Republican Party

A.M. Links: Newt Lashes Out at Media (Again), Jim DeMint Remains Neutral, Hackers Retaliate Over Megaupload Bust


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 "The Foie Gras Fight: Animal Cruelty or Animal Rights Propaganda?"

NEXT: Henry Payne on the Sinking of the U.S.S. Economy

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

        1. Yeah, it's supposed to be "Fist!". Jeez Hit and Run, get it together.

          1. Says the anonymous coward.
            Ironic, no?

            1. "...where the people are made up and the comments don't matter!"

    1. As a medical student I must attest that these are not just piracy sites. Any hard-to-find info may be uploaded to and accessible on these sites. I've used them numerous times and greatly appreciate them. Next time you go visit a doctor, realize that most of the information running around in his head is pirated and not paid for--and thank God for that.

      1. Aaaar, "hard-to-find" justifies theft, matey!

        1. You're a naive idiot. 100% of medical students and probably 60% of doctors use Wikipedia as a first source. 100% of the information on Wikipedia was stolen from elsewhere. Of course it's all legal because it "references" the source. Philosophically your argument holds no water unless you truly believe that the state can define what is and is not property by fiat.

          1. Shiver me timbers, why are you paying good money for medical school when you can steal your education?

            1. I'm paying to be allowed to receive a state-endorsed paper allowing me to practice, not to be educated :). Most of medicine in the first two years is self-reading. The last two years are apprenticeship, as is residency.

              1. jj, please let me know when and if and where you decide to set up shop, so I can avoid it.

                1. LP: Why, because I read to educate? Did you know that a harvard medical education is almost exclusively non-lecture? Students read texts and discuss amongst themselves. This model is spreading to many schools in the country with decent results.

                  I'll be a cardiologist soon, and I'm happy not to treat you. Thanks.

                2. With that avoidance technique I'm positive you'll avoid a lot of smart people in your life time.

            2. Don't you owe this man money for stealing his thoughts?

              1. Was that Newt?

              2. ,i>stealing his thoughts

                You're not very bright, "heller." Maybe this will help. You're welcome.

                What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind's contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property.

                An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object's value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.

                It is important to note, in this connection, that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention. A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be the exclusive property of the discoverer because: (a) he did not create it, and (b) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission. He can copyright the book in which he presents his discovery and he can demand that his authorship of the discovery be acknowledged, that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for it?but he cannot copyright theoretical knowledge. Patents and copyrights pertain only to the practical application of knowledge, to the creation of a specific object which did not exist in nature?an object which, in the case of patents, may never have existed without its particular originator; and in the case of copyrights, would never have existed.

                The government does not "grant" a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it?i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner's exclusive right of use and disposal.

                Ayn Rand
                "Patents and Copyrights," Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 130

                Publishing excerpts of copyrighted works for review or study constitutes "fair use" and is not the equivalent, ethically or legally, of pirating whole works. Just in case it needs explaining.

                1. HOLY SHIT AYN RAND I AR DEFEATED!!!1

                  Wow dude. Not even going to read your copy-pasta. Not only am I not an Objectivist, but why would I allow you to use someone else's ideas to argue for you? Isn't that *gulp* stealing?

                  1. He just stole Ayn's material to argue against theft!

                2. But yhank you for continually upping the retard factor on each post. You really made it easy for me.

                3. Yes, because bringing up Rand for a pro IP argument on a libertarian site has never been done before. Libertarians are pretty much split on the IP issue, and many of us, on both sides of that argument find AR's argument to be poorly framed at best and a hypocritical appeal to authority at worst. Our issue is not with theft, it's with DUE PROCESS. An individual cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without DUE PROCESS of the law. Writing laws that circumvent due process do not change the process, they invalidate the law as written.

                4. i'll pirate your whole works

                5. It's passages like this that show what a third rate thinker Ayn Rand was when it came to economics and legal theory.

                  Here's what a first rate mind wrote on the subject:

                  We have seen in chapter 2 that the acid test by which we judge whether or not a certain practice or law is or not consonant with the free market is this: Is the outlawed practice implicit or explicit theft? If it is, then the free market would outlaw it; if not, then its outlawry is itself government interference in the free market. Let us consider copyright. A man writes a book or composes music. When he publishes the book or the sheet of music, he imprints on the first page the word "copyright." This indicates that any man who agrees to purchase this product also agrees as part of the exchange not to recopy or reproduce this work for sale. In other words, the author does not sell his property outright to the buyer; he sells it on condition that the buyer not reproduce it for sale. Since the buyer does not buy the property outright, but only on this condition, any infringement of the contract by him or a subsequent buyer is implicit theft and would be treated accordingly on the free market. The copyright is therefore a logical device of property right on the free market.

                  Part of the patent protection now obtained by an inventor could be achieved on the free market by a type of "copyright" protection. Thus, inventors must now mark their machines as being patented. The mark puts the buyer on notice that the invention is patented and that they cannot sell that article. But the same could be done to extend the copyright system, and without patent. In the purely free market, the inventor could mark his machine copyright, and then anyone who buys the machine buys it on the condition that he will not reproduce and sell such a machine for profit. Any violation of this contract would constitute implicit theft and be prosecuted accordingly on the free market.

                  The patent is incompatible with the free market precisely to the extent that it goes beyond the copyright. The man who has not bought a machine and who arrives at the same invention independently, will, on the free
                  market, be perfectly able to use and sell his invention. Patents prevents a man from using his invention even
                  though all the property is his and he has not stolen the invention, either explicitly or implicitly, from the first inventor. Patents, therefore, are grants of exclusive monopoly privilege by the state and are invasive of property rights on the market.

                  The crucial distinction between patents and copyrights, then, is not that one is mechanical and the other
                  literary. The fact that they have been applied that way is an historical accident and does not reveal the critical difference between them.

                  The critical difference is that copyright is a logical attribute of property right on the free market, while patent is a monopoly invasion of that right.

                  1. Why should Hank Rearden be the only one to profit from Rearden Metal?

                  2. grr ROTHBARD GOOD RAND BAD derp.

                  3. And in a serious response to this Rothbard copypasta, it is obvious that he is trying to have it both ways, and in so doing, is failing miserably with the argument.

                    In the purely free market, the inventor could mark his machine copyright, and then anyone who buys the machine buys it on the condition that he will not reproduce and sell such a machine for profit. Any violation of this contract would constitute implicit theft and be prosecuted accordingly on the free market.

                    That is different from the current copyright regime with respect to art how again...?

                    1. That is different from the current copyright regime with respect to art how again...?

                      It's not. And if you read the entire essay, you'll note that he discusses that.

                      it is obvious that he is trying to have it both ways, and in so doing, is failing miserably with the argument.

                      What do you mean by "both ways"?

                  4. The man who has not bought a machine and who arrives at the same invention independently, will, on the free market, be perfectly able to use and sell his invention.

                    Because, God knows, no one would ever LIE about coming up with the same idea independently.

                    This is the problem with anarchy. The philosophy works fine IF you assume there are no bad people in the world.

                    There is a single purpose for government, that being, to protect the rights of the individual.

                    1. Anarchy won't work because people might learn from each other?

                    2. No tarran, it won't work because rent seekers would lose one of their main avenues and would be forced to actually have to produce and be innovative.

                    3. Anarchy won't work because people might learn from each other?

                      I assume that was for me.

                      No. Anarchy won't work because its basic premise is that everyone else shares your moral code. As stated above, anyone could simply lie about coming up with an idea independently.

                      If all one need do is lie to negate a copyright, why bother having them at all. A large number of people will lie to profit from the work of another. And in an anarchy, who's going to stop them?

                    4. No. Anarchy won't work because its basic premise is that everyone else shares your moral code

                      Can you tell me which Anarchist theorist has had that premise? David Friedman, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard certainly didn't. Often they argued to the contrary.

                      If all one need do is lie to negate a copyright, why bother having them at all.

                      Murderers lie about committing murders all the time, yet often they get convicted anyway. In a free market, a copyright regime would be very different than the regime created by government grants of monopoly currently in place. One would have to register copyrights, obviously, the registrars would be groups much like Creative Commons, and the terms of copyright would be set by negotiation and arbitration with marketplaces like Walmart or Amazon.

                    5. Can you tell me which Anarchist...

                      I freely admit to being intellectually outgunned on this subject. Have read little about it. So yes, you are debating an amateur and you can stop trying to discredit me in that regard. Consider me discredited.

                      However, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), most anarchists believe we can exist with NO government.

                      One would have to register copyrights, obviously, the registrars would be groups much like Creative Commons, and the terms of copyright would be set by negotiation and arbitration with marketplaces like Walmart or Amazon.

                      What if I don't wish to participate in your Creative Common (which was my original point)? Who's going to make me?

                    6. It really depends on the circumstances of your refusal to participate.

                      Tools that are available to the copyright holder include, suits for breach of contract (the guy who initially violated to copyright is breaking the sales contract), boycots (Creative Commons declines to allow Amazon to carry any of its works.

                      As far as forcing people to participate in courts goes, while one can't force people, one can incentivize them.

                      David Friedman has one vision of how to do that in his book The Machinery of Freedom. Murray Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty has a different vision.

                      I strongly encourage you to read both books - they are very thought-provoking.

                    7. Got it. I'm sure there are ways to incentivize participation. My next question would be, "are they cost effective?" How much does it cost you in incentives to stop bad people from taking your shit. I would guess, more than the value of your shit.

                      Every anarchist argument I've ever heard boils down to the five words..."who's going to make me?" If I have no morals, what's to stop me from doing anything I want?

                      I've heard answers to those questions, like forming protection cooperatives, but the end result is a form of tribalism (where's White Indian?). Which would work right up to the point a nation with a government (and bombers, tanks and warships) decides they want your entire landmass.

                      Not buying.

                      The government (albeit extremely limited) should have a monopoly on force and must be limited in the use of that force to protecting the rights of its citizenry.

              3. Say heller, do you own your handle?
                Mind if I share it?

                1. ^This is one of my favorite bullshit "arguments" that pro IP people use. They have difficulty discerning between fraud and property rights.

                2. Say heller, do you own your handle?

                  Well according to you, I do now.

      2. You idiot.

        Don't you realize that locking up information is more important for society than putting than using that information? A few dead patients are nothing compared to the profitability of RIAA and MPAA members.

        1. My music isn't "locked up." Want a copy? Pay for it.

          Isn't capitalism a difficult concept?

          1. As a musician, you've never "borrowed" melodies, rhythms, styles from other artists -- you create *original* music, don't you. Of course all of those stolen items are not real "property" since the state has decreed it so, so you're not stealing at all! I see!

          2. As a musician, you've never "borrowed" melodies, rhythms, styles from other artists -- you create *original* music, don't you. Of course all of those stolen items are not real "property" since the state has decreed it so, so you're not stealing at all! I see!

            1. There are only so many notes.

          3. Do you understand the difference between copying and taking?

            If you devise a clever new bicycle, and I memorize your blueprints and build my own, I haven't stolen anything from you. You still have your blueprints, don't you? And you still have your bike?

            Information is not a commodity like shampoo is. Information is not a physical thing, and thus cannot be stolen.

          4. Another question: Do you ever play in the dorian mode? How about harmonic minor scales, do you play those? Or dominant seventh chords?

            Did you invent all of those things?

            Do you know anything ? anything - about the history of jazz?

            Music without "pirating" does not exist. It cannot.

            1. following the "borrowing" postulate, every car maker since the first is a pirate, as is anyone who developed any other product after the first of its type came out. And it all ignores the bigger point - do you really want Imperial DC to be in charge of this, given its track record?

          5. I put a patent on every single note that I tempered, pay out bitch.

            1. I put a patent copyright on every single note that I tempered, pay out bitch.

              /pedant IP paralegal

              1. Notes are a physical manifestation, a medium for expression. Patent, not copyright.

                1. In order to patent something, it has to be of patentable subject matter, novel, non-obvious, and useful. Even in the 18th century, "notes" would not have met this criteria.

            2. Tempering a clavier is one thing, but tempering one well??!? That's a whole 'bother clam factory.

        2. A few dead patients are nothing compared to the profitability of RIAA and MPAA members

          Wow, I learn something new here every day. Who new that actors and musicians were moonlighting as surgeons? And I thought they were all waitresses.

          1. Hey you have nothing to worry about. No one wants to copy "music" from a retard like you.

            1. It only has the power you give it, guys.

              1. I heard some tards are super strong. I wonder if this one is...

            2. No one wants to copy "music" from a retard like you.

              The last 10 years of album charts suggest otherwise. The best selling (or most liked) music tends to get made by imbeciles.

            3. You've probably never heard my music, "heller," but thanks for prejudging it as "retarded." It makes you look like a fool. By the way, thousands and thousands of people have copied my music, with my permission (an important point if you care to think) and many more have willingly purchased it. Others have copied it without my permission, attributing a value to it by virtue of the act of downloading it, and yet refusing to acknowledge the value that they themselves have proven by the act.

              1. ,i>attributing a value to it by virtue of the act of downloading it, and yet refusing to acknowledge the value that they themselves have proven by the act.

                Clinking a link is worthless, both in terms of effort expended and reward. It costs me nothing to download a file, so attributing any sense of value to that act is flawed logic. Just because somebody downloads your music doesn't mean they find value in it.

