A.M. Links: Rubio Sticks up for Romney, Newt Compliments Obama's SOTU "Rhetoric," Syria Conducts Late-Night Crack-Down


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

New at Reason.tv: "3 Reasons School Choice is Growing"


NEXT: SOTU Word Cloud Predicts Content-Free Election Season, Obama Victory!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Why do you hate me?

      1. Fist only likes people with pronounceable names

        1. Blame Pro Lib.

          1. It’s a great name, and I’ll hear no criticisms of it. None.

            Auric = “gold”
            Demonocles = Demon Monocles = Speaks for itself

            How do you pronounce it? I like the kind of Greek pronunciation, Deemonoclees, but De-Monocles has a kind of Count de Monet ring to it.

            1. this is a libertarian site, we want to be monocling, not de-monocling

              1. It’s Demon and monocles, not de-monocles. However, to avoid confusion, the Greek pronunciation is best.

                1. I’ve been doing Greek in my head.

    1. Also, 9:20AMish.

    2. I will not be happy until we have morning links at 9:00AM again.

  1. “Warren Buffett…stands to benefit from the president’s decision to reject the Keystone XL oil pipeline permit…owns Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC, which is among the railroads that would transport oil produced in western Canada if the pipeline isn’t built.”


    1. Texas congressman introduces bill to force Keystone XL approval


      1. More symbolic than anything else

    2. I don’t know why people think he’s such an altruistic guy… that’s not how people get rich in his field…

      1. But he wants to pay more in taxes but those dastardly republicans won’t let him. That makes him one of the “good rich people” right up there with Sean Penn and Matt Damon.

        1. Of course Buffett makes use of every tax break and loophole out there to protect his money so an increase in income tax is unlikely to impact him as much as some others. And of course, he realizes this, and that is why he isn’t calling for simplifying the tax code.

          1. And one of his primary money makers is universal life insurance, which is nothing but a way around the inheritances tax. But he only wants higher inheritance tax rates out of the purest of motives.

            1. Not only does he make money from UL, but more damningly, he makes money buying family businesses at fire-sale prices because the kids have to sell the business to pay the inheritance tax.

              1. Who’s really to damn in that situation? I’d say Government.

                1. If Warren buffet wasn’t assisting government officials by providing them with propaganda I’d be with you.

                  But he is one of the guys in the superstitions that lead people to support such a barbaric tax.

                  1. Buffett only has the power the government gives him.

      2. He just gave $50k to the Treasury! Thats fifty THOUSAND!!!!!!

        People like you just can’t even imagine that sort of selfless sacrifice.

        1. I think adjusted for net worth that means I throw Treasury a nickel. Yeah, I can imagine that selfless sacrifice. Go Warren, you rent-seeking old fuck.

    3. But that is just a rightwing meme. You just heard that on Rush. Tony and MNG said so.

      1. Obama has a heart of gold, a clear vision for America! God bless the Anointed One, who does no wrong!

    4. GOP played Keystone card, lost

      The Keystone XL pipeline was proposed to bring bitumen, a low grade Canadian pseudo oil that is strip mined out of the sandy soil in Canada’s Alberta province (it is also referred to as “tar sands” oil and “oil sands”) all the way down to Houston. That 1,700-mile route crosses the Canadian-U.S. border, which means the president has to approve the project. Because of the dirty nature of the oil, it has been a long process to evaluate the merits and safety of the project.

      Nebraskans were concerned about the route through a sensitive portion of the Ogallala Aquifer, which is central to the region’s agriculture. Environmentalists hate bitumen because it has more greenhouse gas pollution associated with it than normal oil and there have been troubling questions raised about safe transportation of the new, highly corrosive forms of the oil that would run through the pipeline.

      The oil industry, on the other hand, desperately wants the pipeline because Canada’s oil is largely stuck in the Midwest, where it has to be sold at a discount. The pipeline gives them new access to foreign markets and the ability to sell their oil for more money: win-win for them!

      When prospects for the project looked bad, the Republicans got involved. They stepped in on behalf of their big campaign donors in the oil industry and tried to score on an issue they believe they could use against the president.

      What followed was a campaign of misinformation to convince the public that the pipeline was a massive public service from Big Oil that would create loads of jobs while also weaning us from Middle Eastern oil, filling our tanks with fuel from our friendly neighbors. Both couldn’t be further from the truth.

      Still, truth is a scarce commodity these days, and even on Wednesday, Boehner kept claiming the project would have brought 20,000 jobs, with others saying it would be hundreds of thousands — all even as the pipeline builders themselves admitted that the permanent jobs would number only in the hundreds (the State Department puts that number at 20 — ouch). With unemployment at 8.5%, this is about the most cynical way I can imagine to sell a project to America, especially when you know the numbers are wrong.

      Also unmentioned? The fact that much of the oil coming out of Keystone XL will not end up in American gas tanks, meaning that it won’t offset our ongoing and unfortunate reliance on the Middle East for oil.

      The Obama administration understands that. So when the president announced that a decision on the project would be delayed until 2013, the GOP went into overdrive, passing a law that forced the president to make a decision on the project within 60 days, despite the fact that a map of the pipeline route doesn’t even exist, making a reasonable decision impossible.


      1. So instead it will transported by uncle Warrens trucks and rail lines which even the Sierra Club admits is much more dangerous to the environment than a pipeline.

        They just put 20+ thousand people out of work and made things worse for the environment. But Bershire Hathaway is happy and that is what it is all about isn’t it?

        1. 20K is a cooked-up number intended to foam wingnutz like john.

          >”…the pipeline builders themselves admitted that the permanent jobs would number only in the hundreds (the State Department puts that number at 20 — ouch).”

          1. A few hundred people could build a 1700 mile pipeline. Yeah that makes sense Orin. And the oil will still get transported. It will just be on Warren Buffett’s trains.

            1. the 200 or so permanant jobs are not temporary construction jobs john. the current pipeline (SURPRISE) to the mid-west where this oil is now sold provides for export thru the great lakes. but the chicago commodities exchange devalues this high-suloher oil which sells at a discount.

              1. So temporary jobs don’t count? All construction jobs are temporary dipshit, eventually the project is completed. By your definition building anything doesn’t create jobs.

                1. no, building the extra pipeline will provide for several hundred permanent jobs per the company.

