A.M. Links: Ron Paul Ties With Obama In New Poll, South Carolina Debate Audience Boos the Golden Rule, Wikipedia to Go Dark on Wednesday

|

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: "Can a White Libertarian Man Represent NY's Chinatown? Meet Dan O'Connor."

NEXT: Brian Doherty on America's First Private Spaceport

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. “statiscally”

    ?

    1. Spillchicken iz ferbitten at Raisin Macazine Hidden Ron.

      Or something like that.

    2. If they had been “sadistically tied”, that would have been interesting.

  2. Sponsor of bill for drug testing welfare recipients gets busted for DUI.

    We’re all going to be doing shots of Schadenfreude, so no driving.

    1. I think Schadenfreude has a bad aftertaste.

      1. No, it is almost as delicious as Bitter Tears.

        1. I prefer to cut my Bitter Tears with Salty Ham Tears.

            1. 5 Stars
              Would read again

        2. I prefer to cut my Bitter Tears with Salty Ham Tears.

    2. New Cocktail: The Toldjaso:

      Two shots JagerSchadenfreude (the one with the gold flakes, because libertarians, yo)

      Splash Bitter Tears

      On the rocks, natch.

      1. I’ll bring my tophat.

        1. Funny! But no monocle? Come on. What’s a tired cliche without a monocle?

          1. I am a huge cunt. HUGE CUNT! Look at me everyone, I’m a huge cunt. CUNT CUNT CUNT! Are you paying attention to me yet? Pay attention to me! I’m a huge cunt! I’m SO important! I am a HUGE cunt!

            1. Sensitive little fellow, aren’t you.

              1. Let’s keep your personal issues with the size and stamina of your genitalia out of this, please.

            2. Then stop fucking so much.

        2. I forget, does one use his standard ivory frame monocle or his immigrant child worker bone frame monocle for sipping cocktails?

          1. Ivory frame is fine so long as it is inlaid with blood diamonds.

          2. Best not to wear the ivory frame with your formal evening wear. That’s what the ICW bone frame monocle is for.

            And don’t wear the latter with your less-formal business wear, or the other heartless libertarian moguls will laugh at you.

            Its complicated, but that’s what you’ve got a butler for, right?

            1. Dressed by a butler? Have you no valet?

              You sound poor.

            2. Sadly I had to force my butler into early retirement. My damn workers have been rioting at the Apple store and productivity has plummeted.

              I told my father we should have opened the factory in Honduras, but he was dead set on Chinese child labor.

  3. 3rd

  4. “An idea that will save the American taxpayer another eleven billion dollars over the next decade, and shrink the Federal payroll by 5,145 useless bureaucrats that most Americans fear and loathe (or would if they really knew what they were doing.)

    Our suggestion would also save the lives of thousands of Mexican nationals each year, by abolishing the conspiracy that deliberately and illegally channeled thousands of firearms into the hands of the Sinaloa drug cartel.”

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c…..more-95091

  5. Eighty-four percent of Americans disapprove of Congress, finds WaPo poll.

    Six percent of Americans like fucking with pollsters, while ten percent get checks from Congress.

    1. 16% of Americans thought that they meant Definition Seven.

  6. “JACKSONVILLE, NC – A man wanted for murder in the Atlanta area was found with a gun in his jail cell, and lawmen believe he had that weapon hidden in his rectum when he was booked into jail.

    Michael Ward remains in the Onslow County jail after his arrest Monday morning.

    Deputies say the gun measures 10 inches, including a 4-1/2 inch barrel.

    Deputies tell WITN News that Ward was searched and strip searched before he was placed into a holding cell. Jailers also made Ward perform what they call a “squat and cough” procedure.”

    http://www.witn.com/home/headl…..30238.html

    1. . . . lawmen believe he had that weapon hidden in his rectum when he was booked into jail.

      I hope for his sake it was a hammerless model.

      1. It wasn’t.

      2. Nope, the photo clearly shows an older type (Model 10?) S&W K frame .38, with a hammer spur and the old square-butt grips.

        1. the old square-butt grips.

          You don’t say.

          1. Yeah, I said it anyway…

        2. Heh, heh, heh, you said “butt”.

        3. Nope, the photo clearly shows . . . a hammer spur

          Well no wonder he passed the old squat-n-cough; it was probably hung up on something!

    2. Yeah, I read an article about that that said he was being checked medically because he might have injured himself.

      Which reminds me of an old joke, which ends, “Rectum? Damn near killed him!”

  7. A room full of southern Christians booed the Golden Rule at last night’s debate in South Carolina.

    The Bible isn’t a suicide pact!

      1. I guess we’re both out of the loop.

    1. I’m waiting for a prominent “Christian” conservative to actually say that.

      1. According to the article, they booed Paul’s interpretation of the Golden Rule (re foreign policy).

        They also booed Romney when he endorsed indefinite detention.

        And there was some applause for Paul when he made another pitch for nonintervention.

        Somehow, that doesn’t have the punch of “Southern Christian retards booing the Golden Rule.”

        1. theres’ no diff bet the shia’s voting exactly how the imam orders & christanists voting like the pastor orders.

        2. According to the article, they booed Paul’s interpretation of the Golden Rule (re foreign policy).

          They also booed Romney when he endorsed indefinite detention.

          And there was some applause for Paul when he made another pitch for nonintervention.

          Thin gruel…or is that grits?

          1. It shows that the summary was not accurate. Sorry Mike Riggs, but you seem to have let your prejudices run away with you.

  8. For those who missed the debate, here’s a helpful movie clip illustrating the difference between the way Romney and Paul were treated last night.

    1. I heard a recap on the radio this morning. Sounded like a Daily Show audience. Creepy and sad.

    2. Ron Paul is in second place, he should be confident and act like he belongs there. He still tends to act the defensive outsider on a lot of questions.

    1. From the linked article:

      “The statement from Ron Paul that elicited the most positive reaction was when he argued he isn’t cutting defense spending because he doesn’t believe funding overseas military deployments qualify as “defense.” After mentioning the $1 billion price tag on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, he said, “You consider that defense, I consider that waste.” He won further applause when he said that the other candidates are inconsistent conservatives because they feel domestic spending is wrong but approve of overseas spending. He also was cheered when he said that he’d eliminate the income tax and the “inflation tax.””

      1. Yes, and from the Comments section:

        “Ron Paul doesn’t have a chance because there simply aren’t enough Jew haters and Israel bashers in this country to vote for that kook.”

        1. even front page acknowledged that Paul got some props in the middle of what is supposed to be militarist territory.

          1. I’m sorry if my initial post didn’t clearly enough distinguish the article from its Comments section. For what it’s worth, that was the site’s most civil handling of Paul yet …

  9. Eighty-four percent of Americans disapprove of the other 532 members ofCongress, finds WaPo poll.

    Fixed.

    1. Make mine 534. I approve of Rand Paul.

    2. Right.

      If the poll was true, the incumbent wouldn’t have the advantage.

      Plus, both contestants from the 2008 presidential race were from the upper house of Congress.

  10. Paul should have said to the audience that if they boo him one more time he’ll run as an independent. That will shut them up.

    1. Lulz. The best part of that would be the panicked look on the front panel of the Romneybot.

    2. That might be his best possible campaign strategy. “Nominate me or I’ll make sure we get 4 more years of Obama.” I don’t know any republicans who could argue against that.

  11. From this point on, Johnny Longtorso aka Aqua Buddha aka $6M RoboTorso aka Bok Sux will be known as COXSWAIN HARDY. Thank you.

    COXSWAIN HARDY AND HIS 20 MAROONED GEISHAS

    1. People who cant stick with a name are bad, even when not trolls.

      1. We suck.

      2. Oops! But but but… I was considering being Model 10 Suppository in honor of our gun smuggler mentioned above!

        Sigh. Not any more.

      3. Oh come now. Sometimes you pick a crappy handle at first and come up with a better one later. Now people who change handles four times are obviously buffoons and carpet baggers.

      4. I never denied I was anything but the living embodiment of pure evil just so we are clear.

    2. What’s with all the crabs?

      1. That’s what she said!

  12. Protest blackout will start with Wikipedia.

    Wikipedia will be shutting down it’s English language site for 24 hours on Wednesday.

    1. How will we be able to do research on plurals vs. possessives?

      1. … and contractions?

        1. I’m sure their’s a way.

          1. it still hurts

    2. Thank goodness I have plenty of books for reference material.

      1. With so many other sources available, isn’t Wiki like the PBS of internet information?

    3. How will they continue their campaign to guilt me into donating money?

    4. Isn’t SOPA dead already?

      1. I don’t know, I’ll have to check wiki…dammit.

    5. Sadly, I’ll be forced to rely on Encyclopedia Dramatica for my research papers.

      1. This elicited an audible chuckle from me.

    6. I guess it’s a bit too late to start the wget job now.

    7. College students with a paper due tomorrow are FUCKED (because you know that the vast majority of students in this category won’t start said paper until 10 or 11 tonight).

      Even when they are told outright that Wikipedia isn’t an appropriate resource, the fucking use it anyways.

  13. The Hate Party had a debate last night?

    Actually, I watched a little bit of morning Joke; Peggy Noonan said Newt Kuan Yew was great.

    1. How many Bloody Marys did Peggy appear to have had this morning?

      1. She seems happier now that she has gone black. Maybe more women need to do that.

  14. “Wikipedia to take its English-language site offline tomorrow to protest SOPA.”

    Good for Wikipedia. I think Reason and every other libertarian-oriented site in the USA should follow their example.

    1. Nooo!! Not on a work day. This is the only thing that keeps me from having violent disagreement with the state workers I am contracted to. If H&R goes dark, look for the headline “FL Man Arrested at State Offices for Shouting ‘F— Off, Slavers!'”

      1. Working hard for them, I see.

        1. Sadly, I’m considered one of the more productive people.

  15. MLK would have agreed with Rick Santorum about abortion and the collapse of the family. He was a “reverend” after all. I love how the media has air brushed that out of history. When I was a kid he was always referred to as “The Reverend Martin Luther King Junior”. At some point he became “Dr. Martin Luther King” as if he was an orthopedist who got pissed off about not being served at the hospital lunch counter.

    1. MLK would have agreed with Rick Santorum about abortion and the collapse of the family.

      And King’s multiple instances of philandering would have eventually caught up with him and outed him as yet another hypocritical Social Conservative.

      Your point?

      1. My point is so fucking what if MLK would have agreed with you about this or that point. He was a man not a God. If your points are good, then tell me why. The fact MLK would have liked them doesn’t mean much.

        1. Wait wait wait, hold on. Abortion okay, but exactly how would MLK agree with Santorum about the family?

          1. MLK was a very socially conservative guy. He was very concerned in his life about the death of the black family. The guy was a Southern Baptist minister. Who do you think he would agree with ACT UP?

            1. Wasn’t one of MLK’s close associates gay? I am not disputing that he was very concerned with the family unit – I just don’t think he would have agreed with all of Santorum’s “concerns”.

              1. You are thinking of Bayard Rustin. And that guy was a hero and had balls made of something beyond steel. He went around the country as a pretty obvious gay guy riding in the white sections of trains and buses and refusing to move. He was amazing. And one of the great civil rights leaders in history.

                He is also nearly forgotten because the major civil rights leaders were not down at all with him being gay and did not want him in any way to be the face of the movement.

            2. Hopefully, he would see the connection between the War on Drugs and the destruction of the black family. That’s the biggest factor in its demise, by far. He’d probably agree with Santorum about letting felons who have served their sentences completely vote though.

              1. Quite true – it is hard to keep a family together if the father of your child is in jail. Wartime military service is also hard on families.

              2. I can’t imagine he was too fond of drug use. And who knows. He just as easily could have been the drug warriors warrior on the subject. I have met a lot of black people who are.

                You guys live in a bubble. Not everyone who has been affected by drugs thinks legalization is the answer. Some people whose family members are drug addicts and have ended up in jail hate drugs. They blame dealers for corrupting their loved one and want to see them all shot. Hard for you people to understand. But trust me when I tell you there are tons of people out there just like that.

              3. Most states “agree with santorum” on this. Does Santorum wants to force his preferences on the remaining states?

            3. Southern Baptist

              Want to try again? Im pretty sure Dexter Ave was (is?) National Baptist.

              1. He was at Ebenezer. That is where the historic site is. And I meant “Southern” as a geographic description. I don’t know which part of the Baptists he was a part of.