                1. Just because somebody downloads your music doesn't mean they find value in it

                  Ha ha ha ha ha! Perfect!
                  And with that brilliant retort fresh in my mind, I leave you to entertain the other imbeciles, who will be here all day, I'm sure.

                  1. I suppose is never occured to you that some people may download you music, listen to it, decide it sucks ass, and delete it. Does it still have "value" then?

                2. that's ridiculous. Clicking a link implies at least a passing interest in something. Actually downloading it only confirms that interest. Or do you routinely download material you find worthless?

                  1. "Clicking a link implies at least a passing interest in something"

                    No, wareagle saying stupid shit again.

                    On wednesday evenings after work, I wholesale download all the new releases.

                    Only after they're downloaded do I cull them, because it's faster to do it that way.

                    So shut the fuck up, because you're flat wrong.

                    1. tulpa's capacity for thinking once again proven lacking. If you weren't interested in the new releases, you would not download them. Good god; are you that dense. Rhetorical question; of course, you are, because everyone downloads things they have no interest in.

              2. Sweetheart, I've downloaded hours of music that I never actually listened to.

                But no, that can't be the case with your downloaders...

                (Either way, your moral argument is still flawed and self-serving. Nobody has stolen anything from you ? you still have your songs, right? And your harmonica or whatever the fuck you play?)

                1. I have albums, cassettes, and CD's I don't listen to; doesn't mean I just grabbed them off the shelves and walked out. My only gripe here is having the govt insert itself into the process; no good ever comes of that.

                  1. I have albums, cassettes, and CD's I don't listen to; doesn't mean I just grabbed them off the shelves and walked out. My only gripe here is having the govt insert itself into the process; no good ever comes of that.

                    If you had grabbed CDs off of shelves, you would have been stealing. Copying information is a completely different issue.

                    On Monday, you have One (1) song.
                    On Tuesday, I copy it. Now I have One (1) song.
                    On Wednesday, you still have One (1) song.

                    How is that the same as stealing inventory?

              3. You've probably never heard my music, "heller," but thanks for prejudging it as "retarded."

                Once again retard, you fail to comprehend simple sentences. I did not say your music was retarded, I said that you are retarded (evident from our recent conversations here) and that no one wants to copy music made by a retard.

                But ignoring such subtle (*snicker*) distinctions, whether or not I attribute a value to something does not mean that value should go to you. Value can only manifest itself in physical objects, objects that are made and tangible. If you didn't produce, purchase, or receive an object, how can you claim it's value belongs to you?

                It's simple, you can't. Information can only manifest itself in physical objects; the producer/purchaser/receiver of the object owns it and its represented value.

                1. I'm heller, I don't get the joke and spend two hours proving it.

                  1. What joke? I don't find retards funny.

                2. and that no one wants to copy music made by a retard.

                  Oh yeah? Then explain Michael Bolton!

          2. I'll surgeon your moonlight

      3. I have been a physician for over 25 years. I vehemently disagree with what you are saying. Perhaps you should be looking to law as a career with your attitude.

    2. Copying data is not the same thing as stealing property.

      1. "Data" cannot be property? Then the published work of, say, scientists, may be copied and distributed without their permission and compensation? Why not just admit that you think you have a right to free stuff?

        1. You're using a motor car with a million moving parts. Most of those parts were intellectually pirated from their inventors. You absolutely cannot have progress without what you call piracy. The government just redefines this theft as "public domain" and you feel okay about it.

          1. Most of those parts were intellectually pirated from their inventors.

            How do you figure? They were NOT pirated. They were improved upon. Big difference.

            A patent can be obtained for a given invention. That invention cannot be duplicated for sale without the inventors consent. However, if I improve the design, I can not only sell it (because it is something different/better) but can receive my own patent, forcing the next guy to improve upon my idea.

            The patent process fosters growth, while protecting individual property rights.

            Components in those cars were NOT stolen. The idea was improved upon.

        2. I thought science was all about sharing your hypothesis and results, and open them to be challenged? Unless you're a climate scientist, of course.

          1. You can steal and pirate all you want if the government says it is okay. The great guys in washington have the supreme wisdom to tell us what is stealable and what is not.

          2. Musicians are not scientists. Neither are movie-makers. Try to focus.

            1. So theft in art is not okay, while theft in science is? Sorry I can't keep up. Help me.

              1. No, and no. The science argument is a Trojan horse.

                1. And you are a theft by your own definition, much as you like to deny it.

                2. Do you ever play harmonic minor scales? How about parallel sixths? Or have you ever paired a piano with a violin?

                  If you have, I'd be shocked at your originality. All those ideas you invented and didn't steal!

            2. The thing being allegedly stolen is information, whether you are a scientist, musician, or movie-maker makes no difference.

              Try to not show what a retard you are.

            3. Hey musician, next time you strum an F-chord, remember you didn't ask permission of the first guy to ever build a guitar.

              1. All aboard heller's Fool Wagon!

            4. herr derrr herr fokussing iz hard herr derrr herr.


              1. ^^/Swedish Chef^^

        3. Copying data is not the same thing as stealing property.

          "Data" cannot be property?

          Let's play spot the fallacy!

          1. Swarm!
            Kill the intruder!

      2. And facilitating user transfers is not the same thing as copying knowingly pirated data. It's like shutting down a bank because the contents of some safety deposit boxes have photocopies of books in them, then demanding to know why the owners of the bank didn't rifle through everyone's boxes. There is not duty to report crime either.

        1. Fencing stolen property is a crime, whether the property constitutse 1% or 100% of your inventory. And it's still a crime regardless of what, if anything, you charge for the stolen goods. And you have no right to give away another individual's property or to provide storage space for it. Hope this helps. I know it won't.

          1. Actually since the contents of file are supposed to be private that is a false equivalency. UPS cannot be seized because someone used it to transport something illegal. Completely different situation than say a torrent where the contents are known, but the users are not. If there is enough evidence for criminal charges, warrants must be obtained and individual users must be charged, anything else is an affront to due process. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the accuser, to protect the innocent, even if every criminal gets away.

          2. So if a thief rents a storage locker and keeps stolen stuff in there, the owner of the storage facility is culpable? That seems like a stretch. When you provide a storage service, privacy is often an important selling point. Neither a self storage place nor an information storage place is going to do well if they are looking though their customers' stuff to see what's there.

          3. A copy of something in your inventory is by definition not a part of your inventory. Here's a tough one for you:

            You have one apple. I have one apple. What percentage of your apple do I have?

            1. Whoa. I just glimpsed the true nature of the universe.

            2. You have one apple. I have one apple. What percentage of your apple do I have?

              Doesn't really apply in this situation.

              1. Of course it applies. He's saying that an object he never owned was stolen from him.

                1. Apples, having an actual physical presence in the real world, are nothing like data that can be copied. I agree with what you're saying, but using apples is a bad example. And if that's the argument he's making (I admit I gave up halfway through the stupidfest), then he is equally idiotic.

                  1. Information isn't part of his "inventory" only physical objects are. That is why I used a physical object and not data.

    3. STFU spammer.

      1. You talking to me, spammer? Who's going to shut me up? You? Don't I have a right to comment on Reason's property, which is, after all, only "data"?

        1. Don't I have a right to comment on Reason's property, which is, after all, only "data"?

          Congratulations, you just made the stupidest comment of the day so far. Stick around to see if it stays.

          Yes you have a "right to comment," not that anyone said anything remotely to the contrary.

          Oh and Reason has a right to remove your retarded posts. So here's keeping our fingers crossed.

          1. Sticks and stones, fool. Keep trying. You amuse me.

            1. I highly doubt anything I write amuses you, since your ability to comprehend simple sentences appears to be non-existent.

              1. Fail. Try again.

            2. i'll amuse your sticks, twatwad

    4. My objections to your points are as follows:

      1. Since they were in New Zealand, they should have been arrested under New Zealand law. People standing in New Zealand and using New Zealand servers should not be able to be arrested under US law. That's like New York cops arresting me for playing blackjack in Vegas. People in New Zealand using New Zealand servers should only have to worry about New Zealand law, and should be able to completely and safely ignore US law.

      2. Even if I decided to concede that they WERE subject to US law, the website itself constitutes property, and as such they should not have been deprived of their property until the conclusion of a court proceeding ending in a conviction.

      1. . That's like New York cops arresting me for playing blackjack in Vegas.

        Funny you use this example. Didn't Mayor Buttplug recently say that he was going to go after gun dealers in other states? And didn't he get slapped in the face by Governors of those states when they told him his cops would be arrested if they tried to run a sting there?

      2. Bingo. Its the claim of universal jurisdiction that makes me nauseous.

      3. Agreed x 2

      4. Ding, ding, ding, we ave a winner!


      5. Servers were located in Virginia. Hence the VA jurisdiction.

        It appears that this is about slow response to DCMA takedown notices. Some of the commentariate over at slashdot reports frequent and rapid response to takedown notices, so it is plausible that they had a small percentage slip through the cracks (and still constitute a large absolute number of pirated works not taken down upon notice).

  1. WASHINGTON ? South Carolina's Sen. Jim DeMint, a tea party leader, says the South Carolina Republican primary is "clearly a two-man race" now between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

    That's not fair. Post debate coverage clearly shows that Rick Santorum is making headway. (And Ron Paul might have also been on the stage.)

    1. They were saying on NBC this morning the Titties had all the momentum going into South Carolina. And if the Titties wins there, Florida comes back into play. I guess reports of the Titties demise were exaggerated.

      1. The newt will fall. The only question is who he takes down with him.

      2. Newkular Titties has Florida sewn up, with all the motorboatin' voters down there.

        1. Voterboat Newkular Titties 2012!


      According to John Dickerson at Slate, only three men were on the stage last night.

      1. Yeah, now that the newsletters are no longer news, Paul reverted to invisibility.

      2. I say we copyright the very concept of ignoring Paul, and then we can sue these assholes for stealing our Intellectual Property every time they do it.

        'Musician' would probably be willing to help.

  2. Marianne Gingrich is just so much more compelling than say Reille Hunter. I guess explains why the media refused to talk about Edwards' love child but love talking about Newt in the swinging 80s.

    1. John,

      It's ok to indulge in schadenfruede for assholey Newt, unless you actually believe Newt isn't getting exactly what he deserves?

      1. What goes around comes around. Hill and I love it!

      2. I think there is lots of good reasons to dislike Gingrich. But I don't think 20 year old tales from his ex wife are one of them.

        As we said yesterday this is not the same as Bill and Monica. This had nothing to do with his official duties. And more importantly it is not happening now. If this were Newt's current wife and he had say I don't know a love child he was having his buddies pay support to, it would be relevant. But 20 year old stories from ex wives? Whatever.

        1. I don't give a shit about the story, but that's why I call it schadenfruede. If this were a decent politician Id just shake my head and sigh, but it's newt so may the idiocy of the average evangelical rain down upon him.

          1. From the looks of the polls, you dinner of schadenfreude is pretty thin. I don't think most people care. And apparently the ex wife is not without sin either. Basically, they deserved each other. And as a result most people are going to tune it out.

            1. South Carolina isn't the race and this is just another check in the "newt is an asshole" box. Western moderates and evangelicals will reject newt before he has a chance to rally his southern base.

              1. They might do that. But it won't be because of this. You guys have been claiming the Newt was dead since Iowa. And you even had me convinced. But I think you are wrong. The polls say otherwise. And Willard can't close the deal. People will probably vote for Newt just because they don't want to vote for Willard and Paul allowed himself to be painted as the get the US out of North America Candidate.

                1. Newts a zombie, kept alive by the fact that he's not Romney or Paul, but the socons and neocons will eventually get innings behind Romney becausethey know in their hearts that newt will lose the independent vote to Obama.

                2. John, I basically agree with your take on Newt's ex-wife's tales - ho hum.

                  However, you did not have the same take regarding a few sentences in a couple of articles in 20 year old newsletters.

                  In my view, both stories are yawners.

                  1. Mike,

                    Letting people write racist shit in your name and then never fessing up or explaining who those people were is a bigger problem than being a typical Congress critter.

            2. Two time divorcee and free love enthusiast Gingrich recently spoke of "the sanctity of marriage." So there's more than just schadenfreude here. There's Jimmy Swaggart levels of hypocrisy.

              1. The hypocrisy is really something. I really don't care about Newc's marriage adventure's either, but he's got some nerve to talk like a big socon on marriage.

            3. I don't think most people care.

              Which proves about how deep the average "value" voter's values actually run.

              1. Which proves about how deep the average "value" voter's values actually run.

                They spout nonsense about redemption. Newt's a changed man or some shit. I don't see it myself, but I try to eradicate cognitive dissonance in my thinking. I'm also one of those oddballs who thinks cheating on your wife says a whole lot more about your character than most people want to admit. It means you're a dirtbag and you don't get a pass for it. Wanna fuck around? Get a divorce.

      3. And like Bill's bimbo stories, it hasn't seemed to have hurt him. No one seems to care.

        1. I think it's going to help him.

          It sure looks like the latest sequel of the establishment taking down anyone that threatens their precious Willard. And people are sick of that shit.

          1. I think people are. And I have no doubt ABC was doing Willard's bidding. They apparently had a big debate about the ethics of airing the interview. If the Obama people had wanted it aired, there would have been no debate. But doing Willard's bidding allows them to have a conscience.

            1. I keep hoping someone will explain why I should care about Mitt's tax returns. He's wealthy. I accept that. So is every other person who has ever run for president, to include Ralph Nader.