              2. Ozone, all construction jobs are temporary. You people pride yourselves on fancy pants word usage. Expecting you to know what they mean is expecting too much.

                1. there’s no argument there silly. but to imply 20k new jobs are permenant is intentionally misleading considering its maybe 200.

              3. permanant jobs are not temporary construction jobs john.

                Construction jobs only count if we tear down the project as soon as it is finished and then rebuild it and tear it down….

                Now that’s stimulus.

          2. 20K is a cooked-up number intended to foam wingnutz like john.

            As long as you actually accept that *any* report on estimates of jobs created/saved are complete bullshit, I’m ok with this, as I’ve been saying nobody can put an exact number on jobs created for a while.

      2. What slave name did Warren give to Obama?

        1. Warren Buffet: “Your name is Toby.”

          1. Michelle had to give him an extra beating that night to get Obama to start answering to it.

            1. Let me be clear. I’ve never come so hard in my life.

      3. Maria Cardona is a Democratic strategist, a principal at the Dewey Square Group, a former senior adviser to Hillary Clinton, and former communications director for the Democratic National Committee.

        This was not written by a neutral, dispassionate observer. What a load of crap. (these two observations were made completely independently)

        1. the pipeline company provided the jobs numbers.

          the chicago commodities exchange bids the value.

          paor ad hom. try to keep up

          1. Those aren’t the parts that really stuck out as loads of crap. The jobs aren’t the reason for building the pipeline, so they are not relevant, really. And how is the exchange on which oil is sold relevant at all?

      4. Wrong; the XL project expands on the existing Keystone pipeline. Learn your facts triple asshole.

        1. the facts are cites provided by the pipeline co & the chicago commodities exchange.

          thx for playin

      5. I stopped reading at ” pseudo oil”.

        Jesus fucking Christ.

        1. fortunately the chicago commodities exchange didnt stop reading when low-bidding this high-sulpher “oil”…which is best suited for asphalt paving.

          1. Do you know how Exxon makes money? They drill high quality oil, sell it to smaller refineries, then buy your low quality oil and refine it because they have the resources. Also, we no longer mine sulphur because they extract it from oil and sell it for (another) profit.

  2. Woman Beats Off Moose


    1. I’m not clicking that link.

      1. Good idea; she did it with a shovel.

        1. How would you beat off a moose, smart guy? With just your hands?

          1. The real question is how do you get it to stop calling you afterwards.

            1. Give the moose a fake number. Jesus, haven’t you ever pick up a moose in a bar before? It’s like I’m dealing with a bunch of little kids here.

              1. “haven’t you ever pick up a moose in a bar before?”

                Hey baby, nice rack.

                1. thread winner

                2. Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.

            2. There is an app for that:


          2. Surely STEVE SMITH could weigh in on this.

    2. PETA: 85 year old woman gets off scott free after vicously attacking a poor defenseless moose.

  3. Newt on SOTU: “I like a lot of his rhetoric.”

    I wouldn’t be surprised if he actually said that. In context.

    1. Of course Newt does. Obama’s speechwriters are the fucking masters of this shit, Newt could only be mad about being 2nd place to Obama.

  4. Did it involve bacon grease?


    1. You make think it’s just low resolution, but Pelosi actually looks like a 16-bit graphic in real life.

      1. If only she looked as good as a 16-bit graphic. As it is, she just looks graphic. She should have a parental warning label hanging around her neck.

  5. Models Love Black Cock


    1. when I enquired about his yen for driving, roadworks and pee-pee (all at once, a rare skill), he simply said, in his inimitable coolness, “I know, I feel so 1992!”

      A mighty fine site, RoboCain.

    2. You know, I follow fashion blogs and trends, and I realize I am not the demographic these fashions are aimed at, but I have to think that even if I were a hipster db I wouldn’t wear that fugly shit.

      1. I doubt it is even for sale anywhere.

  6. I’m so happy that Charlie Crist has become shorthand in FL for everything I despise about principle-free politicians. And, despite Marco’s protest, Romney is a Charlie Crist.

    1. Newt is Charlie Crist with a big gut and a bigger ego.

      1. And much, much pastier.

      2. and probably smaller junk

        1. nice ass, though, if you’re into wobbly spongecake fat-dimpled gravitron shitsmeared asses

    2. He sure is. Though not as tan.

  7. India Eisley is hot:


    1. They just reposted pics of Mila Kunis.

    2. I’d have to see her in leather fetish gear using either a gun or a sword before I can comment on her pulchritude. In the meantime, there’s a picture of Kate Beckinsale there that touches on these points.

      1. Unfortunately, those Underworld movies were just awful…

        1. I’ve seen the the second one more than a few times. I flip past it on TV, Kate’s in rubber and then explosions and gunfire and movie-fu and then credits are rolling and I don’t really know what happened.

          1. I’ve never seen any of them, being that they look like, from the commercials, the illegitimate love child of Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich.

          2. “…and I don’t really know what happened. I just clean myself up and get on with life.”

    3. way cuter than her sister, nepal.

      but i’d bangladesh either of them.

    4. Sarah’s prettier.

  8. “At the next block, another dude said something. I don’t even remember what it was. I don’t think it makes a difference. I turned around, swung, and punched him….Whatever that guy said wasn’t the worst thing that’s been said to me by any means.”


    1. There’s no excuse for violence against men.
      Except, apparently, “He said something. I’m not sure what, but it probably wasn’t that bad.”

      1. The important thing to note is that lesbianism grants such transcendent epistemological powers that one can simultaneously not know what someone said, and know it wasn’t the worst thing that’s been said by any means.

        1. transcendent epistemological powers


    2. Punch first, comprehend later.

    3. Why wasn’t she arrested?

      1. Jezebel Lesbos: Becasue all women are victims of the mysoginistic patriachy. She was just fighting back for once. She should get a medal and the neanderthal man she hit should be put in jail for microaggression.

        Too easy, I can do this all day…

    4. macroagressions?

    5. I have very mixed feelings about this story. First, I think men shouting disgusting stuff at women as they walk by them isn’t a microagression, it’s a fucking macroagression. These fine specimens of masculinity don’t do that shit to men because they’d be swallowing their teeth afterwards. A woman most likely isn’t going to haul off and punch the perpetrator in the mouth of doing it (except this chick, which I will get to in a minute). It’s a means that some men use to embarrass and humiliate women–total strangers– with no repercussions whatsoever, usually to gain cred with their dudebros standing next to them, who are also doing it. As I said in a post last night, at the very least it’s pretty annoying; at the worst it’s alarming.