                1. He was at Dexter before Ebenezer. Im pretty sure neither was Southern Baptist.

                  And bullshit on you meaning it as geographic. You capitalized Southern.

                  The SBC is a specific organization, you know this, you meant it. There is no reason to make a geographic reference in that context. You fucked up and refuse to admit it.

                  1. And I guess you read my mind and know that? And my typing skills are so famously great it is impossible that I didn’t capitalize the S by mistake? And yeah, I will plead ignorance of the various flavors of Baptists. So what? It is not like I called him a Catholic or something.

                    1. Generally irrelevent, but considering the historical racism within the SBC, especially at that time, I thought it an important distinction to make.

                      I did consider your typing skills, but Occam’s Razor does come into play.

              2. People who correct others about the particular tasting notes of irrelevant “flavors” of Baptist are just the worst, aren’t they?

                “Ahh, the nose of this Baptist is overpowered by ignorance, and it has the right finish of hick”

                1. John, not too many of us here live in a bubble. Don’t forget, we are the ones who read Balko and Grigg.

                  The folks who are more apt to live in a bubble are the ones who blame the drug dealer and the drugs themselves and who champion more murder and genuflection to the drug war and drug warriors as if such genuflection actually produces some good.

                  1. You live in a bubble because you think everyone thinks the way you do. Not everyone in the ghetto is against the drug war. In fact some of the drug war’s biggest supporters live there. It is just how it is.

                    1. John, I live in the ghetto. Have for twenty-five years and I have never, ever heard anyone say anything supportive of the WOD. Never.

                    2. EAP,

                      I was in the Army for 9 years and knew any number of people who were from the ghetto. And I never met a single one of them who wasn’t totally over the top radical about the drug war. They hated drugs.

                    3. I find that interesting because I would also add that I have never seen anyone in my neighborhood wearing a military uniform.

                      Strange, now that I think of it.

                    4. IIRC, Rudy Guiliani has some community support when he tried to rid upper Manhattan of drug dealers.

                  2. The folks who are more apt to live in a bubble are the ones who blame the drug dealer and the drugs themselves and who champion more murder and genuflection to the drug war and drug warriors as if such genuflection actually produces some good.

                    “You live in a bubble!”
                    “Nuh-uh, YOU live in a bubble, bubble boy”

                    Productive conversation there, LM. John is just telling you the facts. You’re accusing people of false consciousness.

                    1. Because people DO suffer from false consciousness. Anybody who thinks the drug war has solved anything is a fucking moron.

                    2. John and Rev, you miss the point. Do your really think that I think that everybody thinks as I do or as the reason commentariat does?

                      The fact that we read Balko and Grigg is testament to the fact that we do not think that everybody thinks as we do.

                      We read of drug warriors murdering and maiming and perpetrating caninicide. We read of minority “leadership” clamoring for more police presence in minority neighborhoods.

                      Most of us here fully realize that not everybody thinks as we do.

                      Hence, there is no basis upon which to assert that I think that everybody thinks as I do.

                  3. Who is Grigg?

          2. He was against getting santorum on family members.

        2. This is a good point, John. But I think that Paul is making a similar point in pointing out how contemporary liberalism can’t claim to be the sole heirs of King’s legacy.

        3. If your points are good, then tell me why. The fact MLK would have liked them doesn’t mean much.

          Fair enough.

  16. “A Los Angeles woman was arrested after she offered sexual favors in exchange for chicken McNuggets, Burbank police said.

    Khadijah Baseer of Los Angeles reportedly opened customers’ car doors in the drive-thru of McDonald’s on the 1700 block of Olive Avenue about 11 p.m. Wednesday, asking for free chicken McNuggets in exchange for sexual favors, Officer Joshua Kendrick said.”

    http://www.burbankleader.com/t…..6911.story

    1. A Los Angeles woman was arrested after she offered sexual favors in exchange for chicken McNuggets

      Well you gotta have something to wash them down, they are kind of dry . . .

    2. A ‘job is still a job.

  17. Question for the commentariat:

    My neighbors are of Mexican heritage and they celebrated a birthday yesterday with a pinata. Our kids are about the same age as theirs, and they play togehter often, so we were invited.

    The problem was that the pinata was a Diego effigy that was hung from swingset by the neck. On Martin Luther King Jr. day.

    I wanted to say something, but felt that it was racist to impose my values on my Mexican neighbors. Instead, I told my kids to beat that pinata like it owed them money. Did I do the right thing?

    1. That just means America is great. The guy didn’t even think that it was an issue, which means he didn’t understand the significance of the symbolism because it doesn’t mean anything to him. I don’t think it is a problem at all.

    2. Sounds like a harmless incident.

    3. I actually felt it was kind of funny because of the lack of cultural awareness among the kindergarten class, but I couldn’t help but wonder what my other neighbors might think. I was also glad that we didn’t have white party hats.

    4. I think you are way too sensitive, unless people are throwing bricks through your windows, when people upset your sensitivities they don’t normally do it on purpose.

      1. The cat from Shrek? Which just confuses me more…

        1. I think he’s a cartoon character from Dora the Explorer or a spinoff.

          1. still confused. i’d go wiki Dora, but I’m preparing my self for the blackout.

      2. Dora’s brother?

        1. Her cousin. I am ashamed I know this. >_>

          1. Her cousin. I am ashamed I know this.

            Do you have kids? If so, there’s no shame; familiarity with insipid cartoons is one of the untold costs of parenthood.

            However, if you’re familiar wth Dora/Diego and you don’t have kids, then you’re probably a pedophile.

            1. LOL. No, I know it because my daughter liked Dora when she was small.

              1. Mine did too, but she’s a little older now, and is more into Twilight these days. Not sure which is less entertaining.

            2. Do you have kids? If so, there’s no shame; familiarity with insipid cartoons is one of the untold costs of parenthood.

              Fuck that. If I don’t approve of a particular show, for whatever reason, I don’t watch.

              And I don’t approve of Dora or Diego.

              There isn’t anything particularly wrong either other than that both of those shows greatly offend my aesthetic sensibilities.

              Phineas and Ferb, however, are another story. That’s a great fucking show, even f only because it tells my kids that it’s okay to be reckless.

    5. I’m surprised that John had an opinion on this.

    6. did this make you feel othered? I know a website you can post your story to.

    7. Diego is of Mexican descent so it’s really just Mexican on Mexican crime if Diego gets the shit beat out of him by Mexican kids. I see no reason why your kids can’t join the beating.

      1. Inclusiveness!

    8. Did you set the pinata on fire before beating it?

  18. Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged
    Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged is a feature length documentary film that examines the resurging interest in Ayn Rand’s epic and controversial 1957 novel and the validity of its dire prediction for America….

    1. Looks rather lurid, at least from the promo copy and images.

      Set in what novelist and philosopher Rand called ‘the day after tomorrow’

      I’ve never seen that reference and I don’t believe she ever said it. It isn’t in the novel. The setting is contemporary (America in the 50s). Looks like ad copy from the Atlas Shrugged movie to me.

      the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged

      Rand never called the novel “prophetic” and she wouldn’t have approved of that mystical analysis of her writing. She merely presented situations that, if left uncorrected, would inevitably lead to certain results, based on the nature of man and his culture and politics.

      1. She didn’t have to call it prophetic. Not unsurprisingly, things were left unchecked and so this generation can look back on her writings and say: “My Science, she practically prophesied the world we live in”.

  19. “SEOUL, South Korea – South Korean customs officials say they have arrested eight men over a scheme to allegedly smuggle gold out of the country by hiding it in their rectums.”

    http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/new…..ums-011612

    1. Wow, 2 out of three rectal smuggling stories this morning? What’s on your, er, mind?

    2. They’d probably need to be perfectly lubricated to get it back out.

    3. “rectum? It damn near killed ’em”

    4. There certainly seems to be overmuch regulation and bother about something that has usually been refered to as a “barbaraous relic” with “no intrinsic value.” On wonders why all the concern about something supposedly so worthless?

  20. The blackout idea started at Reddit, which is also going dark. So is Boing Boing, the Cheezburger network and others. What is Reason doing?

    1. If the internet goes dark, some of us will be forced to commit work.

    2. Cheezburger?!?! Not Cheezburger!

      I’m waiting on a graphic designer to finish up his task, so I’m kinda light in the work dept for the next day or so. I gotta have my LOLcats et al.

      1. you cannot haz cheezburger now

  21. “Eighty-four percent of Americans disapprove of Congress, finds WaPo poll.”

    The remaining 16% are Federal employees I assume?

    1. No even they hate Congress. The remaining 16% are federal contractors and paid mistresses.

    2. 16% don’t understand poll questions.

    3. 16% of americans are retards.

  22. Santorum looked like an asbolute fucking idiot while trying to attack Paul on gun control. He made the laughable assertion that if you don’t protect gun companies from lawsuits, you would “abolish the 2nd amendment.” RP correctly retorted (with a chuckle) that the federal government should not use its powers to supercede states’ control over tort law within their boundaries.

    1. That is not retard at all. The big city mayors would love to sue the gun companies out of existence. If a product produces enough liability, it can’t be produced. And since the right to bear arms is a federal right, I would say law suits that inhibit that right are a federal matter. Paul is wrong about that.

      1. It is completely fucking retarded. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. It does not guarantee the right for businesses to operate without the threat of lawsuits.

        If we have to abolish lawsuits against gun companies to “save” the 2nd amendments, what about other industries? Should we abolish lawsuits against doctors too? Why not?

        1. Why should newspapers be immune from law suits? Why do we have a higher standard of proof for liable against a public figure? Because the First Amendment trumps the common law. The South already tried this in defending Jim Crow. That is what NYT v. Sullivan was about. They were using liable law to silence dissent against Jim Crow and thus deprive people of their 1st Amendment Rights. The same is happening here. The mayors are using tort law to deprive people of their right to keep and bear arms.

          The federal government has every duty to stop those law suits and enforce the federal right to keep and bear arms. And I am frankly shocked that self proclaimed constitutionalist like Paul wouldn’t understand that.

          1. If I work for the New York Times and write a negative story about a Hit & Run poster with the handle “John” there is no physical harm that occurs to you or anyone else as a result of my story. If I take a Smith & Wesson to the shooting range and the gun blows up in my face while I target practice there is physical harm.

            1. That is not the liability they mayors are suing over. No one is saying the gun companies shouldn’t be held liable for a truly defective product. The mayors are claiming the gun companies should be liable for the crimes committed with their products. That is an expansion of the common law that conflicts with the 2nd Amendment and should not be allowed. Paul is just dead wrong on this.

              1. Perhaps something like a EULA would solve this. See my comment below regarding my Nook.

                1. You really probably ought to keep that kind of thing to yourself.

              2. Nope, John is dead wrong because any judge worth his salt should realize that the argument is against improperly used equipment, not faulty equipment. The law against liability is conservative overreaction to percieved liberal judges. If I kill you with a Louisville slugger and your family sues the baseball bat company, no judge would ban the production of baseball bats and there doesn’t need to be a federal liability law. In the same way republicans freaked out about big city liberalness and created a stupid law which exceeded constitutional authority.

              3. “”The mayors are claiming the gun companies should be liable for the crimes committed with their products.””

                I think some places have tried and failed. The gun worked as designed, thus no liability with the gun. The owner that shot someone can be sued.

                I think Paul was thinking defective products lawsuits, not defective owner.

            2. Socialist are claiming that guns are inherently defective because people get killed by them. So that a gunmaker should be liable for the end result of a properly functioning gun.

              It’s a retarded argument and reflects very badly on America in general and the court system in particular that it is not laughed out of court.

              But the black robed overlords of liberty are buying it so libertarians must also.

              1. Nobody is buying that stupid argument regarding liability. What is at issue is the federal government’s ability to supercede states’ tort law.

                1. When state tort law affects a federally gaurenteed right, the federally garuenteed right trumps it.

                  You people are constantly waiving the Constitution around. And here we have a place where a federal right that applies to the states that is right there in the Constitution is being violated. Yet, you don’t want to do anything about it.

                  1. This is not a second amendment case John, it’s a tort case that’s been twisted. If it was a second amendment case, congress wouldn’t need to create a law, they could just wait for the conservative supreme court to rule against the idiots. This is a classic conservative overreaction to state tort and pork to gun manufactures located in liberal states. Let the manufacturers relocate to Texas where all such lawsuits will be laughed out of town.

                    1. If you do business in a state and have significant contacts in that state, you can be sued in that state. Just because you operate in Texas, doesn’t mean you can’t be sued in New York Courts for defects in your product.

