s hit the nail on the head as to why and how.

                  3. Sure, but being 10 years off and being 10,000 years off is a significant difference.

                  4. Shoot, as long as you don’t define the size of the asteroid you’d probably be right within a month.

    2. Took the words from my mouth (says this unsophisticated non-economist who sold his house in Sep’06 because he was scared shitless about what he had been seeing in the housing market for the last year or so…).

      1. I won’t say I called it but in my gut I knew something was terribly amiss. It was easy to see that many houses were being bought by people for outrageous sums that they could not possibly afford with a conventional mortgage. Just how rotten the process had become nationwide, I did not know. But I steadfastly refused to buy a new house even though we had clearly outgrown our 2 bedroom “starter” house purchase in 2000. I finally pulled the trigger in late 2010, and even then, very reluctantly.

        1. Congrats on your prudence. Wish I could tell you that I think the housing decline is over (as if you might care) but I can’t cuz it is far from that. I’ve been renting since I sold – and, I’m sure, will be for some years yet.

          1. I don’t think the decline is over. But we needed a larger house and I view a home as a place to live, not an investment, so it was time. My goal was to avoid the worst of the losses, and I hope (but don’t know) that I’ve done that. Had I purchased in 2007 I would almost certainly be underwater today.

            1. I purchased in 2007. Fortunately most of the Louisville deflation had occurred by then (advantage to living in flyover country). Having 49% down helped too.

              zillow.com zestimates my house at 1k less than I paid for it in 2007 (The zestimate went up after my neighbors house sold last year). I didnt buy at the bottom, but close enough, as I wasnt buying for an investment either.

              1. Right, picking the absolute bottom is almost impossible other than through sheer dumb luck. All you can do is try to get close or to let the major depreciation evaporate off. I’m in Atlanta and prices were still quite frothy in 2007, though not quite like Vegas and Florida.

        2. You were prudent and thrifty?

          Sucker.

          1. And it continues to this day, as my savings account yields virtually nothing. Yet another massive hidden tax on savers to bail out the fucking morons who took out interest-only or ARM mortgages on $750k homes, run 5 digit credit card balanes, lease BMWs for half of their fucking take-home pay, etc.

        3. I saw an article based on 2004 numbers (it may have been as late as Feb of 2005) from some economist who had a formula for showing what the “real” price on housing should be, broken down by cities (The formula included a number of things like population density and averge income, so certain cities were expected to be higher). Louisville was a 101, meaning it was 1% inflated in 2004. Most of California was over 200. And the other problem areas (AZ, NV, FL) were high too, but not CA high.

          Now, while I predicted the crash at the time, I didnt predict how it would go. I expected more of a flattening or slight decline until reality caught up, as that was what happened in CA in the 80s. So, I did misjudge the scale of the problem.

        4. I just bought a house for a little less than 190k.

          In 2006 some genius bought it for 400k.

          1. So its probably worth, what, 170-180?

            1. Not unless everyone around it is way overpaying, which is definitely a possibility.

              For various reasons a slight premium was justified, but the next step is convincing the county their assessment is overeager.

              (100% of 1996 market value is a very strange way to do assessments.)

              1. I was just kidding, as we probably arent at bottom.

                I paid 184k for my place, Im not sure I could get more than 175k for it today, although if my neighbors got what I think they got, I could get mid 180s.

          2. Also, they apparently didn’t have the money when taking this brilliant step to replace the appliances which are clearly as old as the house (1972 or so).

            Yes, it was a foreclosure.

            1. They didnt get new appliances worked into the mortgage? They did it wrong.

          3. I bought a house in Reno, NV in March 2010 for $300K. Same house sold for 530K in 2004, I think, and Zillow valued it at $750K in 2006. It was absolutely insane.

      2. I was lucky enough to sell my ‘starter’ house just as the bubble was about to burst. I made a nice 25k profit. They last time I checked zillow, my old home was valued for about 15k less than my selling price.