      I can understand her snapping and slugging this guy. I have fantasized about calling down the elements and striking those bastards with lightning. I fucking hate those bastards. I don’t care if they go home and take care of cancer-ridden kittens after they finish shouting that shit at some random woman. A decent man does not act like that.

      Having said that, I don’t think she should have slugged that guy, especially if she isn’t sure he was one of the ones who was harassing her. She snapped, I get it. But that’s not the answer.

      And fuck all y’all for making me agree with a Jezebellian, even in part.

      1. It’s a means that some men use to…usually to gain cred with their dudebros standing next to them

        This is exactly correct.

        (It’s a means that some men use to) embarrass and humiliate women

        With respect, this however is doctrinaire nonsense.

        1. /With respect, this however is doctrinaire nonsense.

          What, you think they’re unaware that it’s embarrassing and humiliating?

          1. No, I don’t think they’re unaware of it – and I believe they don’t even think about that when they’re performing for their posse.

            Also, that is not what you claimed.

            1. If they are not unaware of it, then it’s purposeful. I think most men are perfectly capable of determining right from wrong. Harassing women who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time falls into the “wrong” category. I don’t give a shit if they actively think about whether or not it’s wrong while they’re doing their thing. For example, I don’t need to actively think that stealing something is wrong. I already know that.

              1. Condoning assault because someones speech made you fell bad is wrong. Fuck you for rationalizing that is even mildly acceptable.

                1. I don’t know who you are replying to, but if it was to me, since I never said that (and specifically said I thought it wasn’t the right thing to do), fuck you right back. And next time try reading comprehension FTW.

                  1. “, I don’t think she should have slugged that guy, especially if she isn’t sure he was one of the ones who was harassing her. ”

                    This implies that it would have been alright as long as she was sure what someone said was completely unsavory to her.

                    1. If someone is using threatening, aggressive language to me, then I do think I absolutely have the right to defend myself. Because, you know, I am being threatened. If some random jerk says shit to me, and I am not even sure what they’re saying, then no.

              2. If I steal from you, I know it is wrong, it is purposeful and I know it will make you poorer. It is not however my purpose to make you poorer (but rather to make me richer).

                I disdain that kind of behavior as much as you do but I was just pointing out what I believe to be a mistake in your idea of motivation for doing it. You’re getting red-herringy here so, I think I’ll leave it at that.

                1. It is not however my purpose to make you poorer (but rather to make me richer).

                  KO, I understand what you are getting at here better.

        2. (It’s a means that some men use to) embarrass and humiliate women

          With respect, this however is doctrinaire nonsense.

          I think she has a point. Sadly, there are some angry guys who get off on embarassing women. It’s the root cause behind groping in subways or flashing. And I’m sure it’s behnd a lot of cat-calling.

          1. I agree with DA and Abdul.

            The problem with the rad-fem interpretation (not that DA is using it) is that they assume that it is some sort of organized activity. No one at the secret patriarchy meetings ever told me to go out and harass women and a system of keeping them oppressed.

            1. Looks like you’re agreeing with me.

            2. I don’t think it’s an organized activity, FWIW.

              1. Or that it’s part of the patriarchy to keep women oppressed. I think the men that do that are not nice people, and they hand around with not-nice people and reinforce their antisocial tendencies.

                1. That should be *hang around with not-nice people

                  1. do that are not nice people, and they hand around with not-nice people

                    I think you were right the first time. I’ve never known a guy who was confident in their heterosexuality to harass a woman in the street.

                    1. I think we’re also dancing around the central issue here that is at the root of this boorish behavior:

                      These guys are low-class, imbecilic douchebags.

            3. You, apparently, missed the meeting on Oct. 29th, where we did vote to harass women and keep them oppressed. I guess the memo we sent out later did not arrive in your mailbox. Stupid USPS!

      2. While I have mixed feelings about meeting verbal harassment with physical retaliation, I think the real problem is who she finally decide to punch.

        I have less problem with her punching the person screaming bitchdykewhore! than her punching some random asshole because of all the times she got called a bitchdykewhore! It’s too close to collectivizing the punishment for individual behavior.

        1. Yeah, that’s my issue with it as well, in a nutshell.

        2. collectivizing the punishment for individual behavior

          That’s what bugs me about this feel-goody MEN CAN STOP RAPE idiocy rolling around with all the enlightened ones.

          Yeah, anyone could, if they actually knew any rapists.

          I’m not my brother’s keeper, nor am I your bodyguard, but I would brutalize any man caught raping a woman. The problem lies with in that in my decades as an adult I’ve known (AFAIK) exactly 0 rapists and have witnessed precisely that many rapes in progress.

          Yeah, I know that’s not the intention of this bumper sticker philosophy, but they’re preaching to the wrong demographic if they think they’re reaching anyone who is raising a son to think it’s OK to take liberties with the fairer sex.

      3. I don’t know if a fear of physical retaliation has anything to do with it. Drunk people in groups have a tendency to be loud and obnoxious. It’s mostly men yelling at women because most men are heterosexual. From what I’ve seen, lesbians and gay men can be just as bad.

      4. I pretty much agree with everything you say. Assholes probably have it coming and I have no pity for them. Still, had she been arrested and charged with assault, I don’t think that would be a terrible thing either.

    6. This reminded me of something. One time, a long time ago, a (platonic) girlfriend and I were walking across town to catch a show. As we passed by our city’s main gay bar, a couple of lesbians standing out front thought it would be appropriate to belligerently express their strong approval of my friend’s appearance, in terms coarse enough that they would likely qualify for prosecution today (with a nice semi-permanent sex offender label thrown in, given my friend’s age at the time).

      My friend was taken aback, but we shrugged it off and continued on.

      Now this brings me to a question: is the author of the above suggesting that my friend ought to have stopped and clocked the offender? Is a feeling of having been threatened prerequisite to such an action? Because I can tell you, that was certainly the case.

      1. I’ve been told that the official line that you tell police after an altercation, such as a bar fight, is “I felt that my person or the persons with me were threaten. I eliminated that threat.”