                      How do you think BMW got sued in Alabama? They could all relocate tomorrow and they would still be subject to the jurisdiction of every state they sell guns in. It is called the significant contacts test. It is like day five of Civil Procedure in Law School.

                      This is totally about the 2nd Amendment. And those mayors are not just looking for money. They are trying to make it impossible to manufacture guns in this country.

                      You guys just hate Santorum so much and worship Paul so much you can’t think straight. Yeah Santorum sucks, but he is dead right about this. And Paul is not a god. He can be wrong about things. And he is dead wrong about this.

                    2. John, if I recall correctly you’re some sort of lawyer, but to say that frivolous lawsuits like this need to be dealt with by a national law (for which the constitution does not provide for) is ludicrous. Surely there is a mechanism judicially to prevent the grossest of these lawsuits from succeeding and if not the states should challenge it before the federal government. I guarantee you that Texas would vacate any award a new York judge pushed on a Texas company that Texas courts disagreed with and then the dispute becomes one of interstate commerce not the second amendment. Your complete lack of faith in the constitutional system and total blind faith in federal action in this regard is rediculous, and certainly distrbing from an actual lawyer.

                  2. John, you just assume this cannot be resolved under state tort laws. Your premise is faulty. In Texas these manufacturers would be protected. It’s just that these manufacturers happen to be located in liberal states.

                    1. It can’t be. See above. Just because you re-locate, you don’t get out of the tort laws in the states you sell your products in.

                    2. Yeah but as long as you do not have assets located in said state it is up to the state your in to support the judgement and Texas could flatly deny he companys liability. THEN congress could deal with the issue of any repercussions between the states, such as the claimant state denying passage of guns into it from Texas.

                    3. No they couldn’t. Full faith and credit clause would prevent that. The states would have to recognize the judgments.

                    4. States have sovereignty. Let congress deal with it when the states rightly reject a judgement that goes against their own laws and protections. Full faith and credit is just an agreement not to get into a trade war, one which I think we’re long overdue for, given liberal overreach (NLRB regards to boeing….)

                    5. Stop selling your products in states that sue you frivolously.

                    6. Then LIT, the people in New York can’t buy guns. If they can’t buy guns, then how do they have a right to bear arms?

                      You guys would argue black is white if Paul told you that.

                    7. “” the people in New York can’t buy guns.””

                      There is no absoulte ban on guns in New York City. Granted, the criteria is such a high bar that few, other than LEOs, can own one. I have a friend that owns a .22 handgun for target shooting. He had to get permit and if he’s caught with the weapon on a road not between the range and his house, he’s toast. However, according to SCOTUS, this may not be against the 2nd amendment. At least according to Scalia’s opinion in Heller.

              2. Which black robed overlords are those Maxx? Not snark, I’m genuinely curious cause I haven’t heard of any judges hearing such a case or upholding that idea.

          2. The mayors are using tort law to deprive people of their right to keep and bear arms.

            No they’re not. They are allowing a lawsuit between a private individual and a company. The merit of this lawsuit notwithstanding, it does not follow that suing gun companies “abolishes” the second amendment. It would be like saying that suing doctors and hospitals abolishes medical care.

            Why should newspapers be immune from law suits?

            They aren’t. Newspapers are sued for libel all the time.

            1. But they are sued by a different standard when you are talking about public figures. Why? Because we have something called the 1st Amendment. And what the mayor’s are doing is using tort law to make it economically impossible to produce and sell a gun in this country. How exactly do we have a right to keep and bear arms if it is impossible to buy a gun?

              Do you think Paul is ever wrong about anything? Was the man sent from God with all the perfect answers?

              1. How exactly do we have a right to keep and bear arms if it is impossible to buy a gun?
                So, if a gun company is sued, every single one of my guns (along with the millions upon millions out there) will magically disappear?

                Do you think Paul is ever wrong about anything?

                I’m not going to re-post the fight I got into with Old Mexican the other night about Paul’s poor New Hampshire performance, and why I disagree with his immigration policy. You’re just being childish here.

                1. “So, if a gun company is sued, every single one of my guns (along with the millions upon millions out there) will magically disappear?”

                  No. If gun manufacturers can be held liable for the crimes committed with their product, they will go out of business.

                  1. Good, so you agree that my 2nd amendment right to bear arms is in no way compromised. After all, I still don’t see how if a gun company (or even all of them) goes out of business, I can no longer bear arms.

                    1. No I don’t agree with you. I can’t bear arms if I can’t buy them.

                    2. “I can’t bear arms if I can’t buy them.”

                      Just make them yourself.

              2. Bullshit, if gun manufacturers were all in the south the jurisdictions would be with conservative judges, which would deny the merit of the mayors lawsuits. The only problem is alot of the manufacturers are in liberal states and their congressmen are desperately trying to keep jobs there so they violate the constitution to make sure liberal judges don’t chase them out.

                1. You didn’t answer my question, John. If a person sues a gun manufacturer, will my guns disappear?

                2. So we really have a federal right to bear arms when you can’t actually manufacture such arms in large parts of the country? The Right to Bear Arms is a federal right. And New York has no authority to sue gun makers out of business or out of their state. I don’t care what the motivation of the lawmakers is. They are right even if it is for the wrong reasons. And Paul clearly doesn’t give a flying fuck about the 2nd Amendment as it applies to the states.

                  1. Your logic is completely flawed. Let’s say that every gun manufacturer is sued to oblivion and can’t produce any more guns. Those of us who do own guns are not having our rights infringed upon as we can still bear arms. Secondly, people are free to purchase used guns as they wish. The Constitution in no way, shape, or form guarantees access to a new/unused firearm.

                    Thus, Santorum’s argument about the 2nd amendment being “abolished” is a completely fucking stupid one.

                    1. Jacob. If you couldn’t buy guns, eventually the ones in existence would wear out and we wouldn’t have guns anymore. It would be like making drugs legal but economically impossible to manufacture drugs legally. That would be a sham. Drugs really wouldn’t be legal.

                    2. eventually the ones in existence would wear out and we wouldn’t have guns anymore.

                      Do you know what a gunsmith is?

                      A good quality firearm will literally last forever.

                      It is not the role of the government to protect private industry from liability lawsuits by overtrumping states’ laws. If you can tell me where it is in the Constitution, then maybe you and Santorum have a point.

                    3. So jacob you idea of the right to bear arms is having the same guns forever just resmithed? You are a real protector of gun rights there.

                    4. So are you saying that if corporations that make guns go out of business, no body will make guns anymore?

              3. “”And what the mayor’s are doing is using tort law to make it economically impossible to produce and sell a gun in this country””

                Give me one example where that has worked. People can file bullshit claims, and bullshit isn’t expected to fly.

                1. Why do we have to wait for it to work? And after they state legislatures get done re-writing the tort laws, it will absolutely work.

                  If it is so doomed to failure, why are the gun manufacturers moving in hopes of avoiding it? I though Santorum was some evil pork baron just trying to keep gun makers from moving. But according to you there is no threat? So which is it?

                  I remember the threads about these law suits when they started. Everyone saw them for the threat they are. Now you guys think they are just great because Ron Paul told you.

                  The Paul mania is getting scary. The guy is fallible. He can be wrong about things. Stop taking positions you would never take otherwise just to defend him.

                  1. You don’t have to wait. It’s already been tried and failed.

                    IIRC, Rudy Guiliani tried exactly what you are talking about. It failed miserably.

                    Well, here’s a link.

                    http://www.nyc.gov/html/record…..y0626.html

                    Suit rejected.

                    http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes……n-lawsuit/

                    1. And what did SCOTUS say.

                      http://bulletin.accurateshoote…..un-makers/

                      It’s been tried and failed. At this point it’s just a red herring.

                      Of course Paul is fallible, he’s human. He isn’t perfect, and I don’t agree with his position on everything. But he’s still the best candidate for the job.

          3. “The mayors are using tort law to deprive people of their right to keep and bear arms.”

            Are the guns malfunctioning in some way?

            1. Nope. The lawsuits are about holding gun companies responsible for the crimes committed with their guns. This is not about malfunction.

              1. And they will be laughed out of court.

                1. CX should be priceless.

                2. Says you. And isn’t it the federal government’s responsibility to protect our federal rights? Why should the government leave such rights to the courts?

                  1. “”Why should the government leave such rights to the courts?””

                    Or lawmakers.

                    Here’s what I hate about two Johns. Which one was arguing for the “living Constitution”?

                3. “”And they will be laughed out of court.””

                  That’s pretty much what happened.

              2. So if a state/city enacted a law that said gun manufacturers were statutorily liable for all damages caused by their products in that state/city, regardless of whether the gun functioned as advertised and designed, would that law be constitutional?

                1. Depends how expansive of a 9th amendment you are willing to accept.

                  1. Or Fourteenth.

                    1. Yeah, I think you’ve got a “substantive” due process problem here, holding remote third parties strictly liable for crimes.

                    2. It is not just holding third parties strictly liable for crimes, it is doing so with the specific intent of depriving people of a federal right. That is a federal issue.

                    3. John, this is not a federal issue. This is a congressmen freaking out aboutpork in their districts issue.

                    4. LIT,

                      Last I looked states violating rights in the FEDERAL constitution was a FEDERAL issue. Paul’s opinion on this really disturbs me. For all of his self proclaimed love of the Constitution, he seems to in this case at least care about states rights more than he does enforcing what the document actually says.

                    5. No gun manufacturers had gone out of business and guns were widely available before this law went into place. It was only conservatives fears that gun manufacturers would have had to move to tort friendly states that precipitated this power grab.

                    6. So it is okay to force people to move to other states to exercise their federally guaranteed rights?

                    7. WTF manufacturing guns isn’t a second amendment right and texans have to buy guns made out of state which doesn’t stop them exercising their second amendment rights. This law isn’t about gun ownership, it’s about manufacturer liability. Just because one gun manufacturer goes out of business in a gun unfriendly state doesn’t prohibit peoples second amendment rights, since another company in a gun friendly state will provide said weapon.

                    8. Doesn’t the right to own necessarily imply the right to manufacture it? If I can’t make something, how can I ever own it?

                    9. If the US was so far gone on the second amendment issue that no state would allow gun manufacture, I imagine the second amendment would be gone already. That it isn’t suggests that this can still be dealt with at a state level.

                    10. And it doesn’t matter where the manufacturers are located. They can be sued in whatever state they sell their products.

                    11. And they can appeal elsewhere, like in their own jurisdiction or to the supreme court, which would rule against the mayors. With that precedent all further lawsuits should be vacated.

                    12. Holy shit you have a hard on against Paul. Dear lord man.

                      Also, since you think he is a big ball of suck, who do you plan on voting for and why do you think they are better?

                    13. You are the one with the hard on. You guys can’t admit he is ever wrong about anything. It is like a God damned cult. Even gun rights don’t trump the cult of Paul.

                    14. I think plenty of people on this board have admitted he has been wrong on a whole host of things, hence the wrath of the Paulbots. But you have this knee jerk reaction that everything he says (at least outside the realm of WoD and economics) is wrong. I’m genuinely curious why.

                      And thanks for not answering my question about who you are voting for, or at least leaning towards.

                    15. I think of all the things that professors attempted to foist on me in law school, “substantive due process” was third to incorporation of the Bill of Rights and employment and educational discrimination cases designed specifically to permit and encourage discrimination in the “you have got to be fucking kidding me, the legal system is just a sham” factor.

              3. Has anyone ever won a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer because someone was harmed by the proper firing of a gun, particularly in the execution of a crime?

                1. No, absolutely not. Rick Santorum knows this damn well, he was just trying to (unsuccessfully) attack Ron Paul.

                  1. It is not Santorum’s fault that Paul thinks state rights trumps the 2nd Amendment. If Paul doesn’t want to be attacked, I suggest he stop giving his opponents ammunition.

                    1. Its not Paul’s fault that he’s right constitutionally and apparently you think we need to wipe our ass with the document when states do stupid things that violate it (which the judiciary should correct, not the legislature).

                    2. Yes LIT, appeal to our robed overlords. That will protect us.

          4. Except that newspapers are not “immune” from law suits.

          5. Not to pick nit or anything but it’s “libel” not “liable”.

        2. Should we abolish lawsuits against doctors too?

          Has anyone finished reading the PPACA yet?

      2. This will merely discourage gun companies from locating in big cities with anti-gun-rights mayors. Isn’t the lawsuit located in the jurisdiction of the company?