              Showing tax returns proves nothing. If the media is really concerned about candidates' earnings, seems Santorum's quick bucks would be more interesting. But hey, he's not one of these Gecko types, so the media plays "fool the people with the inconsequential" one more time.

    2. Also, Edwards was pretty and had that cute Southern drawl. Don't know what else it could have been.

    3. It couldn't be because Newt is a Republican and Edwards is a Democrat because, as we all know, the media double standard is a myth.

      1. It is a myth in this sense: The media doesn't have any standards at all.

        1. of course, it has standards. It simply did not care that Edwards was not just bopping a campaign ad, he was doing it while using his dying wife as a ploy to gain sympathy votes. The man never missed a chance to exploit personal tragedy for political gain.

          1. It amazed me at the time that people were jumping on his bandwagon. His trial practice was about as sleazy as they come, so the fact that he was like that in his personal life should've been no shock at all. The media could've destroyed him quickly and likely would have if he'd been an up-and-coming conservative. Or libertarian.

            1. exactly. His Senate campaign consisted of "ask me about my dead son", who was killed in a car wreck. And he talked all the happy liberal talk about two Americas, blah blah blah. By far, my least favorite candidate either party has ever put forth.

    4. Just be happy for him that he got the lovely and upstanding Callista out of the deal.
      Also, what is that huge yellow thing stuck on her head?

      1. Callista ~ Caligula

        Cannot unhear.

    5. To be a little fair to the media here, Hunter actively denied the affair.

      If she had run to Brian Ross shouting about the affair and carrying a paternity test in her hand, the story would have run. I don't doubt that at all.

      1. I have to agree with this. The Edwards thing didn't really come out until after he was out of the race. They put huge amounts of effort into covering it up while he was still a candidate and it seems to have worked. And there was a long and quite damning story about the whole affair on PBS after it came out, for fuck's sake.

      2. But the Enquirer had proof of the affair and was running stories for a solid month while the major media ignored it. If the Enquirer had personal ads Newt was running in the 1980s, do you think they would ignore it?

        1. The Enquirer: "Best investigative journalism on the planet"

    6. "explains why the media refused to talk about Edwards' love child but love talking about Newt in the swinging 80s."

      The fact that Newt is currently running for President might have something to do with it, eh?

      1. They knew about Edwards while he was running for president and didn't say anything about it, moron.

        1. "They knew about Edwards while he was running for president and didn't say anything about it"

          Really? Do you have any evidence of that?

          1. I thought it was common knowledge, moron.
            Try using google and find out for yourself, moron.
            I won't do your homework for you, moron.

            1. It's OK if you don't know, I imagine that's your usual state.

              1. Like I said, look it up yourself. It isn't that difficult.
                Even a moron can do it.

                1. Really, it's OK if you can't prove it. Assumptions fuel you.

                  1. I guess I was wrong. Google is too difficult for a moron like you.

                    So sad. You're too stupid to look up things for yourself and must be spoon-fed.

                    No wonder you're an ignoramus.

                    1. "Google is too difficult for a moron like you."

                      You shouldn't talk about yourself that way, nutjob or not.

                      When someone makes a claim on the internet they are often asked to provide evidence for it. You did and you couldn't. Maybe you can't work Google, but more likely you can't find jack.

                      But where would nutjobs like you be without such jack as the foundation for your nutty views?

                    2. When someone makes a claim on the internet they are often asked to provide evidence for it.

                      And quite often that someone will tell the person who is asking to go fuck themselves.

                      You did and you couldn't.

                      No, I told you to go fuck yourself and do your own homework.

                      And you proved that you are too stupid to go and look something up yourself, moron.

                    3. jesus on a biscuit MNG. The Enquirer, of all publications, was on the Edwards story, which of course gave the rest of the media the perfect cover for ignoring it. The media is, in many cases, like the politician or witness who will not admit something is true until being confronted with physical evidence. By the time baby came, the "rumor" could no longer be ignored.

                    4. "You shouldn't talk about yourself that way"

                      Did you really just go "I know you are but what am I"?

                      And you're grown?

                  2. CHRIST, AM I AN ASSHOLE!

            2. i'll moron your moron

          2. The fact that it was uncovered by one of the supermarket checkout line tabloids speaks very ill of the media covering his campaign, at best.

            1. Why does that speak ill of them? That kind of thing is what the Inquirer does.

              Again, I've not seen any evidence produced that "the media" knew and just didn't report. This is just your "MSM conspiracy meme" that fuels the Right.

            2. Just like in Men in Black!!

              Which raises the question, what does Tommy Lee Jones think of this whole mess?

          3. The national enquirer was running stories about it in December and January of 2008. They knew about it. They just ignored it.

            1. Don't do his homework for him. If he chooses to be an ignorant twat, let him.

            2. Here's how terrible and results oriented right wing logic is.

              Restoras says "if a unreliable rag like NI got the story first, what does that say about the MSM?"

              John, thinking he's agreeing but not clever enough to see he's not, says "the NI had the story, by not relying on it the MSM shows how bad they are!"

              If the NI is a rag then the MSM was right not to run with what they were reporting, right?

              But more to the point, notice the goal post change. What nutjob said was that it was "common knowledge" that the MSM knew but covered it up. I've seen no evidence of that, and the fact that the NI covered it certainly doesn't prove that charge.

              1. The NI had proof. The MSM should have investigated and seen if they were right. Instead they just ignored it. The media knew the story was there and that there was significant evidence to support it. But they didn't investigate it.

              2. actually, it's NE as in Enquirer. That aside, seems that if the story is percolating, some arm of hte allegedly respectable media would at least attempt to chase it down and see if something is there. The press chose not to do anything; they were too busy fawning over Johnny, crying over his wife of his dying wife as a campaign prop.

                He was and is a bastard of the first order; makes Clinton look puritan by comparison. Even if the NE is a "rag", allegations of a presidential candidate with a love child DURING A CAMPAIGN sounds like a story. But no one bothered to even look until baby made three.

              3. CHRIST, AM I AN ASSHOLE!

  3. Posted yesterday, but still just as stupid:

  4. I didnt' know the internet had a noble class. Can I be a Duke? or a Khan!?

    and why do the euros get to decide the nobility of the internet?

    1. Czar has undergone rapid devaluation since the October Revolution.

    2. I want to be a Mandarin.

  5. "We Anonymous are launching our largest attack ever on government and music industry sites. Lulz. The FBI didn't think they would get away with this did they? They should have expected us."

    Stupid property-owners. Who do they think they are?

    1. Stupid straw man argument.

  6. Woman with two vaginas turns down million dollar porn offer!

    1. Medically speaking they are not that uncommon and not all that visible either. (Yes, I've seen someone with one.)

      1. I've only got one question. In your professional opinion, would DVDVDA be possible?

        1. Only if the men are amputees.

      2. I'll bet Ron Paul has, too

  7. "To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine," Gingrich told King, the moderator of the debate.

    Think real hard, Newt. You don't even have to imagine an example of something more despicable.

    1. Exactly. If that is the limit of Newt's imagination, then his presidency could be expected generate any number of 'unintended consequences'.

    2. Yeah, why so whiny, Newt. If you don't want people to perceive you as a despicable douchebag, then, Oh I don't know, don't act like a despicable douchebag. Especially if youa re a politician who might be expected to KNOW that your actions will be under scrutiny. (if you don't know this then that says something about your level of competence, which might have some ramifications for your suitability for office. Just saying.) Otherwise... it's just WAHHHHHHHH.

  8. Despite losing an eye to an airplane propeller, she's still hot (whoever she is)!

    1. Pirate eyepatch. I'd hit it.

      1. Arrrr, IP is the most sacred concept in the universe!!

    2. I saw that the other day. Scroll down and pre-accident pictures she looks like a fucking tranny. That's too nice to trannys and modern plastic surgery; she looks like a dude, co-mag jutting hairy brow and all.

      1. I wasn't paying that much attention to her face.

        1. I've been desensitized by years of interwebz pron and need more overtly whorish pictures to care.

      2. Speaking of looking like a tranny:

        1. I like thin women, but that one needs a cheeseburger.

          1. Dude, if you think she needs a cheeseburger she must have an eating disorder.

        2. What a cool dress!

        3. Sarah's prettier.

    3. I can't help but think that her modelling agency has been a little short-handed since that accident.

      1. Don't you mean short-sighted?

      2. And they've lost face, to boot.

      3. Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

        So find the seagull that's holding her eye.

        1. I would +1, but you might be a turrets

          1. shit. i meant 'turrist.'

            just got OSX lion last week, still not used to the autocorrect.

    4. From what I've read it really sounds to me like the pilot was negligent in the accident. I was taught to always shut down the engine before exiting a light aircraft because of the danger the propeller can pose. If you're not going to shut it down because you're rapidly changing passengers you need to handhold those passengers to make sure they don't walk into 80 pounds of steel spinning at 900 rpm.

    1. Yes, but are they allowed to think different?

      1. A think tank is somewhat never free but yes it is the first independent policy institute

        1. "Think tank" might have a different meaning in China.

  9. Only one more year until the P.O.S. in the White House is out of office. God, this year can't go fast enough.

    1. Hoping for change? I would like to believe it will happen, but it seems too early to know.

      1. I'm actually expecting that Obama will win.

        It seems that TP has all but completely disappeared, and what remains seems to be voting for anything other than a politician who wants to to do something about cutting the government.

        In the primaries so far (IA and NH) the Ass Juice and Mittens (respectively) were chosen by TP supporters at double the rate they chose Ron Paul, the godfather of the TP.

    2. So a new shade of shit can move in? Big whoop. If Paul gets within on AU of the presidency, someone asshole will have him killed. We be fucked.

      1. Curse my public education....

        *ONE AU

        1. You missed a spot: "someone asshole". Not that we're keeping track or anything.

          1. ................sigh

            One of these days, I'll actually load that fucking gun. Goddamnit.

      2. Fine. He can move the White House to Europa.

        1. All of these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landing there.

          1. Right. After Paul and he staff land there.

            1. Make that his staff. He Staff is on Titan.

  10. "But now a Brooklyn elementary school is doing the reverse of that - by offering prizes to those students who don't go and penalizing those who go more than three times a week."

    1. Oh, and that's go to the bathroom, not go to school.

      1. One (school) you get filled with shit and one (bathroom) you get rid of shit in you. I think these administrators are rewarding the wrong thing.

    2. you can only shit thrice a week!??

      our public education model is fucked. FUCKED.

      we need waayyyyyy more freedom in education.

      (homeschool high school graduate here)

  11. Is it just my particular liberal friends or are even liberals having a hard time defending the Keystone decision. There is the usual mouthing of the "green energy" tropes but there defense of this seems a lot lower key than their usual defense of him. It is like even they realize it is a huge mistake.

    The spins seems to be that Obama did it because he is going totally for the coastal elite vote. But even they realize at some point you have to have an economy. And even they notice the contrast between all of the rhetoric about shovel ready jobs and being the new FDR and Rachel Madow standing in front of Hoover dam and Obama's refusal to approve a real no kidding shovel ready project.

    1. Obama is a political asshole but there was no guarantee that transcanada would have been able to follow through immediately on construction. In the end, Obama wouldn't get credit for the jobs created so he plays to his coastal environmentals and just pisses off middle America liberals who aren't powerful enough to swing states for him anyway. I think strategically it was probably a beneficial call for him short term. Next year once he's safely re-elected the "alternate" route will be approved.

      1. The problem is that the action is symbolic. It doesn't matter how many jobs it would have created. It is a 1700 mile pipeline. You are never going to be able to claim it wasn't going to create any jobs. And Obama is stuck with the image of turning down jobs and access to oils as unemployment goes up and gas prices go up. That is really bad optics. Every time Obama claims to care about the unemployed the question people will ask in their head is "well why the hell didn't you approve that pipeline then". Sometimes small actions have a big effect in defining who you are. And I think Keystone may be one of them.

        1. Somehow I doubt it. He'll give some eloquent and meaningless answer in the debates this fall and moderates will fall for it again. Give up John and embrace 4 more years.

          1. You have Stockholm Syndrom LIT. Obama has never given an eloquent answer to a question in his life. This is going to hurt him badly. The fact that he did it show how desperate they are. Basically they are admitting that no one but minorities and coastal elites are going to vote for him. He just wrote off more than half of the country. His only hope is a third party of some kind of enormous turn out differential between his supporters and the Republicans. Both are possible. But pretty long shots at this point.

            1. Half the country, lol. It remains to be seen but should kneeling you of your failures to predict the newt collapse in Iowa and your belief that santorum would get a new Hampshire bump from her strong placement in Iowa. Your history of prognostications continues to be 0fer.

              1. You guys were saying Newt was over in Iowa. And here we are a month later and he is now the alternative to Romney. Go back and read the threads. You guys were saying Newt's campaign was over. Not quite.

                And elections are a referendum on the incumbent. The challenger is almost inconsequential. That is how people like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton got elected. The election is about Obama. And Obama has no record to run on. He is toast absent a viable third party to split the vote.

                Look at the electoral map. How does he win places like NC, Virgina, and Ohio now? And he has to win those states.

                1. Newts a zombie

          2. No, I think he's toast. This particular incident made him no new friends, and he's alienated just about everyone.

            1. I think you overestimate the people he pissed off. Why would anyone in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania or Florida give a shut about a pipeline to Texas?