        So yes, using aggressive language, etc would be a good sign that they are threatening you. However, I would personal wait until they made any kind of physical contact before I retaliated. Sticks and stones, etc.

        1. Doesn’t have to be contact (a thrown punch is enough…they need not connect).

          But you better have explicit threatening if you are going to attack someone and they haven’t tried to physically contact you.

      2. No, only if straight males do it.

    7. I smell more than a hint of bullshit in that little revenge tale.

      Reminds me of the posts you see from omega nerds, who brag about saying something so stunningly clever to the alpha jock that’s about to kick their ass that the jock walks off in confused delirium. In reality, these goons just internalize their stupid remarks or think them up after the fact because they don’t want to get their ass beat.

      Anyone who thinks this woman just hauled off and hit a guy who could kill her with ease is seriously gullible.

  9. The Oral Roberts story was already posted here yesterday…

  10. Kim Dotcom is a fat douchebag:


    1. While true…so what?

    2. All you need to know is that he legally changed his last name to “Dotcom”. You can extrapolate the rest yourself.

    3. This man is my idol. How can I become him?

      1. Lew Alcindor changed his name. So did Cassius Clay, Lloyd B. Free, Chad Johnson, Ron Artest and several other people.

        The real question is: why do you hate Germans so much?

        1. Stupid squirrels must have changed their names at some point. That was meant to be one post higher.

      2. At least you would be smart enough to have a secret tunnel leading out of your panic room to a waiting bullet train that would take you straight to your yacht so you could get out to international waters.

        1. Not to mention that my army of poisonous baboons would slow down the cops enough to facilitate my escape.

        2. not bad, few revisions:

          1. the yatch is already crewed and waiting in international waters.

          2. the bullet train is literal: the end of the tunnel is a barrel, firing your train car out to the waiting yacht.

      3. Not sure, exactly, but I suspect it involves lots of fried foods.

    4. Is there a way the rest of us could force people to change their names to something more appropriate? Fat Hipster Douche would be far more descriptive.

  11. Marco Rubio defends Mitt Romney from Newt Gingrich tiny teeth.

    Sounds like a Veep candidate talking, to me.

    1. You mean it won’t be Nikki Haley?

  12. An Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper stopped the 63-year-old just past midnight driving 93 miles per hour in his Mercedes-Benz.

    Rushing to knock over the moneychangers table in the temple.

  13. Corruption of our bodily fluids started this day in history, 1945

    General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It’s incredibly obvious, isn’t it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That’s the way your hard-core Commie works.
    Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen… tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first… become… well, develop this theory?
    General Jack D. Ripper: [somewhat embarassed] Well, I, uh… I… I… first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.
    Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
    General Jack D. Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue… a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I… I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
    Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
    General Jack D. Ripper: I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh… women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh… I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
    Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.
    General Jack D. Ripper: But I… I do deny them my essence.

  14. Even ignoring my normal IP arguments, copyright infringement should be a civil violation, not criminal.

    1. I think the rationale is “theft” of IP; theft of course warranting criminal prosecution. Not that I agree either.

      1. Its copyright INFRINGEMENT.

        The rationale is bullshit. Nothing is stolen, the original owner still has it.

        1. Yeah, like I said, I agree. I’m just saying that’s probably how aussies got there.

          1. i’ll agree with your aussie

        2. This is so much bullshit.

          Say I write a book, get some copies printed, set up a table on the sidewalk and start selling books.

          Now some enterprising fellow buys a copy of my book and then scans it page by page. He then uses those scans to print copies of my book, which he starts selling at a table he has set up next to mine.

          Only the dumbest of the dumbfuckers would claim he has not stolen from me.

          1. You forgot the “A” at the end of your name.

          2. So you’re saying by taking your idea and making it better + cheaper somehow he’s robbed you?

            What prevents you from charging less for your book to outsell him?

            What about better presentation (leatherbound, e-read, etc.)?

            You just want a monopoly over the ideas contained in the book, which you have no right to.

            1. “You just want a monopoly over the ideas contained in the book, which you have no right to.”

              The law says you are wrong.

  15. Is it just me or does nearly everything the President says come off as a thinly veiled threat? “What happened in Detroit could happen to other places in America”.

    1. pretty much you

    2. Did you catch this nugget in the SOTU?

      “Tyranny is no match for liberty.”

      ** shudders **

    3. Fear will keep the locals in line; fear of this battlestation.

      1. Let’s hope they underestimate our chances as badly as Grand Moff Tarkin did.

      2. “The ability to destroy an economy is insignificant next to the power of the force.”

  16. Fox Sports Bans Gun-Related Sponsors from UFC Events


    1. Clearly Fox is a left-wing organization.

      Note: No sarcasm intended.

      1. Fox is on TEAM GREEN. And I ain’t talking about the people who believe that Lou Ferrigno was continually robbed of the Emmy award.

        1. the wizard of oz?

    2. They wouldn’t want the spectre of violence ruinging the wholesome entertainment that is human cockfighting.

      1. +.99 Internets. Had to deduct for the misspelling, sorry.

  17. http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2…..cers-wont/

    Knox County DA will not file charges against cop who pulled gun on a motorcyclist.

    1. The best part

      Akagi previously said that one of the two involved officers had been placed on “modified duty status,” although he declined to specify what that entailed. The chief said Monday that the duty status of each officer remains unchanged.

      The officers’ names have not been released.

      1. No John,

        This is the best part:

        “”We determined they acted reasonably,” Gill said.”

        Off duty cops drawing down on people that piss them off is reasonable.

    2. Better watch out, John. You might get called a bigot or be associated with me for posting that.

      1. Narcissistic much?

      2. Not at all, Scoldy. Regular commenter “dunphy” throws out “anti-cop bigot” at pretty much anyone who calls him out on his BS. Sloopy and I are regular targets of this. Also a dunphy fave: “anti-cop bigot like [name]”.


        You’re new here. This is your one freebie.

        1. You’re new here.

          Rectal’s new here?

        2. Oh, *&^%$#@! Didn’t realize that was her. Sorry, guys.

          1. That’s rather, too? How many fucking sockpuppets is she working on here?

    3. Well, to be fair, this Brock Estep character may have threatened them or something of that nature. The article is lacking in much detail.