        Of course I made the mistake of buying another house at the same time – even though my gut was telling me to rent instead. Thanks to some lucky circumstances, I’m not really underwater – my house has probably lost only 5-10k worth of value. Thanks to the location and reasonable price, I can (hopefully) sell w/o too much of a loss.

    3. I thought the bubble was going to burst quite a while before it did, but even being in the lending industry at the time, I didn’t foresee that the house of cards would collapse as dramatically as it did.

      1. Me too; the scope of it shocked me.

    4. I was late to the party, as Dr Paul was on the issue well before that.

      I love Ron Paul, but seriously? If you say there’s going to be an economic crisis continuously for 40 years, eventually you’re probably going to be right. And we haven’t seen the hyperinflation that was the biggest prediction Paul has been pushing forever.

      1. His housing prediction was almost exactly accurate, in the reason and process under which it would take place.

        I commented on the inflation thing already.

      2. Re: Tulpa,

        I love Ron Paul, but seriously? If you say there’s going to be an economic crisis continuously for 40 years

        He called the bubble when it started, in 2000, as assets previously invested in the stock market went to housing after the dot.com bubble bursted. He was right on the money on that one.

  12. ATF had a second gun-smuggling operation, called White Gun

    Need I say?

  13. Celebs in the can for O’Bummer

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

  14. Tea Party founder, arrested for trying to check gun legally at LGA, almost gets it.

    “Strangely, now that the case against me is over, the authorities refuse to return my firearm. There is no law that allows them to confiscate a weapon in this manner. They simply say “no” when you ask for your weapon back. This is apparently their “policy.” It is done regularly in New York. This is government robbery. Not only is New York City anti-Second Amendment rights, but they are depriving citizens of their legally owned property. My lawyer has advised me that I can attempt to pursue the return of my firearm, but that to do so would cost me more than the firearm is worth. I am not alone in facing this tyranny. It has happened to hundreds of people in the New York metro area. My lawyer, Brian Stapleton, has handled over 400 of these cases himself, so he is an expert on the subject.

    (Note: Every law enforcement officer I dealt with through the process was polite and professional. They are not to blame for NYC’s unconstitutional or tyrannical behavior. From my experience, they seem to be good people, just doing a difficult job.)”

    1. That sounds like a great class action civil rights law suit to me.

    2. (Note: Every law enforcement officer I dealt with through the process was polite and professional. They are not to blame for NYC’s unconstitutional or tyrannical behavior. From my experience, they seem to be good people, just doing a difficult job.)

      The law is unjust, but the brave men in blue who are just following their orders are peachy fucking keen. That they are eager and willing to facilitate theft on the part of the state should say nothing of their character!

      1. The law is unjust, but the brave men in blue who are just following their orders are peachy fucking keen. That they are eager and willing to facilitate theft on the part of the state should say nothing of their character!

        Do you have an alternative?

        Would you propose to allow each cop to enforce only the rules he personally believes to be just? What would the end state of that be?

        1. Fewer cops? Fewer laws?

          1. Absolutely no problem with that. I don’t care for cops and want fewer of them, but I don’t want the ones I’m forced to live with making it up as they go.

    3. This guy pisses me off; “you can’t arrest me; I’m cop not little people!”

      Of course NY isn’t going to return his gun! From their perspective, he was unlawfully in possession of it – they just declined to prosecute him for it.

      Someone should offer him some cheese to go with his whine.

      1. Sure, fuck the second amendment, and the fifth amendment too – fuck him for wanting his property back.

        1. Nope, fuck him for mischaracterizing what happened to him.

          The New York laws are vile and unjust. He broke them, and I salute him for it.

          Notice, though, he’s whining because he thinks the law shouldn’t apply to him because he’s one of the “good guys”, from a family in law enforcement.

          He’s bitching because he’s being treated as little people instead of cop, not bitching at what little people go through.