              1. Because it shows that he doesn't care about them. He doesn't care about their kind of jobs. Why would anyone in Ohio believe him when he says he is going to do something about their unemployment when he refuses to anything about it anywhere else?

                1. Because the jobs are completely different and manufacturing based. I think you think people think like you do.

              2. I meant that his entire performance to date has alienated too many people. This is just another pointless move by a pointless man.

                1. Maybe but the pipeline I don't think was a universal issue and it enthused alot of annoyed enviros.

                  I work in the oil industry and the response so far has been muted. The only ones that really seem agitated are team red pundits. Everyone else
                  realizes this is just posturing and it will eventually be approved.

              3. Why would anyone in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania or Florida give a shut about a pipeline to Texas?

                Check back when gas goes over $4.00 a gallon, everywhere, this summer, and Keystone is the poster child for the government's suppression of oil and gas development.

                1. Maybe but we're not there yet.

                  1. What would make this perfectly dumb is a war with Iran.

            2. When you combine Keystone with the fact that he's all but destroyed the offshore drilling industry, a clear picture emerges of a guy utterly hostile to domestic energy production jobs that upset the psychotic radical enviro extremists.

    2. The spins seems to be that Obama did it because he is going totally for the coastal elite vote.

      I'm pretty sure that he has the coastal douche vote all sewn up already.

      1. He wants them to forget about GUITMO and such.

        1. He doesn't need to make them forget GUITMO et al.

          All he has to d is point out that any of the Team RED candidates are anti-abortion, and every other consideration is out the window.

          It's the same with Team RED voters. Once they know a candidate is pro-choice, they will not vote for him no matter how good he may on every other topic.

    3. "Is it just my particular liberal friends"

      You have liberal friends? Have your shared your views on how evil liberals are with them? Hard to believe you have'nt...

      1. No. I just think you are evil.

        1. Nope, I've seen you decry liberals, especially the liberals in you and your wife's social circles that torment you so, as evil. Do you not have the balls to tell them what you spew here? Or do you just stew in spite of their company and get your rage release on liberals here everyday?

          1. I have a few liberal friends, and we spar on a regular basis. We tell each other how fucked up we are.

          2. you sound like george stephanopolous, MNG

  12. "Want to avoid the ghetto? There's an app for that.

    A Smartphone app to help people avoid unsafe neighborhoods has been accused of discrimination."

    1. Because all black people live in the ghetto. And no black person would ever want to avoid one.

    2. That's why I put my GPS device on "indecisive grandmother" mode all the time. I don't want any potential route to my destination to be ignored.

    3. Doesn't Onstar already automatically lock your doors for you when you pass more than one pawn shop or store that sells chinese food through bullet-proof glass?

      1. I don't know about OnStar, but my BMW Assist actively steers you around "bad areas" unless you enter the Hooker Override code.

        1. I'm holding out for a GPS that can screen for trannies.

          1. To find or avoid them?

          2. The radar parking sensors double as a millimeter wave porno scanner, so no worries there.

      2. The chain fast food joints all had bulletproof glass where I went to college. Never saw any at a local joint. Arab, Mexican, and Chinese immigrants clearly favor efficiency over security.

        1. It's probably more about their .357 mags under the counter.

    4. Yes you do go through some new areas with a GPS sometimes. About a month ago my GPS took me through a neighborhood that seemed to only have auto repair shops, pawn shops, currency exchanges, liquor stores and storefront churches.

    5. We can't close our eyes to the plight of the cities. Kids, you noticing all this plight? This will just make us appreciate what we have.

  13. "Hackers target DOJ and the MPAA in relatiation for closure of Megaupload."

    They target the wrong group of hackers, its gonna get Ruby Ridge right fast. I know they started by taking on the Scientologists, but I'm thinking Anonymous might not quite understand the thugs they've picked a fight with this time.

    1. Time for the War on Hacking?

    2. It might happen. If anyone gave a fuck about the DOJ website.

      1. Remember, there are only two sins against law enforcement: Contempt of Cop and Beclowning of Cop. Anonymous did both.

  14. I saw that the other day. Scroll down and pre-accident pictures she looks like a fucking tranny. That's too nice to trannys and modern plastic surgery; she looks like a dude, co-mag jutting hairy brow and all.

    1. Squirrels...

    2. I realize that Michelle Obama is unattractive, but that's just harsh, dude.

  15. While I think Anonymous is mostly idiotic, I am disappointed about Megaupload. It was a great site that many people used to transfer legitimate files.

  16. Just in time for Banjos' wedding:

    1. IRL, this gets worn by the 5'4" 320lb chicks who meet the love of their life at Comicon.

      1. You mean like Banjos?

        I kid, I kid.

        1. It was my understanding that she met the love of her life on some trashy internet forum where she somehow met the one single guy who wasn't an asshole.

          1. the one single guy who wasn't an asshole.

            Let's not jump to conclusions here.

            1. Well, you are a libertarian, so asshole is pretty much a given.

            2. I'm in a generous mood. Or are you not single?

        2. I am a size 4, thank you very fucking much....with huge tits...and a fantastic ass, not to even mention my big, dark brown expressive "fuck me" eyes, I should stop.

          1. You'd better, or Gingrich will show up.

          2. I can attest to the accuracy in the above statement. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a suitcase to pack so I can get down to see ^^this^^ later today.

          3. Sloopy will be in his bunk.

            1. I think at this point, sloopy will be in her bunk.

          4. Pics or it didn't happen.

    2. Nice looking dress

    3. Stupid vanity project that is worn once on a runway and never actually sold.

      1. Thank god for that!

    4. The designers of those dresses get paid?!? Someone actually likes that crap?

      Also, if you are modeling a wedding dress, try to look happy. Don't look like you just bit down on an Ortolan Bunting.

      1. Would *you* be happy if you had to wear one of those dresses?

      2. That would require a model to appear as if she possesses human emotion. Sorry, out of the question.

    5. Stupid Daily Fail. An article about a g-string dress with no picture of DAT ASS in the article?! Let me fix that for you.

      1. Unfortunately, fashion models are most generally dat assless, and this doesn't seem to be an exception.

        1. I love a tiny, tight ass. Great for plating breakfast.

    6. Would Muslim clerics approve of it, since it's a head-to-toe covering?

    7. Shiiiiiitt

      The second girl from the left in that last pic looks like she got a face transplant from a dead guy

  17. And now, dogs barking the Imperial March from Star Wars:

    1. Whew, just in time!

      Thanks, RoboCain!

  18. While campaigning for the presidency in 2008, Barack Obama swore he'd create millions of green jobs.

    "We'll invest $15 billion a year over the next decade in renewable energy, creating 5 million new green jobs that pay well, can't be outsourced and help end our dependence on foreign oil," he said that fall.

    Three years into the Obama presidency, the country has yet to see a wave of green-collar jobs. What it has seen is government pouring taxpayers' money into pet projects that wasted the cash. A particularly sore example is Solyndra, which not only went bankrupt after taking in more than $500 million in taxpayers' dollars, but also became the target of an FBI probe.

    According to one analysis, at least 12 clean energy companies "are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance."

    And his supporters actually bought that shit. Remember folks, liberals are the smart ones.

    1. To Liberals(and probably "Conservatives"), it's all about intentions, not results. I mean, why should people be forced into to bankruptcy/menial labor if they wanted a home for their family, a bullshit degree, tons of BJS from Tawainese trannies? They had good intentions so why should they be punished. Scale that up and you get "Well, Obama meant well. It doesn't matter that he failed spectacularly. Why should he be held accountable for turning his back on 90% of the shit we care about."

      If Obama was actually accountable for what he said he could deliver, he'd be back in Hawaii shucking oysters with grandma's corpse.

      1. Hundreds of billions of dollars wasted to show "good" intentions.

        This is why our government needs to be bared back to the roots. With a flamethrower.

  19. He added that the EU already has legislation in place to fight online piracy and is currently working on an overhaul of it's rules for intellectual property rights in an effort to make it easier to obtain the rights to distribute content online legally.

    Wrong "its". When will we have legislation allowing the feds to seize domains with incorrect grammar???

    1. I'd rather have a Stop Online Pedantry Act.

    2. Grammar rebellions are part of a free society. Like putting periods outside of double quotes, which is the way it should be when the quotes don't encompass the whole sentence.

      1. I actually agree with that.

      2. IME, that is generally the English rule, while for some bizarre reason, American lawyers always want punctuation within the quotes. Drives me batty because it often just looks wrong.

        1. It's not American lawyers--it's correct American grammar. And yes, this is one where the English are more correct than we.

      3. I'm right; everyone else is wrong (even when they agree with me).

        It's a conunundrum, I know.

        1. That can't be true, because I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

          1. I thought i was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

      4. Quotes are there to serve a purpose. Putting the punctuation outside of the quotes when appropriate is the right thing to do and I don't care who says otherwise. One must distinguish use and mention.
        Also, isn't that more typography than garammar?

        1. Garammar of Thurum!

          1. Grammar of Thu'um?

            1. Garammar of Th?rum!

              1. Oops, Garammar of Th?rum!

                1. i'll th?rum your garammar

  20. More than 2,000 people are still evacuated from Reno due to wild fires.

    Big fires out west? Gee, who ever heard of that? In October of 2007 wildfires forced more than 900,000 people in Southern California to evacuate, the largest evacuation for fire in United States history.

    That's why I live in a place that averages more rainfall than Seattle.

  21. I heard there is a woman out there w/ two vaginas. Anyone know anything about this?

    1. her pants fit like a glove?

  22. 16-year-old girl successfully sues to take a religious mural out of her public school.

    So far, so good.

    The Freedom From Religion Foundation wants to send flowers to the girl (not creepy at all!). Three local florists refuse to send the flowers. The Foundation has sued the florists for alleged religious discrimination.


    1. Oh great, here comes the lawsuits from the Freedom From Irony Foundation.

    2. I guess they are not called the "freedom to do business foundation" for nothing.

    3. Sorry, they sued one florist, and it's with the state "human rights" commission, not a court.

    4. Really it's a circle of douchebaggery.

      1. The girl should sue the florists, and then the florist should sue the state, and then the school should sue the girl's parents. And then it would be a Klein bottle of Epic Moron.

        1. Isn't that kind of circle jerking also how the fed, ecb and pboc are ensuring global liquidity? Some patterns just work, I guess..

        2. The judge should sue the lawyers.

          1. SLAPP begats SLAPP begats SLAPP begats SLAPP begats SLAPP begats SLAPP begats SLAPP begats SLAPP.

            It's SLAPPs all the way down. And they all float down here.

            1. SLAPPs within SLAPPs within SLAPPs.

              1. SLAPPCEPTION!

            2. Attorney Dean likes.

            3. SLAPP begats SLAPP begats SLAPP begats SLAPP begats SLAPP begats SLAPP begats SLAPP begats SLAPP.


            4. And when you're down here, you'll float too!

    5. Couldn't they just tarp it over and save some money?

    6. How do we send her a dozen long-stemmed bibles?

      1. I'm tempted to hand deliver them myself. Use of public money money for religious ceremonies or decor strikes me as financial malfeasance with the public treasure. But a violation of rights? If there are unenumerated rights to not be bored or annoyed or lied to by the state, I'm due a pile of money in compensatory damages.

        1. We all are. Maybe this could be used as precedence to sue the government over... pretty much everything they do.

      2. Just send her address to every Mormon you know.

        1. ahhaahahha

          good one

    7. In my high school the young Republicans managed to cause a broohaha over a mural of Jimi Hendrix (that had been there for probably 15 years already at the time), saying it promoted teh drugz! That was when I found out I was a libertarian.

    8. This reminds me of some stupidity from an attorney just recently... middle name of Alan...

      1. ^^THIS^^

        1. You fuckin' libertarians are JUST like Naziz. I oughta sue you again.

  23. "A House committee looking into the flawed gun smuggling investigation called Operation Fast and Furious has subpoenaed a federal prosecutor in Arizona for questioning.

    Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Thursday that Patrick Cunningham repeatedly refused to testify voluntarily about his role in the operation that relied on a controversial law enforcement tactic designed to identify and prosecute major weapons traffickers."

  24. South Carolina Republican debate: 6 takeaways

    One of them is actually about Ron Paul.

    5) Ron Paul faded from view
    Still, the fact that the audience repeatedly called out to King to call on Paul is a reminder that he speaks to a real constituency in the GOP ? and that he may still be the candidate that Romney haters/conservatives turn to in a two-man race.

    In other words, watch him fade into a spot in the final two contenders.

    1. If the Titties wins SC that hurts Paul. At some point finishing a valiant second or third isn't good enough. You have to win a primary to make it a two man race.

      1. Not if you have enough money to stick around and shit on the parade the whole way. At the least, he'll cost those disingenuous fucks the election and that will be that. Haters gonna hate.

        1. He is not going to do that. He would like his son to have a career. He is going to hang in there sure. But if he is going to claim to be a contender, he has got to win a primary or two.

          1. Eh, he can't control his supporters who would have a difficult time voting for the Rom-Grinch-Froth machine over Obama. They'll vote Paul, Libertarian, or not at all costing the Repubs some needed "swing" votes.

            1. Maybe. But I doubt it. Absent a third party run, the Paul supporters won't mean much.

              Look if Libertarians mattered, we wouldn't be 14 trillion dollars in debt and have the drug war from hell. It sucks. But it is true.