      This is another good reason why you never chase someone down and exit your vehicle because they cut you off and gave you the finger.

      BTW what were these tough guy cops doing driving a Toyota Avalon? Are they closeted?

  18. Apple makes more in profit than Google does in revenue. My only regret is not buying Apple stock after the 2000 tech bubble imploded.

    “Even more staggering, however, are Apple’s profits. The company reported record quarterly net profits of $13.06 billion, an increase of more than 100 percent compared to the same quarter a year ago. For perspective, that’s nearly $3 billion more than Google’s reported revenues (not profits) for its first quarter. Or so tweeted Farhad Manjoo, a prominent tech writer.”

    1. 35 years vs 15 years.

      For some reason, that shouldnt surprise anyone.

      1. Its not like the lines are converging.

        1. I was going to make a comment about that not being true, but APPL’s earnings growth is ridiculous right now. And it is greater than GOOG’s revenue growth.

          Which suggests they had horrible margins in the not so distant past (50% earnings growth for a well established company can only happen if earnings were previously anemic).

          APPL’s revenue growth is greater than GOOG’s right now, which suggests the same about APPL, considering GOOG has a pretty damn nice revenue growth rate.

          1. Also, while Im not gonna do the math, Im willing to bet that if you plotted annual revenue for the company histories for both and drew a best fit semi-log straight line thru both, they would be converging.

            1. i just figured that math math math math percentages, insofar as report report finances percentages math math.


              1. I have to file a report the head of our financial services division today, and this line is going in there.


  19. Wow

    The Canberra Wikileaks cables revealed the US Embassy sanctioned a conspiracy by Hollywood studios to target Australian communications company iiNet through the local court-system, with the aim of establishing a binding common-law precedent which would make ISPs responsible for the unauthorised file-sharing of their customers.

    Both the location, Australia, and the target, iiNet, were carefully selected. A precedent set in Australia would be influential in countries with comparable legal systems such as Canada, India, New Zealand and Great Britain. Australian telecommunications giant Telstra was judged too large for the purposes of the attack. Owing to its smaller size and more limited resources, iiNet was gauged the perfect candidate.

    The involvement of major American studios in the offensive was suppressed.

    I guess we fucked the Canadians for Warren Buffett. Why not fuck the Ausies for Hollywood?


    1. Also, many of the Carribean islands are Commonwealth nations because they are former UK colonies.

  20. “As many of you know Jose Mallea is helping us with our campaign. He was Marco Rubio’s campaign manager. We discovered last night that Mitt Romney has picked up Charlie Crist’s campaign people,” [Gingrich] said to yelps and a few boos. “That sort of tells you everything you needed to know about this contest.”

    Who the hell is yelping, for Crist’s sake?

    1. Furries.

    2. ** looks away slowly **

  21. If STEVE SMITH finds you in the forest, what are your ethical obligations?


    Article does not address practicalities, such as whether ordinary bullets would injure STEVE.

    1. No, you shouldn’t shoot Bigfoot.

      Because Bigfoot doesn’t exist, and shooting someone in an ape costume is very illegal.

      1. Not very illegal…

      2. Because Bigfoot doesn’t exist

        Keep telling yourself that when Steve catches up with you. Maybe that will stop his anal rampage.

        1. “anal rampage”

          Good band name.

          1. So is Anal Cunt.

      3. Bigfoot doesn’t exist

        Well, someone here has repressed memories.

    2. A deer slug might slow him down, but handgun and small rifle rounds only make him want to rape more according to this 2007 Youth Science Canada report.

      1. .22 LR IS FOREPLAY!

      2. To stop Steve I’d suggest offering candy and flowers, a nice meal at that new Italian place, and a movie.

        1. But which movie?

          1. Harry and The Hendersons. Duh.

          2. If you’re into romantic comedies, The Accused with Jodie Foster.

    3. The least you could do is toot your moose call.

      1. i’ll toot your moose call

  22. For some reason, nobody from BNSF or Berkshire Hathaway would return the AP’s telephone calls, but oilman Harold Hamm told them he was sure this was just a wonderful “lucky break” for Barack Obama’s favorite billionaire, who is “certainly favored by this decision.” I’ve heard Buffett’s famously overtaxed secretary will be a guest at the State of the Union address tonight. Maybe someone could ask her about it.

    The “tax me more” refrain from liberal billionaires is one of the oldest sucker games in the book. For the well-connected, the money that can be made through government power ? whether by influencing corrupt politicians, or merely predicting what they’re going to do ? dwarfs whatever income they offer to cough up.


    1. Sure. Just like it was pure luck that the guy who owned all the natural gas had a major push for wind just as he got into the market for wind farms. What’s his name? The Ok St booster.

      1. T Boone Pickens. But Pickens and Buffett are good billionaires. They would never use their money for ill like those evil Kochs. Orin told me so.

        1. Wasn’t the Teapot Dome scandal essentially the same as either of these two examples? And yet no impeachment for anyone. Just another example of American decline.

          1. Not sure. I think TeaPot dome had to do with taking bribes to drill on federal land.

            1. Corruption has become a lot more subtle and better disguised since then.

          2. The Teapot Dome scandal was more blatant: the secretary of the interior gave a buddy permission to drill for oil on Federal lands at extremely favorable terms without opening the contract to others for bidding.

            1. So The Teapot Dome scandal was more like Solyndra?

            2. Ah, so more like the Secretary of Corrections in FL when I used to contract there. Dude was taking kickbacks from the canteen concession. They gave him the State Employee Death Penalty. Stripped him of his pension and benefits after firing him.

      2. Boone Pickens. You are welcome.

    2. Blofeld was an idiot: he’d have made much more money and accumulated more power selling his death ray satelittes to the Pentagon.

  23. Richard Roberts, the son of the late evangelist Oral Roberts

    And Oral expelled Dick ….

    1. You me Oral didn’t get Dick off?

      1. that could have been so wonderful

        if only

  24. http://www.thenation.com/blog/…..re-furious

    For months, a massive federal settlement with big Wall Street banks over their role in the mortgage crisis has been in the offing. The rumored details have always given progressives heartburn: civil immunity, no investigations, inadequate help for homeowners and a small penalty for the banks. Now, on the eve President Obama’s State of the Union address?in which he plans to further advance a populist message against big money and income inequality?the deal may be here, and it’s every bit as ugly as progressives feared.