    4. It was not legal for him to check the gun. You are only allowed to check a gun at an airport if it was legal for you to possess it in the jurisdiction. His protestations about having a California carry permit are irrelevant in NYC; I’m not even sure why he’s bothering with them.

      1. Re: Tulpa,

        His protestations about having a California carry permit are irrelevant in NYC; I’m not even sure why he’s bothering with them.

        Makes for a great “incorporation doctrine” lawsuit, as there are not only clear 2nd Amendment violations but also 4th Amendment and 14th Amendment. NYC is screwed if the IJ decides to follow up.

        1. He would be laughed out of court, even if I were the judge.

          Heller’s case worked because he attempted to get a permit but was denied. This guy didn’t even make an attempt.

      2. If the “offense” is so little that it can be remediated with a civil fine, then they have no reason to keep his gun any more than they would have reason to seize your car for a traffic ticket.

        1. They do that a lot in NYC too (maybe not for single minor infractions, but still). While it is more likely you’ll get your car back from impound they’ll still jerk you around because they seem to think that’s the primary role of government – jerk people around and generally make their lives suck shit.

      3. If the gun was unloaded and in a locked container and he was coming to the airport directly from a jurisdiction where it was legal for him to possess it, he was legal per the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act.

        1. FOPA only applies to self-transportation, not traveling on commercial aircraft.

          Finally, the United States Department of Justice has issued a written opinion that federal law protects airline travelers with firearms, assuming: (1) the person is traveling from somewhere he or she may lawfully possess and carry a firearm; (2) en route to the airport the firearm is unloaded and inaccessible from the passenger compartment of the person`s vehicle; (3) the person transports the firearm directly from his vehicle to the airline check-in desk without any interruption in the transportation, and (4) the firearm is carried to the check-in desk unloaded and in a locked container.

          There have been issues with NYC authorities interfering with firearms in checked baggage when people are just passing through on a layover, which is a different matter. But here he was clearly in the wrong.

  15. Tea Party founder, arrested for trying to check gun legally at LGA, almost gets it.

    “Strangely, now that the case against me is over, the authorities refuse to return my firearm. There is no law that allows them to confiscate a weapon in this manner. They simply say “no” when you ask for your weapon back. This is apparently their “policy.” It is done regularly in New York. This is government robbery. Not only is New York City anti-Second Amendment rights, but they are depriving citizens of their legally owned property. My lawyer has advised me that I can attempt to pursue the return of my firearm, but that to do so would cost me more than the firearm is worth. I am not alone in facing this tyranny. It has happened to hundreds of people in the New York metro area. My lawyer, Brian Stapleton, has handled over 400 of these cases himself, so he is an expert on the subject.

    (Note: Every law enforcement officer I dealt with through the process was polite and professional. They are not to blame for NYC’s unconstitutional or tyrannical behavior. From my experience, they seem to be good people, just doing a difficult job.)”

    1. Fuck you, squirrels. I’m sending my cat through the Internets to deal with you. He’ll eat your fucking brains like a zombie.

    2. Tea Party Founder?

      Ron Paul was arrested?

      1. Sorry, I should have said “a founder of the formal Tea Party apparatus”.

        1. There is no formal Tea Party apparatus.

          1. Look, I’m not lionizing the guy for it, just reporting that he was a founding member of a non-profit that believes itself to be promoting the Tea Party values. Drink some of the beer BP owes you and relax.

            1. I just want people to accredit the Tea Party to the right source. And to discredit the people who claim otherwise.

              If you had worded it like the 9:38 post, I wouldnt have had a problem.

              And it isnt really a big deal to me, just having fun while waiting on my beer.

              1. We could always turn this into a 40 reply post a la John and MNG over one little quibble…

                1. But I don’t really want to get out my garbage bag to protect me Gallagher style from their man juices flying everywhere during their daily hate fuck.