              1. I do realize that and being a perpetual pessimist I have to agree with you on some level. I think all I want at this point is for the whole thing to collapse and provide me a swift death in the process.

                1. I would like to think people are reasonable. But generally they are not.

              2. I don't know, dude.

                I think Paul has already done his damage and has in that sense "won".

                The GOP counts on being able to nominate someone every four years who will claim that they will cut spending and rein in government. Paul's scorched earth negative approach has wrecked that for them this year. This time around everybody kinda sorta knows that the GOP candidate (whether it's Romney or Gingrich doesn't matter) is full of shit. I think that hurts them against Obama no matter what Paul does.

                Do you see a joyful and enthusiastic convention and campaign, regardless of who wins? I don't. Given the Dem nominee, this should have been 80 or 84 and it won't be.

              3. Absent a third party run, the Paul supporters won't mean much.

                This is probably true, although not because they will dutifully fall in line behind ROMNIAC.

                This time, I think a lot of them will stay home. That doesn't show up in the post-election shallow analysis, so if Obama wins, the Stupid Party won't realize its because they pissed off a quarter of their base.

          2. Prediction: It comes down to Paul & Willard, Paul wins a few western caucus states, and has a strong presence at the convention, but doesn't win.

            Then, Gary Johnson, who has become the LP nominee, gets >10% of the popular vote. To whom this swings the election, Obomber or Willard, is unclear at this point.

        1. Well, probably.

      2. I think he will win a bunch of western caucus states, at the very least.

        1. Remains to be seen. But he has got to win something.

          1. You discounting his Iowa win?

            1. Are you talking about the final, eleventh-round "super-delegates" or whatever the fuck they're called? Because he hasn't won those yet..

      3. John,

        Paul isn't going to win but his supporters will continue to net him delegates all the way to June. At this point the point is to make the convention as awkward as possible to demonstrate that republicans can't ignore the libertarian base. If they do, watch Obama win in November.

        1. I say the same thing to you I say to Rob. If Libertarians are so damned important, how exactly have the managed to have zero effect on policy for the last, I don't know, 200+ years?

          They will give Paul a nice spot to speak at the convention. Give him a nice round of applause. And then go on. Not that Libertarians might not some day have their day in the son. But it is not going to be this year. And it is not going to be until they can convince most voters that they are not Rothbardites.

          1. zero effect?

            Not true. There has been some effect, we would be $15T in debt, maybe.

            While he sold out, Reagan did have some Goldwater moments as President too. So, saying none in last 200 years is pretty insane.

            Plus, you know, that whole 13th amendment thing.

            1. "Plus, you know, that whole 13th amendment thing."

              Libertarians didn't exist in the 1860s. And the abolitionists were the worst sorts of busybody New England Puritans. If Libertarians are going to take credit for ending slavery, why no the Magna Carta and the Declaration of the Rights of Man while you are at it?

              And Reagan was a small government conservative. He was not a Libertarian. The Rothbardites and the Paleos hated him.

              1. abolitionists were the worst sorts of busybody New England Puritans

                Spooner and Garrison and Douglass say huh?

                1. You think Douglas was a Libertarian? WTF? And there was nothing Libertarian about John Brown or Harriot Beacher Stowe. The abolitionists were all Republicans. Aren't you the one who is constantly telling me how Lincoln was Hitler and Mao rolled into one and the guy who single handedly destroyed America?

                  1. I have never been that harsh on Lincoln.

                    He was a tyrant who attacked a sovereign nation. But he was no Hitler.

                  2. reason thinks so

              2. libertarians existed since about Locke, maybe earlier.

                Small l intentional. Locke, Jefferson, etc.

                The term didnt exist yet, but the philosphy did.

                Reagan called himself a libertarian. He was, at one time, at least, a Goldwaterite, which qualifies him in my mind.

                This is big tent libertarianism, not some Rothbardian litmus test libertarianism. Upper quadrant (fiftrant?) of the Nolan chart.

                1. We are arguing semantics Rob. I would call those people classical liberals. But to each his own.

              3. Libertarians didn't exist in the 1860s.

                Au contraire. By modern standards, damn near everyone was a libertarian in the 1860s.

                1. So RC people who supported things like no business on Sundays and the temperance movement were "libertarians"? It was libertarian to send people to prison for being gay? It was libertarian to make adultery a crime? To recognize alienation of affection suits?

                  Come on RC.

          2. I don't think voters know what is a Rothbardite. Or is this code for supposed anti-Americanism?

            1. Yes. They think he is an anti-American lefty.

              1. Well, you see, he didn't like war..

          3. Are you saying 20% of the GOP isnt something the party needs to be concerned about?

            If only 1/2 vote for the nominee, the GOP candidate is in trouble. They will need most of them to win. What are they going to do to make sure they dont lose that vote? Im not sure "rah rah Team Red, dont waste your vote" will work.

            1. How many of those 20% are fanatic Paultards and how many of them are just ordinary Republican voters who happen to like Paul? If they are all fanatic Paul supporters, then perhaps so. They are probably going to lose me with Romney and I am not even a Paultard. But I am cynical and live in a state is retardedly Democrat.

              It is a tough position I suppose. If they nominated Paul they would probably lose 50% of their base because of what they consider his anti-American positions. And they would pick up very few liberals.

              1. Not nominating Paul is understandable, shutting him out of the policy discussions will lose the republicans their chance of winning the presidency.

              2. Current head-to-head polling disagrees. They lose a bunch of voters if Gingrich or Santorum is the nominee and keep them if its Paul or Romney.

              3. But I am cynical and live in a state is retardedly Democrat.

                Yeah, sadly it doesn't much matter how a non-Democrat in MD votes.

                1. And in my state, Obama cant win, no matter who his opponent is.

                  1. ^^THIS^^

                    There is an outside chance that Paul might have an opportunity to win here in KY, being as his son is the Senator here.

                    But no matter the opponent, there is no way Obama wins here.

                    And I love the Team BLUE voters here who feel their vote doesn't count. The tears are so yummy.

              4. "They are probably going to lose me with Romney"

                The first step on the Great Walk Back?

                1. No MNG. It is called reading comprehension. They are probably going to lose me with Romney means they are probably going to nominate Romney and thus lose me. It doesn't mean I plan to vote for Romney.

                  Now clean up that sticky mess you just made in your cubical and move on.

                  And you know at some point I am going to come in here and post a pro Romney rant, watch you jump for joy. And then tell you "psych, didn't mean a word of it". You are so much fun to screw with and so easy to get going.

                  1. So John has gone from "I wouldn't vote for Romney ever" to "I'm probably not going to vote for Romney."

                    It begins.

                    1. Yes MNG, just don't read what I wrote. No the GOP will probably nominate Romney and I will not vote for him. Thus the GOP will probably lose me with Romney

                      Now shut the fuck up and go lie about someone else. And pretend you won't be voting for Obama because you care so much about civil rights and the war.

                    2. The next step: "I hate Romney, BUT..."

                    3. You know what is great MNG. You will never know who I vote for. So you can always know in your mind that I really voted for Romney and sent him money. But you will never be able to prove it. Twenty years from now you will be on here ranting about how you just know I did.

                      Really? Sometimes you just leave me speechless.

                    4. The next step: "You know, I'm no fan of Romney, but what he said really makes sense..."

                    5. Seriously. There is something wrong with your brain. A mental illness. Get it checked out.

                    6. CHRIST, I AM AN ASSHOLE!

          4. Obama in January will show how much republicans can continue to ignore libertarians.

            1. So they are all going to vote for Obama? Fair enough. But if they do, they kind of forfeit their right to complain about him.

              1. LOL

              2. No, they will vote for Johnson or stay home.

                They is explicitly not a vote for Obama.

            2. Republicans will blaim Ron Paul for the loss, even though they have argued that he is completely irrelevant to the political process.

          5. Not that Libertarians might not some day have their day in the son.

            I know it's really just that you're a sloppy speller, but this one actually worked out to be a pretty nice pun.

      4. "If the Titties wins SC that hurts Paul."

        Wrong. Anything that keeps this race going and dings the "inevitability" meme Willard is pushing is good for keeping Paul's candidacy alive and relevant.

        1. No. Because it makes Newt the anti-Romney not Paul. Once Newt wins a primary, he can claim to be the anti-Romney. Paul cannot claim that without winning a primary. He has to win a primary or at least ensure none of the other "not Romenys" do.

          1. Are you disagreeing with your beloved Palin? Even she recognizes that a Romney win would seal the deal for him.

            1. Yes. And I thought you thought Palin was retarded. You are giving her as a source now?

              1. "And I thought you thought Palin was retarded"

                And you love here and praise her smarts.

                If Paul won SC it would be the best, but he's not, so the best that can happen for him is for someone other than Willard to win. Otherwise Romney seals this thing up.

                1. And you love here and praise her smarts.

                  So I have to agree with everything she says. If someone other than Romney wins SC, that person becomes the alternative to Romney not Paul.

                  1. If Romney has it sowed up it doesn't matter who the "alternative" is.

                    1. Then maybe Paul is screwed either way.

                    2. "Then maybe Paul is screwed either way."

                      You'd like that, wouldn't you?

                      The conservative line on Paul has for a while been "why won't that naive, loony guy drop out, he's just carrying water for Obama and the Dems" for a while. The longer he is around is a good thing for airing libertrian ideas, but bad for your party and its eventual nominee in your mind.

          2. I agree with John. Paul not winning any primaries whatsoever makes him just look like a desperate old whiner.

    2. Is it me or does it seem that Ron Paul is looking older and older as the campaign progresses? In the debates he seems tired and he kind of mangles his words and thoughts just a little bit. I'm worried that he can't physically hold out until the end.

  25. NFL Expert Joe Biden:

  26. There once was a man named Ken,
    whose most powerful weapon was the pen.
    For with it he won my heart,
    and now we will never part,
    as we will bring happiness to each other until the end.

    1. "What fantasy football hath brought together, let no man or sci-fi convention floozy pull asunder."

    2. Limericks? Somehow way more appropriate for lurv on H&R than sonnets.

      1. Haiku would be most appropriate, I think.

        1. for being righter
          enter SFs twisted Mind
          and meet with STEVE SMITH

        2. Thanks for that robc.
          And although you may be right.
          Haikus aren't my thing.

    3. Like, gag me with a spoon!

    4. A woman came from the southwest.
      And most of you know all the rest.
      We met on this blog.
      And I've since been agog.
      And my undying love I profess.

      1. One question: Can we all be witness to the huge implosion of failure when this all goes to shit in two years too?

        Seriously though, congratulations.

    5. Commenter sex spreads
      Drug-resistant syphilis
      A hard rain will fall

    6. Sloop's real name is Ken?

  27. I didn't see the debate. Heard on the radio this morning that Newt chastised the media muckracking into peoples personal past lives. Blamed them for the reason we can't get decent people to run for public office. I would say that's one thing, if not the only thing, I would agree with him on. Unless your a convicted felon the political news should look somewhat different than the National Inquirer. There's a difference between Newt's past relationships with his ex-wives and something like John Edwards using campaign cash to keep his mistriss in tow and than blaming one of his staff for the resultant love child while the campaign is going on. How does the first one get reported on when it shouldn't and the second one not get reported until afterwards when it should have?

    1. I hate Newt, but I also hate ABC news, CNN, etc, so I am really conflicted.

    2. Gingrichs appetite for women makes him susceptible to blackmail.

      1. You can't blackmail based on something everybody knows about.

        1. It is quite destructive having to explain your latest infidelity when you are just about to meet with a foreign leader as say the king of Saudi Arabia.

          1. Right. ibn Saud doesn't know anything about having a harem.

            1. And for everyone else there adultery means getting death by stoning.

              1. Its good to be king.

    3. How does the first one get reported on when it shouldn't and the second one not get reported until afterwards when it should have?

      There's no such thing as media bias. No such thing at all.
      Nothing to see here. Move along.

      1. Media bias
        Paul gets no love, Gingrich pissed
        Romney's tax returns?

  28. Can someone explain to me why endorsements matter to people?

    1. The voting loves being told what to do. That's why they keep voting the way they do.

    2. What matters is that the media wants you think it matters to people. And the politicians making the endorsements only care if the media cares because then they can get on TV and later claim to have helped the candidate if he wins and turn it into political favors.

      1. ^^This^^ It makes the media and politicians feel important.

    3. Unscientific but I run into far more people who say "Candidate Idiot just endorsed Candidate Moron, this will help Candidate Moron because other people love Candidate Idiot" than people, "Ooo, I'm voting for Candidate Moron because Candidate Idiot just endorsed him."

    4. Usually, endorsements work the opposite way with me. Hey, Charlie "Hamiltonian Tan" endorsed Romney? Okay, definitely not Romney. That sort of thing.

      1. Godfather III was terrible so Charlie Hamiltonian Tan's endorsement should have the opposite effect. (Not that it was his fault.)

        1. Hey, Charlie merely aspires to Hamiltonian status. He can never achieve it. No mere mortal can.

          I don't blame George Hamilton for Godfather III. I blame Nick Cage's uncle.

          1. I am the sun god, afterall.

            1. [Reclines to the tanning position in honor of the Hamiltonian One.]

  29. "The Taliban claimed responsibility for bringing the helicopter down in a statement to CBS News, but Clark says the militant group often exaggerates claims of military success. NATO has denied any Taliban involvement."