    The Associated Press reports that a proposed deal could be announced within weeks. Five banks?Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citibank and Ally Financial (formerly GMAC)?would pay the federal government $25 billion. About $17 billion would be used to reduce the principal that some struggling homeowners owe, $5 billion more would be used for future federal and state programs and $3 billion would be used to help homeowners refinance at 5.25 percent. Civil immunity would be granted to the banks for any role in foreclosure fraud, and there would be no investigations.

    Progressives are furious. There is definitely going to be some strongly worded letters to the editors at the NYT and WAPO over this followed by them voting for Obama.

    1. Obama knows you can’t milk a dead cow.

  25. I don’t care what you chubby chasers say, Kate Moss is still hot (and getting better with age)!


    Just for John:


    1. She has a very pretty face, especially for having been a coke head for years. And she has no body and not boobs. Pretty face on pubescent male body. She is perfect for you.

      1. She’s got nice legs and a nice ass. The fact that you weren’t breast fed is not my problem.

        1. She has no ass and no hips just like a young boy.

          1. I’ve never studies the ass and hips of young boys. Now you’re giving me the creeps.

            1. *studied*

            2. And that second link after showing a bunch of old ugly women has a pic of Nigella Lawson. She is fucking hot.

              1. I don’t know, the nude pic with the 50-year-old grandma isn’t too bad. The pink get-up she’s in doesn’t do her any favors though. She looks pretty bad in that. In fact none of the 50’s women too bad, but their clothes are horrible. I think the Daily Mail must have different standards about what looks nice than anyone else.

          2. That’s a feature, not a bug.

          3. In that first pic Kate looks like she is just discovering that she ate way too many mangoes last night.

      1. And an O.B.E. too.

          1. Order of the British Empire. It means she is royalty.

            1. Not royalty-royalty, but still very important.

              1. Not royalty-royalty, but still very useless.

                fixed that for you

              2. OBE isn’t a peerage. This is a life (not inheritable) honor, and doesn’t necessarily convey knighthood. There is no income associated with this. This is more like the Congressional Medal of Honor. Traditionally, the crown uses this to reward commoners who have done useful important things (including commercial success) for England, ie The Beatles.

          2. You down with O.B.E.?

            1. Yeah, you knight me.

            2. You know me!

      2. wife of singer Michael Bubl?

        I’m surprised to find out he’s interested in women.

        1. She may be a beard.

          1. But there’s no need to marry a beard. And only women and gay men listen to his music anyway. Where’s the incentive to stay in the closet?

        2. Buble has been known to fuck anything with boobs and a pulse (perhaps the pulse is optional). I’m shocked he’s married.

          1. Isn’t that why people take on that profession? To fuck a different woman every night?

        3. I don’t even know what the fuck a Michael Bubl? is.

        4. Apparently he is quite the letch.

    2. Once again, no boobs. Nor ass.

      It’s all about the TNA.

    3. Danger Will Robinson! Danger!

      Damn, I didn’t know Dick Tufeld was still alive. Bummer.

  26. What does pleading guilty to more than 140 counts of rape, sodomy and sexual abuse get you? If you’re a DARE cop, it gets you a plea deal where you serve less than 3 years.

    1. Get help.

      1. Scoldy, are you saying it’s pathological to point out instances where LEO’s are getting preferential treatment?

        This DARE cop is a piece of shit. He buttfucked a 14-yr-old girl. When will you dipshits realize that this kind of stuff is not OK?

        1. It could just be oral sex, which is also sodomy under the law.

          1. Isn’t anything other than missionary considered to be sodomy?

            1. I always though sodomy was exclusively sticking in the poop chute.

    2. Officer Friendly was very very friendly.

      1. And very, very monogamous.

    3. Sounds more like a Truth or DARE cop, amirite?

      1. I’ll drink to this

    4. Nope. No double standard. Nothing to see here; nothing else will happen.

      1. dunphy promises that this is fair.

    5. “Your honor, I used lube. Obviously there was no crime here.”

    6. he turned in his badge and gun

      This is my weapon and this is my gun!
      This is for fighting!
      This is for fun!

      Detachable Penis?


      1. More Anal Cunt. Is there anything this band can’t do?

    7. I do note from the article that this was a statutory rape charge with a 14 year old. Old creep with young girlfriend. Not sure that sentence is out of line with what anyone else would have received.

    8. Your doing Gods’ werk, Sloppy!
      LAC is preying for you.

      1. I’d rather have LAC praying for me than LEOs preying on me.

        1. Sucker!

    9. This is just mind-boggling.

      Let me save you the trouble, dunphy: “No special treatment for cops, unless that means harsher.”

      Oh, and STFU, Scoldy.

  27. I can’t believe nobody has posted on the Nancy vs Newt pissing contest yet.

    1. Yeah because Nancy had all of this bad information on the politician most hated by the Democrats in the late 1990s and didn’t release it out of kindness.

      Nancy is just trying to get someone to pay attention to her again.

      1. Nancy Pelosi: “I’m a former speaker too! Pay attention to me! Won’t someone please pay attention to me? Hello? Anyone?”

        1. Some day I will hear that she has passed away and just like heaing about Murtha and Ted Kennedy, it will make me smile a joyful smile.

    2. See above.

      1. Oh, “Woman beats off moose”.

        I am embarrass.

    3. I think Nancy’s dick’s bigger anyways.

      1. She certainly is a bigger dick.

  28. “Tyranny is no match for liberty.”

    Fucking Newspeak- how does it work?

  29. Didn’t catch the speech last night, but from what I heard it strikes me as far less bad than what I expected (nothing like last year’s goofy Infrastructure Bank).

    1. So tell me MNG, if Fast and Furious was just a law enforcement screw up, why is the Chief of the Criminal Division at the Arizona US Attorney’s office pleading the 5th before Congress? He can’t do that unless there was a crime committed, right?


      1. His lawyer says they are trying to make him a scapegoat from what I read. The program seemed to violate JD policy and Holder et al., seem to imply he ran it without keeping them in the know about it.

        Let me ask you, under your conspiracy theory, what crime is he trying to avoid?

        1. Not telling Holder is not a crime. Try again. You can only plead the 5th because you will incriminate yourself in a crime.