                  1. mental image burns

    3. What he was doing is not legal. He didn’t have an NYC pistol permit; to check a gun at the airport it must be legal for you to possess it in the jurisdiction you’re flying from.

  16. Rudy Giuliani defends…Newt Gingrich against…Mitt Romney?

    Angling for the number two spot on the Compassionate Totalitarianism ticket?

    1. He couldn’t keep his ego in check long enough to be VP. He’d go off the reservation faster and crazier than Joe Biden. It almost makes me wish that Presidencies don’t matter and Newt wouldn’t be a horrible one.

  17. says a memo from DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel.

    Well, that’s the end of that, then.

    1. yep pretty much…like w enhanced interrogation

      1. You really want to go with that?

        1. kinda not, just reminding the wingnutz that bread can be buttered on 2 sides

          1. Yeah, because so many people here supported the Bush administration’s torture policy.

      2. You still don’t get how things work around here, do you.

        1. Urine still doesn’t know how to wipe his ass.

  18. 2006 transcripts of Federal Reserve meetings reveal nobody saw housing crisis coming.

    Also here, wherein those at the Fed are revealed as frauds AND idiots.

    I really believe that the drop in housing is actually on net going to make liquidity available for other sectors rather than being a drain going forward, and that will also get the growth rate more positive [. . .]

    They were clueless as to how intertwined the housing and overall markets are, and some actually thought that a decline in the housing market, or even its outright collapse, would be good for the overall economy.

    And I’m supposed to believe that if we were to End the Fed that it would 1) be insane, and 2) kill the economy because only they are the only arbiters of knowledge capable of steering the ship?

    We cannot elect Ron Paul soon enough.

    1. some actually thought that a decline in the housing market, or even its outright collapse, would be good for the overall economy.

      I believe that. Shumpeter and all that. Of course, the key to it being good for the economy is to let things fail. Bailing out solves nothing.

      1. Bad money has to clear before good money can be made.

      2. I believe that. Shumpeter and all that. Of course, the key to it being good for the economy is to let things fail. Bailing out solves nothing.

        Of course that theory is correct (that bad money needs to clear before good money can be made), but to think that the housing market is disconnected from the overall market and that its fall wouldn’t impact the rest negatively (in the short term) is stupidity ad infinitum. It’s all interconnected, and even the smallest sectors affect the rest when major fluctuations occur within those markets.

        And housing is no small sector, especially when the official policy for over a decade at that point was to give money to anyone who asked for it, Even without the many bailouts and artificial props after the collapse, public money was so intrinsically connected with housing before that a major domino effect was inevitable when it would inevitably crash.

        People had been calling a housing and adjacent banking crash for a decade before it actually happened. To be on the Fed and NOT see it coming is criminal negligence.

        1. (in the short term)

          Fuck the short term.

          Some people see recessions and depressions as bad for the economy. I see them as good (long term).

          1. That is all well and good when you’re writing history or concerned only with intellectual trends. Unfortunately people have to live in the short term….and they vote in the short term too.

            1. People live and vote wrong.

              I live in the medium to long term.

          2. I agree.

            But that whoosh sound you’re hearing is you missing the point.

            Whether good or bad, to not understand that a housing crash would affect the overall economy negatively in some capacity is stupidity writ large.

            And Tulpa is right. The long term is not the only term that counts.

            1. Whether good or bad, to not understand that a housing crash would affect the overall economy negatively in some capacity is stupidity writ large.

              I think the crash affected the overall economy positively.

              Honestly, the problem is using the words negatively and postively. Free markets are neutral of that kind of judgement. Some people get bitch slapped by the invisible hand, and that is really neither a good thing nor a bad thing, its just a thing.

              The housing crash caused the overall GDP to fall. The “economy” is not the GDP. It is more of a high order concept than that and is probably immeasurable.