    The Taliban exaggerates? How many times have we killed their "top lieutenant"?

    1. We pretend to kill people who aren't there, they pretend to kill the people that die from our incompetence. Sounds like a good plan to me.

      1. + one zillion.

        "The Taliban didn't kill us, our shitty equipment just blew up."

    2. The Taliban exaggerates? How many times have we killed their "top lieutenant"?

      I'm sure there's a bit of exaggeration, but it's not like it didn't happen; every time you kill one there has to be another. It's not like Omar is going to keep the seat open in mourning for his mujahideen brother. Hell, even if there are only 5 left there's still going to be a leader and a top Lieutenant.

    3. The Taliban exaggerates? How many times have we killed their "top lieutenant"?

      The fact that the Pentagon lies has no effect on the truthfulness of anyone else.

    4. "The Taliban exaggerates? How many times have we killed their "top lieutenant"?"

      Who can say? They all look alike.

  30. Who is Foxboro bound this Sunday? If you are, come to the All-Pro tailgating party (it will cost) and you can see me and the Mrs. along with a couple of high school and college buddies. Be advised that I will probably be inebriated.

    Does anybody give the Ravens a shot? IMO, their best shot is with the Pats beating themselves as they did last year against the Jets.

    1. The Pats didn't beat themselves. The Jets got pressure on Brady and got him flustered. He is a pussy who hates to get hit (like most QBs), and when he gets hit often, his play goes to shit. Also, the Pats haven't beaten one team with a winning record all season, so who knows if they are really as good as they look or just playing bad teams. If the Ravens can get pressure, they can win. They crushed the Pats in Foxboro a couple years ago in the playoffs.

      1. I'll agree that "If the Ravens can get pressure, they can win."

        I think the weather is going to take something off of both teams, supposed to be getting around 6" of snow Saturday. However, both teams being outdoor teams from the NE should lessen the impact. I think it's going to be a good game but I think it's going to be a question of whether or not the Ravens can put up enough points.

        1. Discount Double Check, do you forget the interception Brady threw to David harris on the first drive? It was a mistake that was auto-induced-there was no pressure on that play.

          Later, you had ole Algee Crumpler drop the touchdown pass.

          And that horribly botched fake punt.

          Of course, the jets did have a pretty good game plan defensively with clogging up the middle of the field so as to force Brady to go outside the numbers.

          Don't forget that the Pats had manhandled the Jets 45-3 just the month before and they were 14-2 last year.

          As for the Ravens, the Pats beat them in October of 2009 and October of 2010 and they beat them in 2007.

          1. As for the Ravens, the Pats beat them in October of 2009 and October of 2010 and they beat them in 2007.

            Different teams. The Pats had much better defenses back then.

            2007: NE - 19th in weighted DVOA (+0.9%), BAL - 9th in Weighted DVOA (-5.6%)
            2009: NE - 13th in weighted DVOA (+0.2%), BAL - 5th in Weighted DVOA (-11.0%)
            2010: NE - 11th in weighted DVOA (-1.6%), BAL - 3rd in weighted DVOA (-10.4%)
            2011: NE - 30th in Weighted DVOA (+17.6%), BAL - 5th in Weighted DVOA (-8.8%)

            2007: NE - 1st in weighted DVOA (+42.0%), BAL - 25th in Weighted DVOA (-12.5%)
            2009: NE - 1st in weighted DVOA (+26.5%), BAL - 10th in Weighted DVOA (+14.5%)
            2010: NE - 1st in weighted DVOA (+49.1%), BAL - 12th in weighted DVOA (+9.5%)
            2011: NE - 3rd in Weighted DVOA (+36.0%), BAL - 12th in Weighted DVOA (+10.4%)

            FO's numbers aren't gospel and don't take into account specific personnel matchups, but the differences are stark.

          2. Last year was a combination of horrible play from the Pats' offense/Brady and great play from the Jests, on offense, defense, and special teams.

            Despite what everyone says, I think the Pats/Ravens game will be a shootout - the Ravens only played one decent offense all year (the Chargers), who destroyed them. And the Pats have the worst secondary in the history of the league. No way anyone can cover the Ravens WR's and TE's.

            Even though Flacco is horrible, he could easily put up 350 yds and 4 TD's against the Pats. So they definitely have a good shot at winning.

    2. Does anybody give the Ravens a shot? IMO, their best shot is with the Pats beating themselves as they did last year against the Jets.

      Depends on Reed's health. The only way you're shutting down Gronkowski / Hernandez if the Pats show up is with an all world cover safety and a good pass rush. Though, the Ravens might be better motivated, and I put long odds on the Pats bottling up Rice.

      I'd take the Pats to win, but you can't look past the Ravens. It's an elite defense and an above average offense against an elite offense and a terrible (terrible can't be said enough) defense. This would be a fun game if I didn't want both teams to lose. But I hate the Pats much more, so go Ravens.

      The Pats have been a nightmare matchup for the Jets ever since the Jets let Rhodes go and the Pats drafted Gronkandez, so there was definitely a good bit of pants shitting going on, but last year's divisional game was the best Ryan has ever been as a coordinator (and that's saying a lot, he's a great defensive coach). That the Pats were even in it is testament to how absurd the Patriots offense now is.

      1. My prediction is that both team's defense will be going all out pass rush. I suspect field conditions are going to be too bad for many long balls. I think Pats have the advantage in that they're better at screen plays.

        1. I guess I should say all out rush/blitz.

    3. As a Steelers fan I usually reserve my hate for the Ravens, and I surely want the Pats to win. But this year my hate goes to the Giants. They stumbled and bumbled through the season and now suddenly have their shit together, like they did a few years ago. It makes the regular season so meaningless, they are such a bunch of undisciplined goofs. I hope they get beat this weekend.

      1. MNG, regarding your point on the lack of meaning for the regular season, what do you think of the idea that perhaps all of the team sports pare back the post-season?

        Look at baseball. Wouldn't it be better to have just the WS? Or, at most, an ALCS and an NLCS to be followed by the WS?

        One tired, crappy argument advanced all the time is that if the team sports pared back the layers and layers of playoffs, the fans would lose interest in their team and attendance would drop and the teams would lose money.

        The argument is crappy because it is predicated upon rank speculation.

        As for the Giants, I am with you this weekend. I am rooting for the 49ers and they have several redemption stories for which to root (Alex Smith, Vernon Davis).

      2. The Giants D was hobbled with injuries from the preseason until the 2nd Redskins game (which was a pathetic showing). Eli Manning has played the best football of his career this season, and it was enough to keep them holding on to playoff contention. Getting healthy at the right time, and playing win-or-go-home football from the 2nd to last week of the season has them playing their best football and comfortable with the pressure of these do or die playoff games. Makes you wonder how good that bye week really is.

        1. I like the regular season, I hate to see it made cheap, though I'm not sure what can be done about it. Home field and byes are probably all you can do for those who take it seriously...

      3. So players should pretend they're still injured to make things more fair? Also, the Giants got in by winning their division, which is based on beating their regular regular season opponents.

    4. I'd love to, but all my sheets have colors or patterns.

      1. That's okay, come anyway.

  31. From what I saw, when he wasn't ignored, Paul did pretty well last nite. I like how he let it out of the bag that SOPA was the GOP's baby (I guess we know now why John and the GOPers wanted to talk about Dodd all day the other day instead of the congresscritters supporting it).

    1. How is it the GOP's baby when it is supported by Hollywood and co sponsored by Democorats? It had bi-partisan support.

      You don't do yourself any favors by lying. It is just pathetic. Why is it so hard to admit a bill sponsored by both parties is a "bipartisan bill"?

      And last I looked the President planned to sign it. And I don't think he is a Republican. If Lamar Smith is a crook, and he clearly is, why aren't the Democratic backers, of which there are many, equally crooks? Why is it "the Republicans' baby" when so many Democrats back it?

      And all of the Republican Presidential Candidates came out against it. Will Obama?

      1. "How is it the GOP's baby when it is supported by Hollywood and co sponsored by Democorats?"

        So Paul, who has been opposing the bill form day one in the body it was presented in, knows less about this than you? He clearly said otherwise.

        1. Are there not Democratic cosponsors to the Bill? And are you really telling me that Hollywood went to Republicans for support rather than the Democratic Party whom they have been sending millions for years?

          If it was all Republicans why does a Democratic President support it and why are so many of the co-sponsors Democrats?

          Just stop lying. And also how many Democrats have abandoned support for the bill? A ton of prominent Republicans like Rubio have backed away. Have any Democrats?

          1. "Just stop lying."

            Are you talking to me or Ron Paul? He clearly identified who was on the wrong side of the issue and spoke of working early with Democrats (yup, that's the word) in early opposition.

            1. I don't care what he said. I can read who supports the bill and who doesn't. And that is a whole lot of Democrats and a whole lot fewer Republicans than there were. It is what it is. And you are only claiming otherwise because denying the obvious is what you do.

              1. Yup, you know more about Paul, who'se been working on this since way before we heard a peep from you. Whatever.

      2. "And last I looked the President planned to sign it."

        "Hollywood is reportedly not too pleased with President Obama after the White House wrote a letter criticizing elements of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA)."

        1. Is there a veto threat in any of that "criticism"? If not, who cares. Show me a link to something that says the President plans to veto SOPA or has threatened to veto SOPA unless changes are made or shut the fuck up.

          1. Guys, Guys, Guys. Let's just admit both sides want to fuck us (as usual) with this one and be done with it. Any "disagreements" are posturing at best.

            1. Yes Drax. Both sides want to fuck us. The Republicans, after being properly threatened, have seemed to ahve backed off a bit. But both sides were ready to fuck us. This is a "bi Partisan" baby.

              1. "The Republicans, after being properly threatened, have seemed to ahve backed off a bit."

                Dude, they have to back off because it's their bill in the first place. As Paul notes there were plenty of Dems working hard to block it from the beginning.

                SOPA has been criticized on libertarian and liberal sites for quite a while. I haven't seen evidence of that on conservative sites.

                1. If it was "their bill" why did it have so many Democratic co-sponsors?

                  It was a bipartisan bill. This is classic you. Here we have something horrible both sides are doing. But you can't admit that. If it is bad, it must be Republican. So you get on here and waste everyone's time denying what is in front of their eyes.

                  Do you really think the people on here are so fucking stupid that they believe the shit you write? At some point it gets to be insulting after a while.

                  1. This is classic you....If it is bad, it must be Republican.

                    Classic Paul? He's the one that said it.

                2. I haven't seen evidence of that on conservative sites.

                  Like Red State and Instapundit?

                  1. "SOPA has been criticized on libertarian and liberal sites for quite a while"

                    Instapundit, Reynolds=libertarian.

                    How long has Redstate been opposing it?

                    1. I guess National Review is libertarian now too. We are all libertarians.

                    2. And instapundit being "libertarian" will come as a hell of a surprise to a lot of libertarians.

                    3. "Reynolds self-identifies not as a conservative, but as a libertarian"


          2. "Show me a link to something that says the President plans to veto SOPA"

            no, no, no changee goal posts.

            YOU made the claim "the President planned to sign it." Do you have ANY evidence for that statement?

            1. If he doesn't plan to veto it, doesn't that mean he plans to sign it? Is there a third option?

              1. Of course this is John's usual "logic": since he hasn't announced a veto he must be for it!

                1. Yes. If he planned to veto it, he would be issuing the threat and getting Congress to change it. That is how it works. And you know it. Is there no amount of bullshit you won't put out to defend this guy? How do you sleep at night?

                  1. The bill isn't even being voted on yet.

                    Saying someone supports something which he has criticized but which he has not issued a formal veto statement is terrible logic John. He's not said whether he will sign it or not, at this point all we have is he's criticized the bill. You're sleeping over in Assumption Junction again.

                    1. If he didn't support it, he would say so. He is only not coming out and saying so because he is trying not to offend his silicon valley donors. When a President doesn't support something, you know it.

                    2. I guess raping logic is not a crime in your jurisdiction.

                      If there is no proof of opposition from someone we can conclude they support it!

          3. Show me a link to something that says the President plans to veto SOPA or has threatened to veto SOPA unless changes are made or shut the fuck up.

            Why should a threat matter? He threatened to veto the NDAA, a far more egregious bill, yet still proceeded to sign it "with reservations".

        2. MNG: You're using coconuts!

          John: What?

          MNG: You've got two empty halves of coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.

          John: So? We have ridden since the snows of winter covered this land, through the kingdom of Mercia, through...

          MNG: Where'd you get the coconuts?

          John: We found them.

          MNG: Found them? In Mercia? The coconut's tropical!

          John: What do you mean?

          MNG: Well, this is a temperate zone

          John: The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?

          MNG: Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

          John: Not at all. They could be carried.

          MNG: What? A swallow carrying a coconut?

          John: It could grip it by the husk!

          MNG: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.

          John: Well, it doesn't matter...

          1. Fuck you Tim. I know everyone else ignores his bullshit and lets it go unchallenged. And I probably should too. But at some points lies and bullshit get on my nerves more than most.

            1. Don't loose your temper amigo. Just crackin wise.

              1. "Don't loose your temper"

                Bees gotta buzz, John's gotta be John. It's what he does.

                1. Nobody ever accuses John of being a troll.

                  1. Says the guy who began here saying he favored neither party and only cared about a "single issue" and then was oft outed as a GOP shill.