          What is the crime here? Not telling his superiors is embarrassing but not a crime.

          Tell me what crime is he hiding?

          1. “Let me ask you, under your conspiracy theory, what crime is he trying to avoid?”

            1. The fact that he sold guns to Mexican drug gangs with no intention of ever interdicting them or making a criminal case. Thus he had no official purpose, was outside the scope of his job and doesn’t have immunity from prosecution for the underlying crime.

              That and the fact that he and other members of DOJ have probably lied under oath about what they are doing.

              Now you tell me what other more benign mistake could cause him to take the 5th?

              1. “The fact that he sold guns to Mexican drug gangs with no intention of ever interdicting them or making a criminal case. Thus he had no official purpose, was outside the scope of his job and doesn’t have immunity from prosecution for the underlying crime.”

                You think he’s taking the 5th because he would be charged with selling guns? They didn’t sell the guns, they knew of their sale and allowed it.

                “Now you tell me what other more benign mistake could cause him to take the 5th?”

                Lord, you realize you’ve already provided an answer. I let you answer yourself:

                the fact that he and other members of DOJ have probably lied under oath about what they are doing.

                1. “You think he’s taking the 5th because he would be charged with selling guns? They didn’t sell the guns, they knew of their sale and allowed it.”

                  No they ordered gun shop owners to make the sale. They didn’t just set around and watch. They provided the guns to the gunshop owners and ordered them to sell them to straw buyers and watched them go to Mexico. So, yes, they effectively sold the guns by ordering the gun shop owners to sell the guns.

                  “The fact that he and other members of DOJ have probably lied under oath about what they are doing.”

                  So you are admitting that high ranking DOJ officials committed perjury about this. Yet you have never once called for Holder to resign, have never admitted that this was anything other than an ordinary LEO case gone bad. But you still claim you are not a hack who will defend this administration no matter what they do. Got it.

                  1. “So you are admitting that high ranking DOJ officials committed perjury about this.”

                    I said months ago it seemed like they wre covering up and lying about this and that heads should roll for anyone who knew about the program.

                    “have never admitted that this was anything other than an ordinary LEO case gone bad”

                    I know nuance escapes you, but what I’ve held is that it is a morally reprehensible LE tactic that is sadly common, and that this one seemed to be run with nearly criminal levels of negligence. But I don’t usually have to posit nefarious politically minded conspiracies to explain insanely negligent and incompetent law enforcement activity…

                    1. I know nuance escapes you, but what I’ve held is that it is a morally reprehensible LE tactic that is sadly common, and that this one seemed to be run with nearly criminal levels of negligence.

                      Nearly criminal? What does that mean? I would say it was criminal or the chief of the criminal division wouldn’t be taking the 5th.

                      And what do you want done about this? Don’t you think Obama is incompetent or corrupt for not firing Holder over this? This did happen on his watch?

                2. His taking the 5th is entirely consistent with everything I’ve said about the issue: it’s a violation of policy, Holder has tried to scapegoat him by saying he didn’t report this violation of policy his higher ups, and it was negligently run.

                  I think it’s actually harder to imagine why he would take the 5th if he were acting as part of a plan to simply motivate gun control…

                  1. “Thus he had no official purpose”

                    Courts give crazy deference to LE agencies in operating these kinds of programs, they would have a law enforcement defense even if he said “hell, I just allowed the sales because I wanted to see if any turned up at the murder site of a border agent.”

                    His lawyer has been somewhat plain about why he’s taking the 5th: he said Holder is scapegoating him. I’m sure that’s happening, Holder doesn’t want associated with this mess.

                    1. “His lawyer has been somewhat plain about why he’s taking the 5th: he said Holder is scapegoating him. ”

                      For what? He has to be scapegoating him for a crime or the 5th Amendment doesn’t apply. And if he is a “scapegoat”, why plead the 5th? Why not go up and explain your innocence?

                      This is why no one takes you seriously. You will lie and obfuscate and pretend things like the 5th Amendment applies to breaches of policy instead of crimes that everyone knows is not true.

                  2. “His taking the 5th is entirely consistent with everything I’ve said about the issue: it’s a violation of policy”

                    Violating policy is not a crime. So he cannot take the 5th Amendment for violating policy. Try again. He is guilty of a crime. The 5th Amendment doesn’t cover just embarassing yourself.

                    Stop lying and pretending the 5th Amendment protects something it doesn’t. His invoking the 5th Amendment means he committed some kind of crime not a violation of policy. So tell me, what was it?

                    1. People don’t take the 5th to avoid civil liability? And violations of policy wouldn’t be evidence of negligence and such in such a potential case?

                      You’re supposed to be the law-talking guy here, right?

                    2. People don’t take the 5th to avoid civil liability?

                      NO. You can’t take the 5th in a civil suit. It only applies to crimes.

                    3. Holy shit, GWU has failed you John…

                    4. Corporate officers and directors, faced with potential criminal and civil liability for their official acts, are often counseled to assert their Fifth Amendment rights by refusing to answer questions in discovery, even though the fact finder in a civil proceeding may draw an adverse inference from their silence.


                    5. Corporate officers and directors, faced with potential criminal

                      Which part of “Criminal” do you not understand? In the cases you are referencing, there is both criminal and civil cases relating to the same underlying conduct. The civil cases, the suits to take the executives property to compensate for the fraud, are considered criminal for 5th Amendment purposes, although in the civil case the silence can be used against them. The important point is that the 5th Amendment is only available to you if there is underlying criminal conduct.

                      As usual you know just enough to be dangerous about a subject.

                    6. When a person takes the fifth they don’t say what it is they are afraid they might incriminate themselves on. So, it’s not uncommon for a person who fears potential civil liability to take the fifth John, it keeps them from having to implicate themselves on anything possible. You know that.

                    7. “When a person takes the fifth they don’t say what it is they are afraid they might incriminate themselves on. So, it’s not uncommon for a person who fears potential civil liability to take the fifth John”

                      Bullshit. There has to be underlying criminal activity. We have covered this. You can’t plead the fifth for negligence or violating policy. How many fucking times does that have to be explained to you before you get it through you thick head?