            2. Well, it depends on whether you think money is the same thing as value. If so, then the economy was negatively affected. If not, then it was probably a good thing that much of the money that was not value-based evaporated. That’s what I mean by “bad money”. When price stops reflecting value and gets manipulated for someone’s end, that’s bad. A bubble usually means that people who are chasing money instead of value have inflated the market. Then the people who are value-based take their money out. Then people who make their living by being the first into and out of a bubble go, then the thing pops and the only people left are the suckers and the people who value the thing more than the money.

              1. people who are chasing money instead of value

                In other words, the raison d’etre for inflation.

  19. Stephen Colbert will be running for president.

    Pleeeze, would someone make this singularly unfunny dildo just go away.

    1. No fucking kidding. There’s something uniquely pathetic about making fun of people who are completely out of power for the benefit of the people in power.

      1. In his defence, he started in the bush years.

  20. This is like the worst chat room ever.

  21. Apparently Obama is just as awful a person in private as he appears to be in public.

    Devastating quote: “Look, I was excited to meet him. I wanted to like him. Let’s just say the scales fell from my eyes after I did. These are people over here who’ve been fighting the war, or working every day for the war effort, and he didn’t want to take fucking pictures with them?”

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfe…..hdad-visit

    1. I found the “Arrive Half-Naked, Leave Fully Dressed” sale article to be much more entertaining.

      http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/…..igual-sale

    2. Of course. Only a total piece of shit spends years relishing the kind of garbage that guys like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers are selling.

      I will give Obama this: he generally does an outstanding job of keeping on that mask that he wears for public consumption. He does it better than just about any other politician we’ve seen. A huge percentage of the American public still thinks this is a good guy.

  22. Gentlemen. I’m off to do a live TV spot for the first time. Pray for me.
    (Epi should just sacrifice a virgin or somthing.)

    1. “Fuck off slavers” — work it in there and you’ll never have to worry about doing TV again.

      1. If you do work it in, I will split my 10 cents with you.

    2. Try not to fart. Notch filters can only do so much.

    3. Here’s my advice: Don’t make all of those weird facial expressions that Courtney Stodden makes.

      1. I doubt Citizen Nothing is planning on appearing on TV with a pinecone in his cooch.

    4. They’re trying to turn me into a “personality.” More evidence newspapers are dying.

      1. Just remember, you don’t have to have one to be one.

      2. Ooooooo…
        What channel?

      3. Show them your H&R commentary. That’s enough to kill anyone’s career.

  23. Everyone’s favorite headline stars together at last:
    Katy Perry’s parents want to set her up with Tim Tebow.

    What could possibly go wrong with talking to a paper about trying to set up a “chance” meeting?

    1. Why not? She certainly has the assets to attract him. What an interesting pairing.

      1. Tim probably wants a virgin, like himself. And only after he freaks out the world first, hoisting the Lombardi Trophy over his head while Tebowing.

        1. Don’t you put that evil on me, Pro Libertate!

      2. Katy’s problem is that if the pics are accurate Tim’s current girlfriend is HOTTER than she is.

        She has a huge Easy advantage, but Tim is apparently not into that.

        1. Maybe Tebow will convert to Mormonism?

          1. More likely, the Mormons will convert to Tebowism.

            1. If Coltrane can have his own church, why not Tebow?

        2. Don’t kid yourself fluffy, Christian girls love to fuck. The more evangelical the easier a lot of them are.

          1. In my (limited) experience, there’s more of an initial barrier with religious girls, but once you get past that, your biggest concern is to make sure they don’t break your penis.

            1. I found the same. A little harder to get into bed but a whole lot more fun than you thought they would be once there. It is the opposite of Catholic girls who tend to be easier to get there and pretty guilt ridden and boring once there.

              1. Wow, we knew a totally different set of Catholic girls.

                1. We must. I always found Jews and Protestants to be the best in bed.

      3. I’m thinking that Timmah can get a great rack and pretty face that hasn’t been turned out by a junkie. Me, I’d have to take what I could get — and I have no shot. Him, he can go to any evangelical christian church in the country, or pretty much anywhere in FL or CO and pick one to order.