                    1. joe, you, and Episiarch are the only ones who consistently accused me of being a GOP shill. The Axis of...

                2. Takes two to tango, buddy. Though I can't comment on whether one of you has been more crazy lately, as I have given up reading through your long back and forths.

                  1. I like to download the comments to read in bed.

                    1. Interesting that you ignore my copyright when it benefits you, but maintain that your copyright should be respected.

      3. You have to remember to a partisan hack a roundly hated bipartisan bill is actually a child of the other team, while a popular bipartisan bill is actually a product of their team.

  32. More and more California jobs come to Texas
    California Governor Jerry Brown defended his state Wednesday following his State of the State Address against an assertion that Texas is stealing their jobs.
    Brown acknowledged that many Californians are now calling Texas home....

    1. Oh come on, who wouldn't rather pay 8% of their income not to have a gun? That's crazy talk!

    2. This is why the form of government is more important than the players. Brown actually had a more competent run for President than Perry, and yet under Perry's stewardship Texas has weathered the economic storm better than any state not ending in "Dakota". Mostly because Texas has a number of (state) constitutional protections that limit the amount of damage elected officials can do in a given time period. Making it illegal to legislate in even numbered years has a lot to do with it. Even in the odd numbered years, I think the session is limited to 120 days. that's 600 consecutive days out of every 2 years that the legislature isn't screwing Texans.

      1. Minnesota's unemployment rate just dropped to 5.7%.

    3. Yeah, and they show up and bitch about how the state and local governments don't micromanage every fucking thing under the sun. I fucking hate Cali transplants.

      1. We love our freedom, not everyone else's

    4. They should simply outlaw moving out of state.

      Problem solved.

  33. Feministing takes a swing at Cathy Young, calls her a victim blamer and an anti-feminist over reason event

    While you should read the whole thing, here would be one of the author's main sections:

    When the presentation started, I took a deep breath because this topic is so personal for me. Still, I wanted to at least be able to listen to the arguments being made in order to effectively counter. Cathy Young began by commenting on old school treatment of rape victims and their smearing by everyone including the criminal justice system. It's certainly true that feminists have worked very hard to create a world where reporting a rape doesn't result in your life being ruined. But Young argues that by doing so feminists have not allowed any room for the presumption of innocence of men who are accused.

    This is her central argument: Men who are accused of rape are not given the privilege of being innocent until proven guilty while women are automatically believed.

    And to that I respond, on which planet does Ms. Young live? Here where I live, women who report rapes are sometimes believed by the police but most often are not believed by anyone else. Their stories, personal lives, clothes, histories are picked apart by anyone and everyone looking to discredit them.

    I've rarely seen (oh wait except for Duke Lacrosse which Young cited because that is the most prominent example of a claim that was unfounded) men accused of rape be publicly shamed or have their sexual histories examined. Wouldn't it be interesting if a man was accused of rape and someone asked him questions about what he was doing that night, what he was drinking, and other relevant questions that are not so relevant when asked of the victims.

    Young also made the point that "Neo-feminist arguments about rape contradict principles of justice." I would argue that patriarchy contradicts the principles of justice as well but that might not fit with Ms. Young's one-sided presentation. Young failed to mention that half of rapes go unreported. She cited plenty of "studies" yet failed to name any that we could look up for ourselves and she continued to select information which only supported her premise instead of looking at all of the the available data which could possibly contradict it. Feminists have not argued that no women in the history of the world has ever filed a false report of rape. The problem is that the idea that this occurs is raised to cloud those claims that are actually true but lack physical evidence and to scare women into silence for fear that they will not be believed.

    That's my main problem with this kind of program: It fails to acknowledge all sides and dismisses the idea that some women are shamed into silence for fear of being called liars. The idea that women would make false rape allegations based on some sort of sick revenge fantasy or mental illness (two reasons Young mentioned) sound like something out of the 1950s. The Federalist Society at my law school normally has a second speaker to provide a response. There was no response provided to Ms. Young's point of view. I was told that the attempts to get another speaker to respond fell through which means that Young's opinions were left mainly unchallenged.

    And let me just say... it would be unwise for feministing to anger reason. We have STEVE SMITH. Who do they have?

    1. "Feminists have not argued that no women in the history of the world has ever filed a false report of rape."

      So what was "Women never lie about rape" supposed to mean?

    2. Ms. Young's one-sided presentation


      In recent years, I have encountered criticism for being wishy-washy, with some bloggers parodying my columns as perpetual on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand vacillation.

    3. Hmm so Cathy is conservative?

      Hmm so Cathy has an obligation to tell everyone that some women don't report rape even though this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic?

      The only real point in this article is that Cathy's position is somehow a deterrent to women reporting rape. But reporting the rapist is the only way to get him convicted; the presumption of innocence does not change that. Not reporting the rape is the only sure way to keep a rapist unconvicted.

      1. Yet, it's the feminists who have been going on for decades how women won't be "believed and supported", despite all evidence to the contrary.

    4. Cathy Young--gender traitor!

      1. Just like anyone who isn't white, all real women are Liberals.

    5. "The problem is that the idea that this occurs is raised to cloud those claims that are actually true but lack physical evidence and to scare women into silence for fear that they will not be believed."

      Because we magically know which ones are true and which ones are not. Logic, how does it work?

    6. I've rarely seen (oh wait except for Duke Lacrosse which Young cited because that is the most prominent example of a claim that was unfounded) men accused of rape be publicly shamed or have their sexual histories examined.

      ...Which to this day Feministes and Jezebellians cite as proof that SOMETHING must have happened, despite all evidence to the contrary.

      1. They even insist "something must have happened" in the Hofstra case which was recorded on video. If a position is based on ideology, no amount of evidence can make a difference.

    7. We have STEVE SMITH. Who do they have?

      You don't want to know the answer to that question.

      1. Thousands of pissed off bull-dykes ready to hate fuck with a large strap-on anyone who disagrees with them?

        ...BTW, proposed new feministing/ jezebel drinking game: anytime someone uses the words mysoginist or patriarchy, DRINK!

        Speaking of which "I would argue that patriarchy contradicts..."


        1. If they use "kyriarchy" you need to take a double.

        2. That would quickly result in fatal alcohol poisoning.

    8. "Wouldn't it be interesting if a man was accused of rape and someone asked him questions about what he was doing that night, what he was drinking, and other relevant questions..."

      I'm pretty sure they are, unless the detectives investigating the case are completely incompetent.

      1. I'm pretty sure they are, unless the detectives investigating the case are completely incompetent.

        So then they aren't investigating these things? Because I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of cops are incompetent.

  34. Emma Stone (still hot) keeps grapeseed oil in her bathroom:

    1. hand-job anyone?

      1. Water based lube isn't oil.

        1. fucking squirrels, that was to DtD.

        2. Technically, neither is bacon grease.

          1. That's just wrong.

            1. Pass the butter!

          2. Is it rancid bacon grease, or is that just too kinky for you rubes?

            1. Ever make bacon bourbon?
              Google it up, it's pretty good.
              Especially with a little maple syrup (the real stuff, not that flavored corn syrup crap).

            2. I prefer Santorum Brand? lubricant.
              It keeps my hands and face Springtime Fresh!?

          3. Did someone say bacon grease?

    2. I've got some...oil for her.

    3. Yes. Her youthful appearance is all due to grapeseed oil and being 23 has nothing to do with it at all.

    4. Does RoboCain want to make a donation of his own grapeseed to Emma Stone?

    5. Damn you for posting cuddly pet pictures! Somebody get the rope.

      1. Hmm, interesting how this ended up higher than it should have...

        1. that's what she said?

    6. Grapeseed oil makes a decent sexual lubricant in a pinch, you know.

    7. She looks older than 23 in that picture. But if in fact she does have a flawless complexion, I would wager it has more to do with her age than any concoction she smears on it.

    1. Every day needs a good boost of adorableness. 🙂

  35. NYPD developing portable body scanner for detecting concealed weapons.

    1. "NYPD developing portable body scanner for detecting concealed weapons ON BLACK MEN."


    2. Coming soon:

      Entrepeneur developing clothing that defeats portable body scanner.

      Followed by:

      NY outlaws clothing that defeats portable body scanner.

      1. Followed by : "cops shoot man 41 times after misidentifying his wallet as a gun with new $2 million dollar body scanner".

        1. After a long paid vacation the shooting is rules as justified and the officer is awarded a medal.

          1. "The wallet was kept however, because the victim's family couldn't prove that the cash within wasn't from drug sales."

        2. at least he wasn't white, that would have caused an uproar

      2. So all you will have to do to get someone killed by cops in New York City is to sew a gun-shaped piece of Mylar in the back of their jacket.

    3. Now cops are professional and would only use it with probable cause. They would never just walk around pointing it at people.

      And the quotes in that story are sickening. "It is for a safety so it is okay".

      1. "Check out the concealed weapons on her"

      2. I once had a cop demand ID to run for warrants and then search me when no warrants came up because I stood still on the sidewalk while lighting a cigarette.
        He claimed that by standing still on a sidewalk that is meant for travel I was loitering, and told me I should be grateful he didn't give me a ticket and make me spend the night in jail.
        For loitering.
        Did I ever mention that I hate cops?

        1. "because I stood still on the sidewalk"

          I'd suggest you practice standing unstill but nowadays the cigarette will get you 20 to life in the pokey.

          1. I quit three years ago.

            1. If you move around, they will taze you for being "fidgety." If you stand still, they will arrest you for loitering or vagrancy.

              I think we need more vagrants like John J. Rambo. If we did, the country would be a bit safer from jackboot goons wearing police costumes.

              1. i'll rambo your john j.

              2. Cop: "You're moving around an aweful lot, are you nervous about something?"

                Citezen: "OK, I'll stop moving then."

                Cop: "You're under arrest for loitering."

              3. If they decide they don't like you, they'll harass you until you leave town or they find an excuse to lock you up.
                Did I mention that I hate cops?

        2. Did I ever mention that I hate cops?

          Not often enough.

        3. Where the hell do you live? I want to make sure I never go there.

          1. It was the police of the People's Republic of Boulder Colorado that earned my contempt for the profession.
            I have since relocated.

            1. In my experience, rural Colorado is a veritable paradise. Populated by folk of WIDELY divergent beliefs/religion/politics/etc., all united by a common desire to leave one another alone. The state's urban areas (Denver, Boulder, Colorado Springs, Pueblo) however, are tyrannical statist fiefdoms best avoided. I remember back when open carry of firearms was the only legal way to carry, it would lead to a ticket for flagrant display in The Springs.

              1. It's still pretty much like that. Boulder and Denver are the worst, and Denver cops are probably worse than Boulder. Though it's a pretty tight race.

        4. Did I ever mention that I hate cops?

          Yes. It's your most endearing neurosis.

          1. Look out! The retard is being a hypocrite! Oh woe is me!

  36. Anonymous is made up of script kiddies, not hackers. Get your terms right.

    1. Cool story, bro

      1. Oh yeah?!
        Well, we're going on your site! Did you think we wouldn't notice you? You have been warned!

        [stomps off]

  37. I would argue that patriarchy contradicts the principles of justice as well

    "There. I've run rings around you, logically."

    1. You would argue? What's stopping you? Argue it already, rather than pretending its a given.

      /Pet peeve OFF/

      1. No, no, no, she means that she would argue that, if she were capable of logic. . .like a man [Ducks].

  38. NYPD portable weapon scanners: because eventually the tourists will figure out those "Check weapons HERE" signs are a TRAP.

  39. NY outlaws clothing that defeats portable body scanner.

    If your clothing is opaque to the scanner, you're off to jail, regardless of whether you're packing or not.
    Because not allowing the cops to probe you (intentionally or otherwise) is a form of terrorism, and must be stamped out.

    1. Just like some schools now demand transparent bags and backpacks.

    2. Besides there's less radiation involved in that scan than a dental Xray.

  40. End threaded comments and starve the trolls.

  41. Bloomberg reported this morning that Leon Panetta will fight tooth and nail to keep the F-35 program alive. Because we'll be naked and defenseless without it, in the coming age of mano-a-mano aerial combat with the Iranians and the Taliban.

    1. If you are not going to have a big army, you need a kick ass air force. We have lived a long time with complete air supremacy. I would hate to live in a world where we didn't. And the world is building better and better fighters.

      1. "the world is building better and better fighters."

        Too bad the F-35 isn't one of them.

        1. citation? Who says the F35 isn't one of them? And I seem to remember everyone claiming every single weapons program in the 1980s wasn't going to work, yet most of them did.

          If the F35 is a bad fighter, explain why. And tell me who thinks so besides people who claim every weapon is a failure.

          1. What's the point in having a fleet of Bugatti Veyrons when the nearest competition can barely afford a VW?

            1. Because your life depends on winning the race that is why. And when you have a generation advantage over your opponent, you can get by with a smaller air force.

              1. Q: How much money, inflation and liberty will it take to feel safe!?!?!?!?

                A: All of it.

              2. Because your life depends on winning the race that is why.

                Yeah, but if the competition can only afford a VW, can't you still win with a Lamborghini that costs a fifth of the Bugatti?

          2. A) I think its a bad idea to build a fighter with only one engine. A flameout in an F-15 is slow ride home, A flameout in an F-16 makes you a lawndart.

            B)IF you are going to build a single engine fighter, it should be cheaper, not more expensive than X number of the next best twin engine fighters. By the time they get around to building it, the F-35 will be more expensive for the first 120 than the 120 F-22s we built.