        When I “signed” the EULA for my Nook that I got for Christmas I remember a section in there regarding “choice of jurisdiction” or some such (I admit I don’t recall the exact wording). Their “choice” happened to be New York. Why couldn’t firearm companies do something similar and choose, for example, Auburn, Alabama as their “jurisdiction of choice”?

        1. Afaik, the lawsuits were not in the jurisdiction of the manufacturer.

          Although, most gun makers in the U.S. were based in Connecticut and Massachusetts — hardly the most gun-friendly states.

          1. The appeals would eventually end up in the jurisdiction near the manufacturer. It’s the fact that the manufacturers were located in gun unfriendly states that caused this. If they relocated to Texas, they would be protected from these lawsuits. Texas could even pass a law saying the out of state torts would have to be appealed in state before any award would be granted. Let congress then chew on interstate commerce issue rather than try and resolve a local problem with another constutionally violating law.

      3. Regardless, that a state would even consider that a product functioning perfectly as advertised could be the basis of a tort is ridiculous.

        1. Yes. The point behind this argument is that folks like Santorum think there needs to be a federal law to back up your assertion, which Paul pointed out is silly.

      4. I don’t think the big city mayors have a leg to stand on. You can’t sue a company because their product works as intended. Maybe I’m being naive and optimistic given recent 2nd amendment rulings from the SC, but I’d at least wait until there is a problem to ban or regulate law suits against gun makers. And also be very careful not to give any protection from suits for actual defective products.

        1. I don’t think they do either. But if you have a state like Illinois where the judges are all completely anti Second Amendment, that state could hit the manufacturers with so much liability, it would put them out of business. That is the plan.

          1. It seems like that plan has been kicking around for a long time. Is it actually going anywhere? Have any of these suits actually been filed? I can see the potential for what you are talking about, but I don’t see the evidence that it is likely to happen.

            1. Rudy Guiliani tried it.

              Federal appeals court rejected NYC’s suit, and SCOTUS rejected the appeal.

              It’s pretty much a dead issue at this point. (pun intended)

              1. How the fuck did that guy think that national republicans woudl ever vote for him?

                1. 9/11 and tough on crime.

                  The Rs will gladly look past one’s anti-conservative record. How else could Santorum get any play?

          2. This shit didn’t even work in Law and Order over a decade ago.

            There is no way it works in real life.

        2. You can’t wait and see Zeb. We need men of action. We need to be on the offensive against all of the encroachments by the progressives. We need Santorum.

          1. No. We need the federal government to enforce federal rights. Why does Paul have no respect for the 2nd Amendment? Has anyone ever asked him if he thinks it applies to the states? I seriously wonder what he thinks of McDonald and if he actually supports it because not supporting McDonald is the only way I can see to justify his position on this.

            1. John now you’re just being ridiculous. Saying the Ron Paul doesn’t respect rights. Pauls vote against legislation is almost always on constitutional grounds, which is why he votes against NDAA and most congressional laws. He’s against constitutional violation, which santorums law was. Maybe it was more convenient for gun manufacturers to be federally protected, but our constitutional process wasn’t designed to be convenient, it was supposed to be limited and difficult and have the states resolve issues. It’s why Paul objects to things people think are good, lindens CRA. The CRA was convenient way to impose anti-racism laws, but constitutionally it was a complete overreach. Either you respect the constitution and the inconveniences it causes or we just throw it out the window and get rid of the ideamof statehood, legislator everything from Washington. Congress could have resolved this by working with state legislators to protect gun manufacturers but that was too hard, so they just overreached again.

              1. The second amendment trumps states rights. If Paul doesn’t believe that, then he is no friend of liberty. And saying the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to the states is not an uncommon view in the circles Paul runs in. I have never heard his opinion on the subject. And I bet neither have you. You assume it is right because you think Paul can never be wrong about anything.

                Think about what you are saying. You are supporting the right of big city mayors and governors to create bullshit tort laws designed to make it impossible to sell a gun in this country. And you think that doesn’t run afoul of the 2nd Amendment. Give me a fucking break.

                1. And saying the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to the states is not an uncommon view in the circles Paul runs in.

                  Apparently, just one strawman wasn’t sufficient. John needed an entire army of them.

                2. That’s right John, just because we don’t necessarily agree with you (for all you know we are just playing devil’s advocate) means we think Paul can never be wrong about anything.

                  Do you want some clothes to put on that strawman?

                  1. He keeps setting his strawman on fire. I think that’s a civil rights violation.

                    Hate crime, hate crime!!!

                3. New York already bans guns without special licenses and restricts ability for individuals to travel with them. This is an effective second amendment violation that should be overturned by the judiciary. That mayors sue gun makers and a whole bunch of people go along with them in violating a whole bunch of other judicial precedents does not mean that the federal government needs to overstep its authority under the constitution when it clearly isn’t for New York’s ostensible violation elsewise. And I fully support the companies being sued to tell New York State to suck their balls and come and get them in Texas or in Mexico/Germany/Canada, etc.

                  Unlike you, I’m not afraid that my local Walmart will run out of Winchester’s. They may just have “Made in Brazil” stamped on them at the worst, but more likely (and more beneficially “Made in Texas”.

                  1. All of those laws are unConstitutional as well. And they won’t say “made in Texas” because the companies will be sued out of business.

                    You would never side with the mayors on this if it wasn’t for Paul. It is fucking cult.

                    1. Show me how the constitution allows for congress to make this law and I’ll admit that Paul was wrong.

                    2. Good news…you won’t have to admit anything.

      5. Of more than 30 government-backed lawsuits filed since 1998, all but a few were dismissed before Congress passed HR 1036 in 2003, by which point 33 state legislatures had passed similar laws restricting tort lawsuits against gunmakers. In short, there was no constitutional emergency to justify congress usurping state tort law.

    2. Glad to hear it.

  23. “CHARLESTON, S.C. ? The rivalry between two South Carolina high schools boiled over after a basketball match, with two fans of the victorious side reportedly beaten up by opposition supporters for “Tebowing.”

    The Wando High School pair were attacked after their school had inflicted a 20-point defeat on West Ashley High in Charleston, during which they had copied the Denver Broncos quarterback’s iconic prayer pose”

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012…..latestnews

    1. When did this become “Tebow’s” prayer pose. Football, as well as other sports’ players have been doing this for decades. I specifically remember Bavaro on the NY Giants in ’86 doing it in the playoffs.

      1. Tebow, Ron Paul of Football.

        (refering to his love/hate tratment and the fair/unfair media coverage)

    2. Awesome. Douchebags still get their asses kicked in SC.

  24. Katy Perry is still hot:

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

      1. I actually kind of love her outfits, in a performance-art sort of way. She does look pretty cute in these photos, and I honestly, the fact that she was shed of Russel Brand’s weight is all to the good. (Like Dita von Teese and Marilyn Manson, I can’t imagine why she married him in the first place. Blech.)

        1. Marilyn Manson also had Rose McGowan. Although women being attracted to rich, famous rock stars who are not conventionally attractive is nothing new…

          1. Ric Ocasek says Hi.

            1. Yeah… but I never got the “ICK DNW!!!” vibe from Rick, possibly inasmuch as he always appeared to be non-smelly and washed. I guess it all comes down to personal preference (as these things always do).

              1. Ric is still married to her. HE is living proof that a deal with the devil is actually an option.

  25. Enthusiasm in voting in the presidential election this November now stands at 54% among registered Republicans, down ten points from last October. Meanwhile, enthusiasm among registered Democrats has risen six points, and now stands at 49%.

    I am hoping at this point the only enthusiasm either party’s voters can muster is for keeping the other guy out. Surely no one gets a boner at the thought of any of these people being (or continuing to be) president.

    1. I’m not so sure about that.

    2. I’m sure there are some brain dead obamaton zombies out there, still shuffling around moaning about “CHAAAANNNNGGGGGEEEEE!” and “HOOOOOOOPPPPEEE!

      1. The absolute worst outcome from an Obama win is that he, and his supporters, will treat it as a MANDATE FROM THE PEOPLE, when in reality it will be ONLY because Team RED didn’t have the balls to put someone worth running in the race.*

        *Ron Paul excepted, except that I’m not sure he has a prayer in hell to win the nomination.

  26. Secular Theocracy
    …During the Enlightenment, nationalism became the new civic religion, in which the nation state was not merely a substitute for the church, but a substitute for God, and political religion benefited from being more tangible than supernatural religion in having the physical means of violence necessary to enforce mandatory worship and funding. Nation states provided a new kind of salvation and immortality; one’s death is not in vain if it is “for the nation,” which will live on.[15]

    This “myth of religious violence” lived on with legal theorist John Rawls who claimed that the modern problem is a theological one and the solution is political. For Rawls, since people believe in unresolvable theological doctrines over which they will kill each other, a secular state must rule.[16] Similarly, Stanford law professor Kathleen Sullivan, a secularist, has claimed that as a necessary condition for peace to avoid a “war of all sects against all,” religion must be banished from the public square.[17]

    As Canavaugh notes, “[O]nce the state had laid claim to the holy, the state voluntarily relinquished it by banning religion from direct access to the public square . . . then what we have is not a separation of religion from politics but rather the substitution of the religion of the state for the religion of the church.”[18]…

    …In Politics as Religion, Emilio Gentile notes that the “religion of politics” is “a system of beliefs, myths, rituals, and symbols that interpret and define the meaning and end of human existence by subordinating the destiny of individuals and the collectivity to a supreme entity.” A religion of politics is a secular religion because it creates “an aura of sacredness around an entity belonging to this world.”[23] And according to Cavanaugh, “People are not allowed to kill for ‘sectarian religion’?. Only the nation-state may kill?. it is this power to organize killing that makes American civil religion the true religion of the U.S. social order.”[24]

    Among most Christians in the U.S. for example, very few would agree to kill in Christ’s name, while killing and dying for the nation state in war and supporting “our troops” is taken for granted. The religious-secular split enables public loyalty by Christians to the nation state’s secular violence, including invasive wars, torture, and “collateral damage,” while avoiding direct confrontation with Christian beliefs about the supremacy of God and natural law teachings.[25]

    Hence, the secular theocracy exalts a sovereign and powerful state that pervades all of life and compels obedience not just to its mandates but to the secular nationalism of the Zeitgeist itself, for which the populace is forced to conform to and fund. This worldview dominates public schools, colleges and universities, elite media, entertainment, and an ever-expanding array of government domains in law, health care, welfare, retirement, transportation, commerce, parks and recreation, etc. Not coincidentally in the modern era when nation states have displaced God, Cavanaugh notes, “it does not matter that the U.S. flag does not explicitly refer to a god. It is nevertheless a sacred?perhaps the most sacred?object in U.S. society and is thus an object of religious veneration.”[26] And worship in the secular theocracy in schools and at public events consists of singing the “National Anthem” and saluting the flag in “The Pledge of Allegiance,” which as described by its socialist author Francis Bellamy, “is the same with the catechism, or the Lord’s Prayer.”[27]…

    1. The central nation state arose before the enlightenment during the late middle ages and Renaissance. And it arose as a way to control the local aristocracy and bands of mercenary thugs from oppressing the people. People were once monarchists not because they liked the robes and the crown. They were monarchists because a strong central government was the only thing that protected them from the chaos and oppression of the local gentry. You want to know what life was like before the nation state, go read a good history of the 100 Years War sometime. It was a nightmare.

      1. The central nation state existed well before the middle ages.

        Just not in Europe.

        1. Well, except for Greece and Rome.

        2. I was speaking about Europe. And it existed in China during the periods of the various dynasties.

          1. And after I made my comment, I noticed that Europe also. Greece and Rome were in Europe, last time I checked.

            And the Ottoman Empire was in Europe some too.

            1. Greece didn’t have a strong central government. It was a collection of city states. Rome had one. And when it went away things were known as the Dark Ages. The Ottoman’s did. And, as long as you were a Muslim, life was better under the Ottomans than it was in most of Europe.

              1. Didnt Greece have a strong central government under Alexander?

                Not my particular historical cup of tea.

                1. Not really. Alexander was just a super bad ass thug who was really great at conquering people. But once he died, his generals split his empire and started fighting.

                2. Alexander wasn’t really Greek, he was Macedonian. Why the Greeks want to claim this mass killing tyrant as their own is a mystery. And he pretty much delineates the Classical Greek period from the Helenistic.

                  1. Greece still claims Macedonia as their own.

                  2. Because Macedonians were pretty much a more barbaric variant of Greeks. I don’t know how much current Macedonians are actually related.