    2. Won’t work; she is surely looking for another man of substance like that skank she just divorced.

  24. its tough to predict malfeasence & misrepresentation

    People* made billions by reading the prospectuses and analyzing the market.

    *People with no vested interest (financial or political) in maintaining the bubble, that is.

  25. Are there any among the Reason commentariat? (virgins that is)

    1. I think the better question on an inbred board like this is, are any of the commentariat safe from being sacrificed.

    1. They are actually closer to that than you would think.

    2. $10 million prize? That’s chump change compared to the profits you would get from selling the damn thing.

      1. Selling it isn’t where the money is made; it

        It’s the proprietary software AMA style

  26. (Note: Every law enforcement officer I dealt with through the process was polite and professional. They are not to blame for NYC’s unconstitutional or tyrannical behavior. From my experience, they seem to be good people, just doing a difficult job.)”

    Surprise. SoCon “Tea Party Leader” kisses cops’ asses. “They’re only following orders. We must admire and obey them.”

    1. I’m impressed that he somehow thinks the law should be differently applied to him, because he’s from a family of “law enforcement” officers.

    1. It may be proof incontrovertible that there IS a God.

      1. I’m Tebowing in thanks.

    2. Even shoe company Skechers ditched Kim Kardashian as the face of the company in 2011, replacing her with a French bulldog.

      I LOL’ed. The bulldog’s cuter, I’m sure.

  27. I’m off to do a live TV spot for the first time. Pray for me.

    Talk loudly and without pause, and ignore anything anybody else says. You know; act just like Lawrence O’Donnell.

    You’ll be a hit.

  28. Is there anybody who’s stupid enough to believe that these ATF operations are “keeping us safe”?

  29. Let’s be crybabies about civil discourse again.
    Call me when Congresspeople start challenging each other to duels on the south lawn.

    1. Would it be wrong to send every congressperson a cane?

  30. Please don’t refer to the Federal Reserve Bank as independent or apolitical; it hurts when I laugh that hard.

  31. Huffpo: President Barack Obama Seeks Greater Power To Shrink The Federal Government

    President Barack Obama will ask Congress on Friday for greater power to shrink the federal government, and his first idea is merging six sprawling trade and commerce agencies whose overlapping programs can be baffling to businesses, a senior administration official told The Associated Press.

    Obama will call on Congress to give him a type of reorganizational power last held by a president when Ronald Reagan was in office. The Obama version would be a so-called consolidation authority allowing him to propose mergers that promise to save money and help consumers. The deal would entitle him to an up-or-down vote from Congress in 90 days.

    Though shrinking government is always a good idea, I don’t know that I trust Obama to do it right, even if this weren’t an obvious ploy to capture some of those independent voters that he needs for re-election.

    After all of the government growth he’s facilitated over the past 3 years, and NOW he wants to be some champion of smaller, more efficient government?

    I don’t buy it.

  32. Negotiations on Greek debt restructuring suspended.

    The odds of an eventual Greek default just went up considerably. Obama will be shitting his pants when he sees this.

    1. On the last Simpsons there was a news crawler about Europe selling Greece on Ebay.

  33. Today’s words of wisdom from David Burge’s Twitter feed ? “Those urinating Marines should have probably first applied for an NEA grant.”

  34. I almost wish I was over there and that camera was on me, instead.

    I would have poured gasoline on the corpses, set them on fire, cooked the hotdogs over the fire and then eaten the hotdogs; HOWEVER, I would have said a hebrew blessing before eating the hotdogs because I don’t want the drive by media to think I am not genteel enough for their lib/commie sensibilities (snicker).

    “There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here!”

  35. It’s not the first time the ATF has lied. Check out ANobleLie.com for the most comprehensive documentary on the OKC bombing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.