            C) The whole NATO fighter thing is a clusterfuck, with the added clusterfuck of the VTOL version -- neither of which saved us a single dollar, despite the stories that were propagated 15 years ago when this got started.

            In short, the thing is a white elephant and needs to be taken out back and shot, with any decent tech upgrades from the F-22 going into an actual lean Navy or Air Force fighter.

            1. All good arguments Brett.

          3. Well, my wife for starters, and considering she worked on both the F-35 and F-22 as an aerospace engineer I think I'll take her word.

            As for why the F-35 sucks, she couldn't really go into too many secifics given security concerns, but some of the general issues cited are:

            1) weight problems - the aircraft was coming in far heavier than originally planned. Somedue to LM's incompetence, some due to the AF adding requirements/ capabilities

            2) too slow - see above comment wrt weight.

            3) can't pull more than about 7g's in a turn, which would be OK 40 years ago, but now you need to be able to pull 9g's at least.

            The F-22, btw, is everybit the BMF that it's made out to be. Fast, agile, pure killing machine, and totally irrelevant when your enemy is hiding in caves. But cool as hell...

        2. If our fucking drones keep landing in Iran we may need some manned aircraft.

      2. And the world is building better and better fighters.

        The maybe we should build a better fighter instead of paying too much for the F-35.

        1. And then you can share it with us?
          Whoa, what we could do with tangible weaponry...
          No more hacking from mommy's basement...we'd have real power!

          [wets pants]

  42. But, but...., CHINA!!!

    1. for P Brooks comment. I've failed twice at threaded comments, maybe I should do some work.

  43. And the world is building better and better fighters.

    Strangely enough, ours seem to be getting both hugely more expensive and almost completely unreliable (if we can even get them into the air) at the same time.

    1. Not the unmanned ones. Of course, they occasionally do their own thing.

    2. I would say ours seem to work pretty well. And i have been hearing for 30 years how every weapons program going back to the F14 was a failure and no good. I have grown a bit skeptical of these claims, especially when they are made by the same people who have never seen any defense expenditure they liked.

      1. I think Boyd's fighter jets (the F-15 and F-16) were great. Insanely huge lift surfaces and thrust ratio made sure you could fly home with half a wing missing after turning circles around your competition. And they were mass produced in about 10 years from post Vietnam drawing board to production. It seems like every other industry has shortened their design-to-production-time, except the defense industry.

        1. so if they work, why the rush to replace them with something that may not be as good? I get improving avionics, creating new capabilities, and all the rest, but seems those could be incorporated into an existing framework rather than becoming the basis for a whole new thing. Probably why I'm not in DC with the big boy decision-makers.

        2. "fly home with half a wing missing"

          And in the case of an Isreali F-15, fly home with all of a wing missing.

  44. SIV|1.20.12 @ 10:26AM|#|show direct|ignore
    End threaded comments and starve the trolls.

    reply to this

    I'm coming back around to the idea that this is all that's necessary.

  45. I'm coming back around to the idea that this is all that's necessary.


  46. Assuming the F-35 works EXACTLY as advertised, what is its justification?

    Are they going to deploy them to Afghanistan? We could darken the sky with A-10s for less, and they would be more appropriate for the job.

    1. We could darken the sky with A10s, but why do that when we could accomplish the same with drones?

      And the F35, assuming it works, and maybe it doesn't I don't know, allows us to have complete air supremacy. That is a big deal. It means we can deal with enemies without having to get in a land war.

      I think the idea is to downsize the Army and make up for it with a more lethal air force and navy. I don't think that is a bad idea.

    2. Isn't the A-10 retired?

      1. I think they were transferred to various states' Air National Guard units.

  47. Physically assaulting a person who had done nothing is OK. Just pull out the community's checkbook (the account is filled from time to time by confiscating wealth).

    No criminal charges were levied against the officers, as usual.

  48. because I stood still on the sidewalk while lighting a cigarette.

    Good gravy!

    I hope you weren't perpendicular to the right-of-way; that's twenty years at Hard Labor.

  49. Assuming the F-35 works EXACTLY as advertised, what is its justification?

    Maintaining a force of more-or-less invincible air superiority fighters seems worthwhile. And as much money is wasted on them, it's almost small potatoes compared to Afghanistan and everywhere else the Pentagon throws money away.

    1. The F-35 is intended as a strike fighter with secondary air to air capability, FWIW.

  50. I remember, long ago, seeing some credible claims made that the Harrier, while a thirsty plane over distances, could be brought up close enough to the action (due to VTOL capability) to actually be pretty fuel-efficient by sortie (I heard that term in a movie).

    As I recall, the specific example was comparing the Harrier vs carrier-based fighters in the Falklands.


  51. Why can a cop twist someone's arm and cause serious injuries at a traffic stop? What business do they have making you leave your property while giving you a ticket?

    No criminal charges were filed against the officer.

    1. There is no such thing as a crime against an individual. There are only crimes against the State.
      Since an officer is a representative of the State while performing his duties, he simply cannot commit a crime.
      How can the State commit a crime against itself?

  52. Joe Biden Tells San Francisco Crowd That Giants Are Headed To The Super Bowl

  53. *slips into Doomsday Machine Mode*

    Do we even need low altitude air supremacy as long as we have the B-2?

    1. I didn't even know we still had them until the Packers game last weekend.

  54. I'M MARRYING BANJOS!!!!!!!!!

    Goddammit, it's so fucking wonderful to say.

    1. Best of luck to you crazy kids!

      1. Sorry to all if it's getting old. But Goddamn! am I happy.

        1. I heard STEVE SMITH gets prima nocta

          1. Oh. Dear. God. No.



    2. Just don't be up on the porch playing one, and we're all happy for you.
      Are registered with Smith and Wesson? SiG?

      1. I'm giving Banjos her first gun this weekend.

        Kel-Tec PF9. Basic, easy to operate and she can carry it in her purse.

        1. That's such a terrible choice for a first gun, I would need to hire Charles Barkley just to say the word "terrible".

    3. So do we all get invited to the wedding?
      Will there be cake? (I hear MNG really likes cake.)

  55. "I believe he gave her some instructions," he said. "She was trying to explain to him that she had an injured ankle and that she could not get out of her car. He then twisted her arm up behind her back and fractured her elbow."

    What's the problem? I shoulderlock little old ladies all the time.

    1. "The madder Warty gets, the stronger Warty gets!"

  56. This goes out to all the anti-piracy griefer trolls: stop conflating issues. Piracy is a separate topic from file-sharing, and the shutting-down of file-sharing sites.

    And to all you others: stop falling for this misdirection. It is great for people to have discussions about IP, but they are in no way related to the issue currently at hand. So don't get sucked into these cul-de-sacs; your debate partner is arguing in bad faith.

    Also, pet peeve: stop it with the analogies. A data center is neither a storage locker holding potentially-hot merchandise, nor is it a mailbox into which your carrier deposits potentially-hot parcels. It is an actual thing, designed to store virtual things, called files, which are placed there by people using computers and networks. Measured by file, it likely holds a far smaller percentage of pirated data than if you make the measurement by byte. Not that it would be the end of the world to lose those facilities, but for many, they are really convenient. Upshot: if you are incapable of stating your case in real terms, IP issues are the least of your concerns, and the weight of your opinion on this topic is literally zero, since you are incapable of understanding the issue, technically.

    Related addendum: check your logic. A certain non-trivial percentage of pirated data ends up in the hands of people who would not have otherwise purchased it. Profit loss in such cases is at worst zero, and in actuality, is usually negative; I can attest to this, being a software developer who takes advantage of this fact to increase profits; for every cracker site you help shut down, I am going to lose both money, and the valuable unbiased feedback I gather by watching what those people think of my product (customers and anti-customers lack the disinterested neutrality you find among illegitimate users). True story. So debate the morality of it how you like, but don't insult my intelligence with the fairy tale that every pirated download equates to money lost.

    1. Also, pet peeve: stop it with the analogies. A data center is neither a storage locker holding potentially-hot merchandise, nor is it a mailbox into which your

      Wrong. For the sake of due process, warrants, probable cause and privacy, they are exactly the same thing. To relate them in terms as something completely different and new invites legislators to invent new rules to cover new things that are effectively covered under existing legal principles. Private data transferred privately is exactly that. If in a pro-IP framework that data constitutes copyright infringement, get a warrant. If there is not enough evidence for a warrant, too fucking bad. The means of storage, and transport are irrelevant. All that matters is the process by which the site was taken offline and if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in using the service, leading to charges against the company as a whole or individual users.

      1. Not wrong, and your argument is simply concerned with the efficacy of abstracting the facts. My position, given ignorant legislators, is not to provide them with mental crutches, but rather to pronounce them unfit to rule on the issue in the first place.

        1. And you are abstracting legal principle as are legislators. "It's different than older stuff, so you aren't an expert. If only the right people were in charge. I'm an expert!" Your naked appeal to authority is sickening.

          1. That would be a fair point, if it resembled what I have actually stated. However, you are making assumptions; I do not imply that perfect knowledge produces perfect law, but only that imperfect knowledge produces imperfect law. In this case, I would suggest that we have a particularly illustrative example of that.

    2. May I also add, please stop conflating/confusing copyright, trade mark, and patent. While they are all intellectual property, they are quite dissimilar and warrant separate discussion. I found this editorial interesting
      On a personal note, I have digital copies of works which I have previously purchased in multiple formats: vinyl, cassette, CD, even some reel-to-reel and 8-track tapes. I'm not going to pay for another copy, ever.

    3. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  57. We could darken the sky with A10s, but why do that when we could accomplish the same with drones?

    Okay- so why do we need the F-35?

    1. Because the retired brass running the Military Industrial Complex stand to make a fortune.
      And their buddies who haven't yet retired stand to make a fortune when they retire and become corporate executives.
      IOW fuck you, that's why.

  58. Isn't the A-10 retired?

    I believe so. Insufficiently sexy.

    Too cheap, too effective.

  59. Does the Kel Tec PF9 pass H&R muster? I'm giving it to my lovely wife-to-be so she can carry it in her purse and because of the most basic of operation should she require it's use.

    1. I like the CZ 2075 RAMI. That is a nice compact pistol. A friend has one and it is light and easy to handle. It comes in 9mm and .40 S&W versions, with polymer or aluminum frames.

    2. The best SD/CCW for someone who does not have experience is a small revolver (with a laser). And I'd argue it's still the best choice for those who have experience.

      If she wants to gain experience, then she'll need a full-size handgun to gain that experience. Practicing with a mouse gun is bad for both the shooter and the gun. The best combination is a full-size range/HD gun and a small CCW gun of the same type.

      (There are also reasons why you shouldn't carry a gun in a purse.)

      1. I agree with the revolver suggestion. It's only one bullet less than the PF9.

        1. My thinking is if you can't get the job done in five to six shots, you're spraying and praying, and you shouldn't count on having one more round to close the deal.

          1. J-frame S&W in .38 Lose the laser.

  60. I'm giving Banjos her first gun this weekend.

    Get her a .22, so she can shoot it A LOT without going broke.

    1. I've got a Ruger MkIII that I absolutely love. And she liked the one we rented to shoot last weekend. I'll be buying another one soon, I bet.

    2. Get her a .22 in addition, for practice. Also if your handgun can be safely dry fired without damage to the gun, do that. A lot. It makes a huge difference in shooting ability with no expenditure.

    3. That's a very good point. It's not only the easy on the wallet, but also very easy on the hands, ears, eyes, etc.

  61. Befitting this site, I present The Worst Comment of the Day?.

    Drum roll, please.

    "No owner has a 'right' to any profit."

    Thank you, "anon," for that eloquent example of ethical nihilism.

    1. Wrong. It's a tie between all your posts, tard.

  62. This is just too fucking good:

    Fed Prosecutor to Assert the Fifth in Gun-smuggling Probe"

    I wonder how many times this particular prosecutor has implied a connection between asserting 5A rights and guilt.

    1. Can he assert the 5A if he was acting in his prosecutorial capacity? Something doesn't sound right with this.

    2. If the fifth is relevant, then there is potential criminality involved, which supports the case for a special prosecutor.

  63. BOOM! I just sold a $260k tractor this morning out of nowhere. Fucking-A! And I'll get to be with my lovely Banjos tonight.

    And SIV, if you're still looking for that skidder, let me know.

    1. That guy must have some lawn.

    2. Everything's coming up Milhouse!

    3. When I saw you stored your knives in a brief case I feared you were a CUTCO salesman

  64. A lawyer representing Patrick Cunningham, criminal division chief in the Arizona U.S. attorney's office, informed the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that he would assert the privilege rather than testify in the committee's probe of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives operation.

    I can't believe Holder hasn't personally appeared before the committee to declare the whole thing a state secret, and any further investigation would be a breach of national security.

    and this- Attorney Tobin Romero said Cunningham is "innocent ? ensnared by the unfortunate circumstances in which he now stands between two branches of government.'' is touching.

    He's like one of those abused puppies in a Humane Society commercial.

  65. >EU Internet Czar attacks SOPA.

    "Foolish arrogant American politicians. You aren't going far enough with the legislation! It will be another capitalist disaster unless you ensure that all of your citizens are re-educated after committing an act of piracy and pass several regulations that standardize the size of keyboard keys. You know, to help the people with carpal tunnel. Equality of opportunity."

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.