                    As for why someone would claim Alexander, not all human beings judge some guy 2000+ years ago the way they judge politicians and rulers now. Alexander attempted to bridge East and West and blend the best of Hellenism with the best of Oriental thought. In certain ways, he was probably successful (though some transmission had already occurred before his time.)

                    I think if we just admit to ourselves that human beings did this sort of thing back then we can “judge” how good/bad they were for that context.

                    1. Yes, I know. It’s just something that my Greek history professor said that stuck with me for some reason.
                      Macedonians wanted to be Greek, but weren’t really considered so by the classical city states.

              2. Yes. Because people simply wallowed in mud with no ideas or cultural additions to humanity.

                It was dubbed the Dark Ages not by the people who actually lived it, but by historians who were pissed that their beloved central state had disappeared at the hands of what they perceived were uncouth rabble rousers.

                How liberals think of rednecks today is how “proper” people thought of the “barbarians” in the middle ages.

                1. I am fully aware of the revisionist history MLG. But the fact remains that whatever Rome’s faults, Europe was a much more violent and chaotic place after the central government of Rome fell. Constant arfare among local tribal chiefs is never good for anyone.

    2. Funny. I don’t feel compelled to obedience to the secular nationalism of the Zeitgeist itself. Though I do feel compelled to fund it.

      I always find calling things that have some things in common with religion religions to be silly. Think of a different word.

    3. this makes me miss herc

  27. Indiana Lawmakers mull right to resist police

    Indiana homeowners would have limited rights to resist police officers trying to enter their homes in a handful of instances under a bill that state legislators are considering.

    A state Senate committee is scheduled to hold a public hearing Tuesday on a bill that follows a public uproar over a state Supreme Court ruling in May that said homeowners cannot violently resist police officers even during an illegal entry.

    http://indiana.onpolitix.com/n…..wishtv.com

    1. Although, who is to say it’s illegal at the time?

      1. I fully expect the bill to fail. But for lawmakers to at least talk about is a step in the right direction.

    1. i’ve stopped trying to keep up w/ the euro bailout debacle. it changes every single day.

  28. Peer Reviewed Study: Increased Solar Flux Drove Global Warming During 20th Century
    While reviewing the bounty of solar and climate information found at the Global Warming Science site, we found the adjacent chart (this is the ‘C3’ revised version using annual HadCRUT global temperatures instead of monthly).

    Clearly, there is a strong relationship between solar activity (magnetic solar flux) and global temperatures.

    The relationship is not perfect but it represents a significant improvement over the incredibly lame human-CO2 and global warming / climate change relationship claimed by the IPCC’s anti-CO2 Climategate scientists and alarmists….

    Climate Sensitivity ? Zero
    Satellites have been monitoring the Earth’s temperature for 30 years. For the first fifteen years, temperatures were rising. For the last 15 years, temperatures have been steady, while CO2 emissions have gone through the roof….

    1. The idea that the sun has anything to do with earth’s climate is superstitious nonsense.

      1. Non-believer!!!11!1!

        But seriously, that made me laugh.

  29. Salma Hayek’s Golden Globes, Erin Wasson wins Biggest Attention Whore:

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

    1. Man if I ever go gay, Salma is the girl for me.

    2. Erin Wasson wins Biggest Attention Whore

      Imagine the attention she would have attracted if she had partially exposed breasts.

      1. What breasts?

        1. It’s always good to have someone around to explain the joke.

          1. I’ll be here all week!!

    3. Erin Wasson has no tits and not a single curve. Her waist is the same circumference as her hips.

      1. I’ll be in my bunk. Wait…

      2. And they called her “BOY HIPS”! *jaunty music*

      3. Jamie Lynn-Siegler on the other hand…

    4. Is “Salma Hayek’s Golden Globes” some kind of euphamism? I hope so.

      1. Should have clicked on link 1st.

  30. Ron Paul ought to rehearse these answers and keep them simple. He flailed around with the OBL question for minutes – then had his answer picked apart by Gingrich.

    1. I’ve said the same thing about him at other debates, but I’ve been attacked by the die hard faithful.

      Apparently you’re not allowed to criticize Paul at all around these parts.

      1. I’m can’t disagree with his answer because I don’t know wtf he was trying to say.

      2. It depends on what and how you criticize (not a paulbot by any means, just making an observation).

    2. I agree, he tends to ramble too much.

      1. I think he was ill-prepared for the debate. Especially in a Fox News debate he has to prepare for the worst. That he is only polling 3rd or 4th in SC should not be an excuse.

      2. That, and he sounds like Dana Carvey’s Old Man character.

        “Back in my day we had a gold standard. And we liked it.

    3. Ron Paul vs. Bill the Cat. You decide!

      1. ‘Oop ack!’ has the virtue of being succinct, and applicable to any question.

      2. Bill the Cat before or after Bill Gates’ brain?

    4. He has never been a good speaker. It will always be his ultimate downfall.

  31. Speaking of Morning Joke; when I turned it on, Scarborough was making a few points regarding hiow deep in the shit we really are, which I found to be pretty reasonable. Mika Bflsptzspk got a big owie on her butt, and accused him of everything but outright race hate.

    Then I changed the channel, because they said Valerie Jarret was coming on to tell me how the Ascended One is proposing to “fix” the government, and make it better and more efficient at stripping me of my freedom.

    1. KPSZTPSLFB!

      [poof]

      1. Nice. And sad that it made sense to me.

      2. Meanwhile….

    2. Wait, you don’t find Valerie Jarret really charming and endearing?

      1. Ew. She looks like they pulled her out of the pod before she was done replicating the house’s occupant.

      2. Ew. She looks like someone pulled her out of the pod before she was done replicating the occupant of the house.

  32. Virginia state delegate Bob Tata of Virginia Beach has introduced legislation to make it a Class 2 misdemeanor, up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine for allowing your cellphone to ring “with intent to annoy”.

    The thing I found even more surprising upon reading this is that it already is a Class 3 misdemeanor, which carries a fine of up to $500.

    1. What about talking loudly on checkout lines? Is that a felony?

      1. I don’t know about talking loudly, but cashiers talking to each other instead of while bagging your groceries should be a felony.

        1. I had a grocery cashier loudly singing “What’s Love Got To Do With It?” while scanning me out Sunday morning. I’m pretty sure she was still drunk from the night before.

          1. Did she know all the words?

            1. No, she mumbled her way through “But a second-hand emotion / But a sweet old fashion notion” chorus. I corrected her. And then we talked about the difference between Greek and regular yogurt. I was all fairly adorable.

              Much better than the old guy cashier who moves at about 1/3 normal human speed.

              1. Yes, but are you able to find full-fat Greek yogurt? All I can find around here is the skim-milk garbage, unless I fag it up and go all the way to Whole Foods.

                1. It’s easy enough to make your own, if you don’t mind spending some time (up to a day).

                  Line a sieve with a couple of layers of cheesecloth, then dump whole milk regular yogurt in it. Let it drain until it is the consistency you want. That is essentially how it is made: they just take regular yogurt and let some of the whey drain out until it is double in bulk.

                  Having said that, it is less hassle to buy it, I know.

                2. Whole Foods only around here as well. But considering I rarely go to less than 3 grocery stores a week, hitting Whole Foods is not a big deal. And they are the only place in town where I can buy bulk French lentils, other than the Co-op, which is twice as expensive and full of hippies complaining about their phantom gluten allergy.

                  1. I am doing a Roasted Swordfish Steak with ginger aioli on a bed of French Green Lentils for my wife’s b-day. I also bought them at WF. But I am super excited about the Day-Boat scallops over porccini’s and asparagas with butter sauce.

                    1. WF has also started carrying, black lentils (aka Beluga or caviar lentils). They don’t have them in the bins, but packaged and near the rice section (in my store, at least.)

                3. I also have this problem. It’s like America does not want skinny guys to get bigger. I don’t have enough of a problem with it yet to manufacture my own though.

              2. I was all fairly adorable.

                I’ll bet you were.

                1. *It* was

                  My wife was standing right there. It’s just that young people like me. The beard has a calming effect on them.

                  1. My 2 YO will loudly disagree with you.

          2. Too bad it wasn’t “We Don’t Need Another Hero.”

          3. 3 words: self check out.

        2. this. Self-checkout can’t take their jobs fast enough….well, once self-checkout actually works without an employee having to clear the errors that crop up every 2 items.

          I wonder if Amazon could manage a grocery store…

          1. They do delivery in the Seattle area.

            1. Yeah, I wish they’d run one of their trials in the Baltimore area. I’d never go to the fricking grocery store again.

              1. eagerly awaiting KindleGrocer.

      2. What about talking loudly on checkout lines? Is that a felony?

        I’m OK with that, but waiting until the checkout has completed and *then* whipping out your check book and then proceeding to s-l-o-o-o-w-l-y fill the check out, including the register entry, should be legal grounds for slashing all 4 tires on their car.

        1. Check writers should be confined to one single line in any store, so they can all wait on one another.

          The other annoying ones are those who count their $1 bills, figure out they don’t have enough for their purchases, then have the cashier start voiding items out to match their cash on hand.

          1. Not to mention the stereotypical old fogey with the change purse who has take their sweet time counting out the exact change. The only thing that comes close is getting stuck behind the minivan at a fast food drive though. Especially the ones with the little stick figures representing their families. They annoy the fuck out of me.

      3. They paint lines at your grocery store for you to stand on?

    2. So my cell phone would get six months in jail if it intentionally annoys me?

    3. “With intent to annoy” — I’m fascinated about how that’s defined in statute.

      1. A person is guilty of acting with intent to annoy whenever, with malice aforethought, he or she intentionally takes action, or fails to take action, with the purpose, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, of causing annoyance, distress, irritation, agitation, perturbation, exasperation, harassment, disturbance, provocation, or any other form of botheration in any person.

        1. Oh, so when you don’t give a shit about what the rest of the meatsacks think, you’re not doing it intentionally? Good to know.

          1. R C Dean made that up, BTW.

            1. I did. That’s the good definition. Get rid of the “with malice aforethought”, and the fact that you don’t give a shit about what the rest of the meatsacks think doesn’t matter.

        2. There’s also depraved heart annoyance, where the accused has acted with gross indifference to the rights of others not to be annoyed.

          1. I think I’m covered under this one, actually.

        3. So my passive-aggression is now intent to annoy?

        4. By that definition ~90% of the poeple in this country would be guilty. The other 10% are the ones who just don’t give a fuck.

    4. I just took another look at it and the statute applies to any person who, “with intent to annoy any other person, causes any telephone or digital pager, not his own, to ring or to otherwise signal.”

      So it’s basically about crank calling and harrassing someone by repeatedly dialing their phone.

      So maybe it’s not quite so outrageous as I had at first thought. I shoulda read it more closely the first time. That’s what I get for reading the summary of new legislation in the local newspaper. I shall fire off an e-mail to my acquaintance, the deputy editor of the editorial pages.

      1. That’s still bullshit.

      2. In that case every single telemarketer would be guilty.

        1. That was my first thought.

  33. “”With all of this progress, why is it that we continue to hear charges of racism emanating from the left, and most disturbingly, from the White House itself?” West said in a statement today. “It seems anytime there is criticism of the President or any of his black members of his administration, such as Attorney General Eric Holder, that criticism is decried as racist.” West recalled, in particular, that Holder has claimed some of his critics following Operation Fast and Furious were motivated by racial animus.

    West said that “this [2012] campaign must be about ideas, policy and the direction of this country, and the President must not hide behind a curtain of so-called racial bias.”

    http://campaign2012.washington…..ama/315811

    http://www.facebook.com/notes/…..2162072818

    1. Holder is black?

  34. I’ve always thought that the argument that our climate variations are not affected by the external heat inputs from our local star were just gobsmackingly counterintuitive. Now, counterintuitive does not = science, but still . . . .

    1. It’s just a big florescent light bulb – all our heat comes from the abuse of petroleum products.

    2. It’s kind of like how the Creationists talk about how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would require huge amounts of energy input to the Earth for evolution to happen. Why, you’d need a giant ball of fusion throwing energy at the earth for billions of years… Or people could just learn the difference between a closed system and an isolated system.

      1. A giant ball of fusion? What will they think of next?

    3. No, I’d call that gobsmackingly stupid. It’s the biggest driver of the system, as we get to see every year when winter rolls around.

      1. OR, every 12 hours or so (depending upon latitude).

        UUUPPP….DOWNNN
        UUUPPP….DOWNNN

  35. It was a normal theory, minding its own business until suddenly it dawned on the Left that here was an excuse for scientifically yoking the entire economy to Gubmint rule.

    1. This.

      That’s why “global warming” on other planets doesn’t matter.

      1. I’m old enough to remember when they called it “The Greenhouse Effect” which was totally non-frightening.

        1. Does that mean we are “old”?

  36. A huge collision of squickiness…

    The Daily Beast is reporting that before Rick was a glint in Karen Santorum’s eye, she was Karen Garver. As a 22-year-old nursing student, she began a relationship with 63-year-old Dr. Tom Allen, and the two were together for six years. Dr. Allen and Karen Garver were already acquainted, sort of; he’d delivered her when she was born in 1960. They met again after Karen contacted Allen about an apartment he was renting in his house near where she was attending nursing school.

    Garver moved into the basement apartment, but she wasn’t there long, says Allen. “That first night, as soon as it got dark, she called to say she was scared and asked if she could come up. I figured it was a come-on, but that was OK.” Karen, he says, came upstairs, permanently.

    But the strangest aspect of vocal pro-life advocate Karen Santorum’s relationship with Dr. Allen wasn’t their age difference or the fact that he helped cut her umbilical cord. It’s that Allen’s job? in addition to delivering babies like Karen? was to provide women with abortions. He not only terminated pregnancies, but was a vocal proponent of abortion rights in the days before Roe v Wade. He even founded a clinic that provided women with “therapeutic abortions” in the late 1960’s, where women would get clearance from psychologists who would exploit a loophole in the law that allowed women in a less-than-solid mental state to terminate their pregnancy for their own health.

    1. She sounds like she has issues, but honestly, it has been pretty apparent all along that the Santorums have Issues.

    2. While I hate Rick Santorum with a passion, I think that this kind of muckraking is just pathetic. Should he really be held accountable for shit his wife did before she met him?

      1. I agree, but it still sounds icky.

    3. Maybe she wasn’t pro life then? Maybe she had a change of heart? Or maybe she was pro life but judged the person not act? Maybe she was just a stupid 22 year old?

      Why should I care?

      1. So do you think the Santorums are sincere when are trying to be holier than the Pope, or is just political opportunism?

        1. I have never met them. So I don’t know. Nor do I really care. Who ever says you have to wear the hairshirt to make a good point? Either what they are saying is true or it is not. Whether they live by it or not is their problem not mine.

          1. Who ever says you have to wear the hairshirt to make a good point?

            If your point is that everybody should be wearing hairshirts, you better have one on yourself.

            1. If you thought wearing a hairshirt is a really good idea, would you not wear one because the guy who told you that wasn’t actually wearing one? I wouldn’t.

        2. I guess I would care more if it were happening now. I don’t think what you did when you were 22 disqualifies you from ever saying anything again. What if she said “yeah, it was horrible. I should have never dated him. I was young and stupid”. She wouldn’t be a hypocrite then would she?

          1. So apparently only the Santorums can be young and stupid when they talk about opposition to birth control?

            1. Why would the rule only apply to them? How about we not worry about what anyone did when they were young?

        3. Actually, a hypocrite I could stand. A houlier than thou asshole, however, I find infinitely more annoying.

          A hypocrite can hypothetically be humbled, and maybe learn humility from the experience. I mean, Ted Haggard seems to have toned it the fuck down, for example.

        4. Actually, a hypocrite I could stand. A houlier than thou asshole, however, I find infinitely more annoying.

          A hypocrite can hypothetically be humbled, and maybe learn humility from the experience. I mean, Ted Haggard seems to have toned it the fuck down, for example.

      2. I don’t really care about the abortion stuff but, good god, Karen and the doctor were fornicating!

      3. Yep. My wife’s friend had an abortion years ago because she absolutely hated her husband (justifiably) and didn’t want to go down that road with him. She is now a religious pro-lifer.

        1. Also, fuck Santorum.

    4. So, you disapprove of hot nurses who want to hook up?

      1. Not really, but the whole “I was once wrist-deep in your mom’s cooch… give me some sugar, girl” gives me pause. She had a pretty weird rumspringa, imo.

        1. That is a little fucked up. But that just means she probably gets her freak on. No wonder Santurum married her.

          1. nah, she’s one big steaming pile of daddy issues.

            1. Maybe Santorum likes that. Maybe that is his kink.

    5. Should he really be held accountable for shit his wife did before she met him?

      I get the idea here, as in, “I don’t care that you had other relationships before ours”, that kind of thing. “I don’t care about your really creepy and fucked up relationships before ours” is a little different and speaks poorly of the man’s standards and decision making.

      Why should I care?

      I’ll just toss in that, if Rick is elected, his wife becomes the 1st lady.

      Sure, no real power beyond grandstanding and spending money on lavish vacations, but still.

      1. It is his business. I don’t see why a woman liking to get it on with old rich men before you met her disqualifies her from being a potential wife.

        1. Trying to get elected makes it eveyone’s business, and it “speaks poorly of the man’s standards and decision making.”

          I’d want a classier broad to be the mother of my children. Especially if my political platform was all about The Proper Christian Family Values That I Think Everyone Else Should Live By.

          1. You just don’t like Santorum. I don’t either. But who he marries is his business.

            1. If his platform was “I Dont Care Who Marries Who, Or What They Do In The Privacy Of Their Home”, sure it would just be his business.

              1. Oh bullshit. Either you mind your own business or you don’t. Sorry but this shit of “it is okay for us to break all of our principles and be the assholes we hate as long as we are doing it to the ‘right people'” doesn’t fly with me.

                I believe in personal privacy And I give Santorum that. I don’t care what he thinks. It is no one’s business what he wife was doing when she was 22.

            2. If he were a candidate who didn’t want to tell everyone how to live it would not matter one iota. But it matters a smidge because he does.

              1. Okay Bones. So it is okay for Libertarians to be the smug assholes they claim to hate as long as they are doing it to the right people. Yeah, that is real principled. That will engender a lot of respect.

                1. Being smug assholes is kind of our thing (and you’ve been known to turn the smug asshole on more than a few times when debating MNG). Where in the NAP or other core libertarian ideas does it say we can’t be smug assholes?

                  1. The smug from H&R alone is one of the biggest contributing factors to Global Laming.

                2. I said a smidge.

                  1. the right people

                    If by people who’s position is to meddle in the affairs of others, then yes, those people deserve to have their affairs meddled and inspected.

                    I think this is covered by basic non-aggression principles. Once you aggress upon me, my duty to not aggress upon you is suspended.

    6. I would have expected Ricky Cumfart, of all people, to insist on a blushing virgin bride.

      1. He’s not Tim Tebow, man! He’s merely human!

        1. One anagram for Tebow is Webot.

          Freaky!

          1. Tim Tebow gives us “Met two bi.”

  37. you don’t find Valerie Jarret really charming and endearing?

    No.

    I guess that makes me some sort of misogynist racist.

    1. No, reading this website makes you a misogynist racist. Also a traitor.

      1. I come to H&R for the misogynist racism, but I stay for the racist misogyny.

        1. I came of the misogynist racism, but stayed for the cissexist support of kyriarchal privilege.

  38. Model of serial killer behavior built. Unfortunately, as it only predicts the probability of a murder being committed following a previous murder by the killer, its pretty much useless.

    1. I think the Dark Passenger theory provides as much useful predictive ability.

    2. Have you ever read the Gladwell article about profilers?

      It will kind of ruin Criminal Minds for you, because most of profiling is apparently claiming after the fact, “That was in my profile! I just forgot to tell everyone that part!”

  39. Canadian drug warriors prefer people dying… to keep people from dying

    VANCOUVER ? Police in B.C. are reluctant to tell the public what unique markings are on ecstasy pills suspected to contain a lethal additive linked to five deaths in the province.

    That’s because they don’t want users thinking they’re sanctioning the rest of the pills.

    http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Cana…..-20120114/

    1. I really, really want to shoot these puritanical fuckers. Them and the people who worry that the E-Cigs will let smokers smoke consequence free, or the fucks who worry that a pill will allow people to avoid hangover.

      For those fucks, the rest of us must be punished for our vices. And you’d think it would be the Mormons, but it’s not. They actually seem okay with the fact that the rest of us drink coffee and beer (well, to be fair, they also know that we aren’t getting our own planets when we die). No, it’s all these “public health” fucks who sound like if they had been alive back in the day, they would have worried about penicillin letting people fuck without the risk of syphilis.

      Seriously, can’t you imagine these asshats showing up in some 1920 article worried that advances in antibiotics will encourage people to have promiscuous sex because they no longer have to worry about the clap and VD?

      1. to be fair, they also know that we aren’t getting our own planets when we die

        I can live with that brand of puritanical fuckstickery.

  40. Eighty-four percent of Americans disapprove of Congress, finds WaPo poll.

    90% will still re-elect the cocksuckers anyway.

  41. New WaPo/ABC poll: Romney 36 Paul 16 Gingrich 16 Santorum 13

    1. I see 17 for Gingrich.

      1. That’s among the general pop. Look to the right; that’s registered voters.

  42. Really SF? I’m going to have to post the Hugo Schwartz article?

    He wants to jizz on your face, but not why you think.

    This being Schwartz, he pissed off feminist, this time for daring to suggest men might be insecure about their penises:

    During our discussion of the monologue, a male student noted bravely that he thought many men felt the same way about their penises. Perhaps, he suggested, the intense appeal of facials in porn (and real life) was about men’s desire for that same experience of being validated as desirable, as good, as “not dirty.” For a young man raised with the sense that his body ? and especially his penis ? is “disgusting”, a woman’s willingness to accept a facial is an intensely powerful source of affirmation.

    Which of course led to this angry response from Feministing and Friends.

    “Noted bravely” the narrator praised lavishly. Yes, while genitalia is generally considered to be shameful, people with penises aren’t subjected daily to ad campaigns created to convince them their business needs to to be completely redecorated before a sexual partner would even consider going near them and no cis person is subjected to as much malicious scrutiny of their genitals as trans people are. Portraying the cis male’s penis as some flaccid underdog in the organ olympics is wrong, wrong wrong wrong, and the word “circumcision” changes fucknothing about that discussion.

    Yes, the author is arguing that because you can’t be as insecure as him/her, your problem isn’t real and doesn’t matter.

    1. I’ve got to leave some stuff for the 2nd string. Once I graduate, the team will be in your hands.

      1. Aren’t you like a super super super super duper senior at this point?

        1. Can’t pass math. 🙁

          1. “The big dope failed…22 Years old and all he did the whole time I was there was drink beer and shoot cans with a bb gun.”

          2. “I’ve been going to this high school for seven and a half years. I’m no dummy.”

            1. Better Off Dead, FTW.

        2. Some people have to take a couple victory laps.

    2. “At the same time (as perhaps with anal sex), many people struggle to believe that receiving a facial is something a woman could enjoy.”

      He sounds like he doesn’t know anything about women.

      1. He sounds like he doesn’t know anything about women straight women.

        FIFY.

        1. True, but he sounds like he doesn’t know anything about bisexual/lesbian women either. Lesbian politics are so “no true Scotsman”.

          1. Well, he’s married enough lesbians, so maybe he has an honorary membership.

            1. And is still attracted to lesbians.

              You know, you put this guy in a novel, and everyone would say he was an outlandish stereotype that pulled them out of the narrative.

              1. But what if we could put him in a Bravo reality series?

                “I was married to a gay person” or just call it “Fag Hag: The series”.

                Ratings gold!

                1. Boys Who Like Girls Who Like Girls Who Drive Semis

    3. “because if there is anything I know about Feminism, it’s that not nearly enough people are getting jizzed on”

      I’m sure that’s part of it.

    4. I just think facials are stupid and gross and I don’t want to see that. Does that mean I am confident and comfortable with my penis?

    5. We didn’t have any seminars on facial cumshots at my college. Was there something wrong with my school? Heck, it was accredited ‘n everything.

      1. That’s why you should have majored in “sociology” or something like that instead of something useful (assuming that you must have, since you didn’t have any cumshots seminars at your school).

        Also, your school was accredited, there’s your problem.

    6. people with penises aren’t subjected daily to ad campaigns created to convince them their business needs to to be completely redecorated

      Um, I’m bombarded with “grow your penis” ads in my junk email and banner ads on porn sites. Literally daily, I might add.

      1. That was obviously someone who never saw an Enzyte ad and doesn’t have an internet connection at all.

    7. For a young man raised with the sense that his body ? and especially his penis ? is “disgusting”,

      And where, Jezebellatrixes, would he have gotten that idea, I wonder?

    8. There are probably as many reasons for why men like facials as there are men who like them. I myself am indifferent to man-chowder, but I do like the name Hugo. I don’t really know why.

    9. “Noted bravely” the narrator praised lavishly. Yes, while genitalia is generally considered to be shameful, people with penises aren’t subjected daily to ad campaigns created to convince them their business needs to to be completely redecorated before a sexual partner would even consider going near them and no cis person is subjected to as much malicious scrutiny of their genitals as trans people are. Portraying the cis male’s penis as some flaccid underdog in the organ olympics is wrong, wrong wrong wrong, and the word “circumcision” changes fucknothing about that discussion.

      Someday the sand in her vagina will become a beautiful pearl.

  43. Science finally tackles the most dangerous threat to man ever encountered: Hipsterism.

    In a new study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a Harvard University team found that when your friends start liking the same indie bands as you, you’re more likely to stop liking those bands.

    Researchers examined 200 college students’ Facebook pages over a four-year period and discovered that students who shared similar tastes in music bonded, instead of those students passing on tastes to each other. So while two hip dudes might strike up a conversation after noticing each other’s well-worn Fleet Foxes t-shirt, it’s much rarer that they’d actually adopt each other’s tastes.

    1. Have you heard of Lana Del Ray? She is a hipster mashup from hell. She is this gorgeous American chick who moved to the UK and started a music career. She does this technoed out soulish music that hipsters generally love. And she is actually not bad. She should be a hipster sensation. She is going to be the next big thing.

      But alas, she is the daughter of some hedge fund manager and went to boarding school. She is just not “authentic”. So all the hipsters now hate her even though she does music that they secretly love. If she were a black chick who grew up in BedSty she would be worshiped. But she is a rich white girl, so all self loathing rich white people must hate her.

      She apparently was pretty good on SNL last week. And she will probably sell a few records to non hiptster. The hipster tears over this are epic.

      1. I listened to her freebie on iTunes. Not my thing. The hipsters can keep her.

        1. She is okay. I kind of like her. The hipsters don’t want her. She is part of the 1%. Those people aren’t allowed to produce music. That is the point.

          1. the hipsters giveth then take away ! bye bye lana

      2. I didn’t care for her on SNL. The singing was really forced to achieve affectation.

        And she’s not really that far into the hipster demo. If you really look at the bands that flare brightly, very few are fronted by women. The secret shame of hipsterdom is that all the metrosexual scarf-huffers are really just as sexist as other men their age.

        1. That and I think a lot of the hipster music bloggers who hate her so much are gay men. And gay men hate beautiful woman. I was goofing off this weekend reading a bit about her. And the visceral hatred these gay guys have for her is kind of astounding. But most of it boils down to her being really hot and gay men not being able to handle that well.

          1. Funny how that works out. I’ve been lucky in that all the gay guys I know aren’t hipsters and have a strange obsession with boobs. My wife thinks it’s cause of the cleavage/ass similarities.

          2. John, I always get a chuckle out of your ridiculously overgeneralized characterizations of the gay world.

            1. John and over-generalizations go together like hipsters and unwarranted self-importance.

        2. It is funny that they hate her for being a rich kid. Yet, the Strokes were all former prep school students from NYC. And they were a hipster sensation. But all guys.

    2. The worst? Straight edge hipsters, which do exist.

      At least you can always count on the hippies to be able to bum some weed off of.

    3. The real question is how do we stop the hipsters? Personally I’m all for nuking the planet from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.

  44. Fawns fed and killed in homeowner’s yard

    When two fawns wandered into Jeff Carpenter’s Forest Lake backyard, his family did what they thought was right and cared for them. What they didn’t expect was to find the deer shot dead by Forest Lake police on their property. Carpenter explains why his family cared for the deer, and Captain Greg Salo of the Minnesota DNR explains why the Carpenters’ actions led to the demise of the two deer.

    http://www.startribune.com/video/137453648.html

    1. So, who got the meat?

    2. Rats with hooves v. rats with guns. Who is gonna win?

    3. When Jeff Carpenter heard gunfire outside his rural Forest Lake residence before sunrise Saturday morning, he raced outside to find a man holding a shotgun.

      “I was just glad I didn’t go out there with my gun. This thing could have got deadly,” said Carpenter, who had been burglarized recently and at first didn’t realize that he was looking at a city police officer.

      On the ground nearby, Carpenter said, were two fawns that he and his wife, LeeAnn, had been feeding.

      “They both had huge holes in them,” he said Monday. “They were neighborhood favorites. Everybody loved them.”

      But to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), they were a potential danger

      .

      THEY’RE COMING RIGHT FOR US!

    4. Fuck deer. DEER DELENDA EST

  45. Just so you all know what’s next in the sloopy/Banjos saga: We’re getting married on March 31st. The wedding is in Vegas, and you are (almost) all invited to attend. We’re in the process of picking out our invitations, so once they’re back from the print shop, they will be going out. The wedding will be casual, with tophats and monocles provided for all attendees at the door.

    Banjos is on her way to work, but will likely comment in a bit once she gets there.

    1. MOAR NICHOLAS SPARKS!

      You have a woman now, so no excuse.

      Also, other question: Did this just start during the Bowl Pick ‘Em, or has it been going longer?

      1. Yes, it started then. It all just clicked together perfectly. (It didn’t hurt that my parents got married 6 weeks after going out on a blind date and have been happily together for 45 years.)

        And we bought The Notebook and Nights in Rodanthe, but got a little tied up in other things over the weekend which kept us from watching either.

        1. Well, uh, congratulations then. Do you need a low cut Buckeyes jersey for your wedding registry, or something?

          Also, how can we take you to a strip club, but online? Er… I mean, not a strip club, because men don’t do that on before they get married.

          1. Going to a strip club in Vegas is the biggest waste of money ever. You could hire three attractive prostitutes to strip for you in your hotel room and you would still come out ahead (let’s all try to leave the obvious pun alone).

            1. Technically, you can’t hire prostitutes in Vegas proper.

    2. Please tell me it is a theme wedding; I want to wear a feminazi outfit

      1. Not a theme wedding, but we are requesting that you show up as the invisible (wo)man.

        1. Do I send an invisible gift?

    3. I ACKNOWLEDGE AND CELEBRATE YOUR LOVE.

      1. Woo-hoo! We have Sug’s blessing! We can now officially get hitched!

        1. As long as you have at least one foul-mouthed, drunken uncle… I will be there in spirit.

          1. I have a pervy uncle, close enough?

            1. I guess it will have to do.

    4. Congratulations and Best Wishes!

    5. Although, seriously, if you guys are getting married… good luck. And make sure any potential off spring is the Riker of HnR:TNG and not the Wesley Crusher.

      1. Seeing as how half of the commentariat is as creepy as The Traveler, I am not optimistic.

        1. “I met your mother while replying to a post under the title STEVE SMITH. Who is STEVE SMITH, you ask? Well…”

        2. As creepy? You underestimate us, Rev.

          More seriously, cogratulations to the both of you, sloopy.

    6. I can only imagine that this is the only time romance has been sparked through H&R commenting and fantasy football. Well done.

    7. We’re both legitimately curious if anyone on here would like to go to Vegas and show up that weekend. You’re all welcome, you know.

      1. Honestly, it is a tempting offer, even if it would require an assload of driving from Colorado.

        1. I will be there for the LP Nat Con…can you wait?

      2. I wouldn’t go, but I’d be glad to hook you kids up with something off a registry. Email me off board with a link, if you want. I can distribute it out on the H’n’R email ring as well.

        1. It consists of nothing but acoustic instruments and monocles.

          1. You were serious when you said the dutch over was a no-go

            Seriously, babe…WTF?

            I thought you meant the other dutch oven.

          2. I can work with a list like that…

        2. There’s an H&R e-mail ring? I gotta get in on this.

          1. Yes, and I’m the inaugural topic; I get it forwarded and LMAO

            1. BTW, I love you too “innocent as yellow snow” AKA Prolib

          2. It’s only for the ultra-cool. You’re merely sort of cool.

            1. RBM, some clubs you don’t want to be a member of; it isn’t the dues; it’s the unexpected assessing

          3. There’s an H&R e-mail ring? I gotta get in on this.

            Yes, and I think you can see why I longer accept any new members.

            1. you are such a child; I’d send everyone a copy but that’s just too HSCT

        3. If I could swing a Vegas trip, I would actually show up, but that ain’t happening anytime soon.

          A huge, giant fucking congrats to both of you!

        4. So, sloopy… sexy Michigan Jersey (for the fun of ripping it off) or a sexy Ohio State jersey (for the fun)?

          Also, we need to get an official blog announcement.

    8. The hard part is deciding whose compound we are going to live in.

    9. I’m sorry, but at H&R my sarcometer gets fouled up. Is this really happening?

      1. Absofuckinglutely!

        1. Congratulations, then.

      2. Honestly, it is.

        SugarFree will be able to confirm in just a few minutes.

        1. They have a date and confirmation letter and everything. But then, I never doubted you. This board has become way to cynical.

          And it’s not the first time this has happened, at least two other couples started out by flirting on the board. Three, if you count John and MNG.

        2. I’ll get you a monocle, for sure.

          This is adorable, by the way. I’ll give you the traditional Warty blessing: “May death come swiftly to your enemies.”

        3. Grats then. Come to Colorado for a Ski Honeymoon. We just got snow.

          1. Not in the Springs we don’t. Pikes looks so frickin’ weird.

        4. I am curious, once joined will your handle become “SloopyJos”? or “Banjoopy”?

          1. I might change mine to Banjosinca.

    10. Sloopy, I hate to ask, but… the relationship between you and Banjos isn’t like the one between John T and Suki, is it?

      1. OK, OK, I believe it.

    11. If I’m not invited, I’m telling Santorum to get involved in your bedroom.

    12. That’s awesome sloop. Congrats to you and Banjos!

  46. A list of reasons that you’re not in a relationship, by linked from Feministing.

    Example:

    1.You’re a bitch. You don’t put others first, you don’t say “yes” every time someone wants you to do something, or drop what you’re doing because they’re so busy, and their time is valuable. You ask for a raise like you have the right to breathe or something. Get over yourself! Oh, and when someone grabs your ass, you’re supposed to say “please don’t do that”, not push them into still-operating machinery with lots of metal spikes on it, ‘kay?
    2.You have an attitude problem. You think your opinion actually matters as much as that guy’s at the pub the other day ? what’s his name again, Dick? You won’t stand down and nod, like all the other women do who are half your age and get more attention than you anyway.
    3.You’re just too emotional. You make a big deal out of nothing, like actually disagreeing with a man who makes a joke you don’t like. Don’t you realize the very fact that you open your mouth to do anything but laugh along is completely oppressive, a form of censorship and a total boner-killer? What do you mean, you feel like we’re trying to shut you up? There you go again, being totally paranoid.

    Y’know, if you just look at the reasons, without the explanations, this person has hit the nail on the head. The explanations, however, really shed some light on the subject.

    1. Some people refuse to see what’s staring back at them in the mirror.

    2. Well, we know why the author isn’t in a relationship. Sweetie (is that sexist?), no one wants to date someone who tries to pick a fight with everyone they meet. Put down your cloak of righteousness and try letting people be themselves without having you climb on your hobby-horse every time.

      1. Is that a +5 Cloak, or is she playing with Advanced Bitchiness rules?

        1. She has a Ring of Twatishnessedness. And a Vagina of Infinite Withholding.

        2. I think it’s -5 to CHA, WIS, INT; +10 STR, CON

    3. Yeah I just scanned the topics and thought maybe Feministing had gotten some sense. Those are exactly the reasons a lot of women are not in relationships.

    4. The real problem, as I see it, is this woman’s general outlook. If you are going to be bitter and single, you should embrace it. Instead of looking within to discover “why don’t people want to be around me?”, she’s decided that other people are the problem. It reminds me of meeting someone who has been divorced four times and complains nonstop about his ex-wives. Like, hey, they might not be the problem there, buddy…

    5. So she knows full well the reasons she’s unhappy, but chooses to continue her counterproductive behavior because of some vague ideological reason. If it weren’t so hilarious, it would be sad.

      1. Plenty of room in the world for mad old cat ladies.

    6. These are all reasons why they aren’t in a GOOD relationship. The reason they aren’t in ANY relationship is because the don’t put out.

    7. Yet, somehow, I bet it’s still less loopy then what you could find on Free Republic.

  47. Eighty-four percent of Americans disapprove of Congress, finds WaPo poll.

    Strangely enough nearly Congressman will be re-elected.

    “It’s those other guys who are fucking everything up. Why don’t those other people throw their bums out, so my totally awesome guy make this country a better place?”

    1. I vote against the incumbent reflexively. I think the only time I’ve voted for the incumbent since 2004 was in the 2006 senator race. Katherine Harris was such a disaster, she made Nelson look good.

  48. nearly every Congressman will be re-elected.

  49. More from Microagression! (pssst, honey – maybe the bouncer likes you and perhaps he hasn’t had time to do w complete workup on your life history)

    A bouncer/security guard at my favourite bar keeps touching my arm and back as he checks my ID.

    He’s a big man, and I’m a petite 24 year old female rape victim. It’s not ‘significant’ enough to report, but reminds me I’m not safe anywhere, with anyone. I will always be regarded as lesser than male and therefore free to touch and be expected to take it as a compliment.

    1. I thought of posting that one, but I am waiting for the upcoming site redesign.

      Also, we need to fast track microaggresion into the drinking game.

    2. It’s not ‘significant’ enough to report,

      Her self-control is admirable, don’t you think?

      1. “Excuse me, officer, but as a former rape victim, how dare you push me out of the way of that bullet? It could have triggered me!”

        1. “Former rape victim” will be the very core of her identity until she dies. Pathetic.

          1. Former rape victim” means that she is no longer the victim of the rape, right? She should be thrilled about that.

            1. Well, with that dude touching her all the time, she’s really not sure.

      2. “911, what is your emergency?”
        “I was a rape victim!”
        “OK ma’am, when did this happen?”
        “Years ago, but I was re-victimized when a man kindly touched me on my back!”
        “Ma’am, this line is for real emergencies and I’ve got five people on hold bitching about McDonald’s Chicken Nuggets. Seek help.”

        1. not the nuggets themselves, but the blowjobs they had to give to get them

    3. Or he doesn’t really know he’s doing it. I was always a person who touched people on the hand or arm when talking to them. I had to break myself of it in the professional world.

      Of course, she could cowboy up and politely say, “Please don’t touch me.” If he’s doing it unconsciously, he’ll stop. If he’s doing it to feel women, he’ll get defensive and huffy.

      Microaggessions is a lot of the reason I stopped fooling with Facebook… it became a constant stream of unsoclisted passive-agression: “To the person that cut me off this morning, I’d like to say…”

      1. What kind of people were you friends with on facebook?

        1. My student workers are mostly female. And whiners, apparently.

          1. I have a few annoying liberal friends and their really really retarded super liberal friends who are not my friends but still post on my friends’ threads. They always begin their posts with

            “All of my conservative friends out there think X but what about Y. just asking”. So fucking annoying.

    4. Right. Everyone always asks permission before touching men. Maybe she should get a shirt with glowing letters that say “RAPE VICTIM” so that people will know they have to be extra sensitive or she’ll write about it anonymously on the internet.

      1. Not “RAPE VICTIM.” It’s gotta say “Former Rape Victim,” so we can celebrate the end of her victimhood.

    5. I thought strong womyn were supposed to call themselves survivors, not victims.

      Also, shouldn’t a rapee, of all people, want a giant scary man, whose job is to beat up people, to like her?

      1. Also, shouldn’t a rapee, of all people, want a giant scary man, whose job is to beat up people, to like her?

        Still pissed about Dagny T taking out that protective order against you?

        1. I haz a sad 🙁

    6. Of course if someone told her “just tell him you were a rape victim and have a problem with that”, the response would be how she doesn’t have to share her history with the world and be stigmatized. No. The rest of the world is just supposed to magically know and act accordingly.

    7. “I will always be regarded as lesser than male and therefore free to touch and be expected to take it as a compliment.”

      Right, because there are way more restrictions on touching men than women.

      Woman deliberately grabs man’s crotch — no one cares
      Man accidentally touches woman’s ass — sexual assault, registry for life

    8. I’m a big guy and petite 24 year old saleswomen often touch my arm when they are trying to get me to buy something.

      How can I stop microaggressing against them like this?

      1. I’m a 22-year-old man, and sometimes obese Southern ladies call me “darlin'”.

        MICROAGGRESSION!

        1. I’m a 50-year old woman, and I live in Baltimore, and lots of women (some of them younger than me!) call me “Hon.”

          MICROAGRESSION.

    9. Being borderline autistic in my reaction to people touching me (short version: if you’re not my wife, don’t), I can unequivocally say this is bullshit. Also, the unsolicited touching you get as a guy is way more annoying than what women get in the age of sexual harassment and PC.

      1. Your reaction is interesting to me; I never thought of that phenomenon as being borderline autistic. I intensely dislike being touched as well (Except by family members: spouse, kid, brother, sister, mother, father). People seem to think that is freakish. Maybe it is, I don’t know, but it makes me want to come out swinging when someone gloms me, almost like a defensive reaction. It is why I feel very strongly about kids getting to decide for themselves who hugs them at family get-togethers.

        1. Try the T approach, which is simple. The words are “don’t fucking touch me.”

          That usually solves the problem.

    10. The real question is – has anyone else submitted a story to the site? I didn’t get any drinking done this weekend, so nothing new came to mind.

    11. What does not significant enough to report even mean? Sounds like “male gaze” rape instead of rape rape. Because anything that is actually a sexual assault is significant enough to report. Since she actually identifies herself as a petite 24 year old rape victim instead of petite 24 year old paralegal or petite 24 year old med student even though it wasn’t significant enough to report says a lot about this chick’s mental state.

      Bouncers like girls and your arm and back aren’t your boobs or vagina. Don’t be all oppressed by it.

    12. “I will always be regarded as lesser than male and therefore free to touch and be expected to take it as a compliment.”

      Good to see she finally understands her place.

      1. Why isn’t she in the kitchen making a pie yet?

    13. Why doesn’t the gutless little wonder just speak up and tell the dude to keep his hands to himself? Probably wouldn’t have to tell him more than once. What’s she think – he’s gonna deck her or something?

  50. Top 100 Beer Bars

    Suck it, cities with less than 2 on the list. Suck it even more, cities with more than 2.

    1. We have like four Winking Lizards, so I have no idea whether that counts or not.

    2. LA CAVE DU VIN | Cleveland Heights, Ohio

      This dark basement beer bar’s a stop on every brewer’s itinerary, so the taps are always spilling limited editions and rarities. Cellarmasters, take note: La Cave’s got an impressive vintage list that runs deep; visit often to make sure you’re there when the management decides to dip into the archives. 2785 Euclid Heights Blvd., lacaveduvin.com

      That’s a good place to take chicks. It was nice when I lived in walking distance. Also, a guy I know once bit the owner’s hand while getting thrown out after starting a fight. The poor bastard had to get rabies shots.

      MCNULTY’S BIER MARKT | Cleveland, Ohio

      Belgian and Belgian-inspired brews remain the focus of this sleek, bare-bulbed bar, but the 20 taps also serve to test-drive beers from owner Sam McNulty’s Market Garden Brewery across the street. The crowd’s young and cool, the bottle list is long, and the prices are on point: $24 for a 10-beer sampler? Yes, please. 1948 W. 25th St., bier-markt.com

      Also a good place. Although I don’t know anyone who made the owner have to get shots.

      1. I should mention, though, that Bier Markt is overrun with foul hipsters with ironic beards and ironic cowboy shirts. I try not to murder any.

      2. When you’re bitten by a dog, they try to find the dog to test it for rabies before they administer the shots. They only give the shots if the dog can’t be found.

        So, could they not find your friend to test him for rabies?

      3. A guy you knew… Righhtttt

      4. How in the fuck is The Petrol Station not on this list? For Chrissakes, it’s Stone Brewing’s Bitterest Bar in America.

        Shouldn’t Pizza Port be on there too?

    3. Only 1 from Colorado? BULLSHIT.

      1. Two goldy, Falling Rock and the Ft. Collins one. And yes only two is Bullshit as well.

    4. They only put one from Texas on the entire list and it wouldn’t even make my top 10 in the state. As usual, lists like this are bullshit.

      1. Also, unsurprisingly it is in Austin. I’m betting the author hasn’t been anywhere else. While Austin is a fun city, the bar scene is way overrated.

        1. Everything about Austin is way overrated. Such a stupid little town.

          1. San Antonio is much more relaxed and more fun. Austin has the traffic of a huge city with few of benefits and culture. Sorry, the local transvestite on 6th Street is not culture. And the music scene there has been living on its past for years. Austin got famous after what it was famous for was already over.

    5. Why are so many of those described as fancy? Aren’t there any shitholes that serve a large selection of beers? The Brickskeller (now Baronsometing or other?) was kind of a shithole back in the day. Haven’t been there in years, though.

    6. I notice Portlands got 6 and Seattle’s got 4. No wonder anyone I’ve ever met from the pacific northwest is huge fucking lush. At least now I have a reason to hate Portland and Seattle.

  51. Now who in like a million years would have thought of that? Wow.

    http://www.anon-vpn.tk

  52. reminds me I’m not safe anywhere, with anyone.

    Just kill yourself, honey. It’s the only way to be truly safe.

  53. We’re getting married on March 31st.

    And you call yourselves libertarians.
    Your fawning statism disgusts me.

    1. Oh, and congrats. Sorry, can’t make it to Vegas. Restraining orders, statute of limitations, you know the drill.

  54. Michael Moore is loved in Iran for being anti-America.
    http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesi…..blobHeHhXP

  55. Missing the boat, as always.

    More Good News Grief for Krugman

    http://www.economicpolicyjourn…..ugman.html

    Paul Krugman, who just weeks ago declared that we are still in a depression and called for even more government spending, got a new dose of reality via the latest data release from the New York Fed.

    The New York Fed’s “Empire State” general business conditions index, a gauge of manufacturing in New York State, showed growth picked up in January, rising to the highest level in nine months.

    Check out these numbers.

    The overall index rose to 13.48 from a revised 8.19 in December. New orders climbed to 13.70 from a revised 5.99, while inventories also gained to 6.59 from minus 3.49.

    Further,the employment gauges part of the index showed impressive strength. The index for the number of employees rose to 12.09 from 2.33 and the average employee workweek index climbed to 6.59 from minus 2.33.

    Krugman, thus, has missed the turnaround.

    He completely missed the signs of the ECB bailout of EZ foreign debt.

    And the soaring price inflation that will be obvious later in the year, will make Krugman’s fears of deflation make his other misses look minor league.

    1. “The New York Fed’s “Empire State” general business conditions index, a gauge of manufacturing in New York State, showed growth picked up in January, rising to the highest level in nine months.”

      Picked up in January? It’s only the fucking 17th.

  56. Congrats Sloop&Banjos;

    1. Ah, thanks Pants!

  57. Here’s a good article from last week that I missed: Paul’s delegate-focused strategy.

    This is a bit mindblowing:

    Puerto Rico will award 23 delegates when its citizens caucus on March 18. New Hampshire, punished for moving its election into early January, will award only 12. On Tuesday, roughly 245,000 people voted in the Granite State’s primary. During the 2008 cycle, Puerto Rico’s caucus resulted in a total vote count of 208.

    With that many delegates at risk over that few votes, it would stand to reason that the current GOP field would be making manic maneuvers to shore up support in Puerto Rico. But so far, only one candidate seems to be doing much, if anything: Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

    1. What else you would you expect a racist like Ron Paul to do?

  58. So the local NBC affiliate posted a story on their Facebook page about local Burger Kings offering delivery.

    I’ll give you three guesses on what the most common (paraphrased) comment was from the Facebook peanut gallery, and the first two don’t count.

    1. “My house is already Home of the Whopper”?

    2. I’m gonna go with “The government should do something about this”.

    3. Loki is somewhat close…it was more along the lines of “people shouldn’t have easier access to fast food!”

      I like Burger King, goddammit.

  59. Has anyone ever heard of the “red tent party”? WTFFFFF? This one is new to me.
    http://redtentparty.wordpress.com/

  60. I am seeking the right man who can give me a real love, so I joined in the Seekcasual*com.(user name winklin)It’s the first and best club for man and woman finding their intimate encounters. Well, you do not have to be lonely ,for you can meet the Mr. or Miss. Right there//

  61. I like Burger King, goddammit.

    Apparently there are no Hardees in your town.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.