                    8. You know, for all, and especially you, know, it is probably some legal violation for someone in the JD to knowingly act in violation to the Department’s policy…

                    9. No it is not MNG. Violating policy gets you fired. It does not send you to jail. I know that quite well. So again, we are left with there being some underlying criminal misconduct. That to me ends any idea that this was an ordinary LEO operation gone bad.

                    10. Again, you don’t know that. You’re assuming it, but hey, that’s what you do.

                    11. Again, you don’t know that.

                      So he is taking the 5th for fun? He clearly committed a crime or he wouldn’t be taking the 5th. We have settled that. And you are left with saying “he could never do that”. Apparently he did.

                    12. “”His invoking the 5th Amendment means he committed some kind of crime.””

                      Actual it does not. That what prosecutors want people to believe.

            2. And DOJ has already admitted to lying to Congress about this. If it was just a mistake, why were they lying?

          2. What crimes could have been committed by F & F heavies?

            (1) Perjury.
            (2) Conspiracy to violate the laws against selling guns to foreign nationals and drug gangs.
            (3) Felony murder for the resulting killings.

            That’s off the top of my head, and those would be the charges that a functional justice system would be pursuing, with a vengeance, right now.

            1. “Conspiracy to violate the laws against selling guns to foreign nationals and drug gangs.”

              All he’d have to say was that he was, at the least, hoping for some intel from the sales and he gets a LE defense. Courts are deferential on this. And then your felony murder goes poof.

              Perjury, sure. But of course that fits nicely with my narrative as it does yours…

              1. All he’d have to say was that he was, at the least, hoping for some intel from the sales and he gets a LE defense.

                If that were true, they wouldn’t have lied about it, and he wouldn’t be taking the 5th.

                1. “If that were true, they wouldn’t have lied about it”

                  Yes John, the only reason politicos lie is to avoid criminal liability.

                  Sheesh your reasoning has become unhinged.

                  1. So what were the political reasons to lie? According to you this is a common LEO tactic and there is nothing to see here? They were willing to commit a felony to cover that up? Yeah right.

                    1. “So what were the political reasons to lie?”

                      What was the political reason to lie about a program in violation of DOJ policy and which was connected to the death of an American border agent?

                      I dunno, what could it be?

                      Jesus John, this is the problem with basing wacky theories on little more than your ability to imagine reasonable alternatives. Something has stunted that ability in you…

                    2. If you would provide a reasonable alternative other than “they would never do that” I would believe you. But you can’t. Instead you spin fantasies about how they ran an operation that specifically planned not to interdict the guns or make a case once across the border and pretend it was legitimate. You can’t explain the lack of interdiction before the border, the lack of coordination with the Mexicans, and the fact that they allowed 1000s of guns to cross the border with no hope of tracking them or making a case during this program.

        2. He works for the government. He’s not trying to avoid a “crime,” as much as a “breach of policy” that could get him an unpaid leave.

          1. It could be this, but it could also be to avoid some civil liability. I’ve said all along the operation reeks of incredible negligence, I could certainly smell a wrongful death suit from, say, the family of the border agent found dead…

            1. In all seriousness, that’s what I was thinking as well. That, or the word has been put out through the usual channels for everyone to “ixnay on the estimonytay,” which will cause a few people to lose jobs but no prosecutions. (The job losers will land in sweet-ass consultancies like always)

              Curious,MiiNGe, have you rethought your initial premise that it was a good operation that was a LEO screwup rather than a concerted effort to put guns in bad guys’ hands in a foreign country to enact stronger gun restrictions here?

              1. “it was a good operation”

                FULL STOP. FULL. I never once said it was a good operation. I said it was morally reprehensible, and INHERENTLY so. If you can find me saying otherwise I will eat my fucking hat.

                When a government agent allows the sale of something he is sworn to stop, then any resulting damage from that sale is HIS RESPONSIBILITY. That’s been my line from DAY ONE.

                My only point of contention on this is I don’t think it’s been shown that the program didn’t have in their minds a legit LE goal.

                1. I don’t think it’s been shown that the program didn’t have in their minds a legit LE goal.

                  Good use of the double negative. Of course you have never shown one shred of evidence that there was a legitimate LEO goal. All you have done is pull theories out of your ass with no evidence whatsoever that was the motive. Meanwhile, the complete lack of a coherent explanation for this makes the very strong circumstantial case that they were doing it to push gun control laws in the US. That is the only explanation that is both coherent, simple and consistent with the evidence. And you are left saying “well they couldn’t have been doing that”. Well I have a head of the criminal division at the US attorney’s office in Phoenix taking the 5th that says they did.

                  1. “Of course you have never shown one shred of evidence that there was a legitimate LEO goal”

                    Except for pointing out that it’s a common LE tactic, that indictments originated from it, etc., I haven’t…

                    1. Except for pointing out that it’s a common LE tactic, that indictments originated from it, etc., I haven’t…

                      No you haven’t. The common LEO tactic is to track the guns and get them before they get to the border not plan for them to cross the border, never contact the Mexicans and have no way of ever recovering them.

                      There really is no limit to the beatings you will take for this issue is there?

                    2. “The common LEO tactic is to track the guns and get them before they get to the border”

                      1. No, not always. We had this discussion regarding drugs. You think vice cops track all drugs they see sold?
                      2. More importantly, they did just that. The indictments describe arresting people at the border with guns.

                    3. “no limit to the beatings you will take for this issue is there?”

                      Are you kidding? You spend so much time on the right-wing media highway I guess you don’t realize that not only do most people who hear about this case agree with me, even most, if not all the GOP pols investigating this case are alleging something more in line with what I’m saying than what you are saying…

                    4. MNG you have no leg to stand on. You can’t explain this. Your explanation is that DOJ decided to sell guns with no coordination with Mexico, no plan to track them, no way to stop them from going across the border, and no way to make a case once they crossed the border but were running a legitimate LE operation that is commonly done that way. That doesn’t even pass the laugh test and you know it. You are just pathetic on this.

                    5. “DOJ decided to sell guns with no coordination with Mexico”

                      Sure, one of the problems with WR was that corruption with the MExican authorities. Actually makes sense not to work with them again.

                      “no plan to track them, no way to stop them from going across the border”

                      And yet the indictments detail instances of both.

                      “no way to make a case once they crossed the border”

                      Conspiracy laws, how do they work? And, the indictments once again belie that.

                  2. “Well I have a head of the criminal division at the US attorney’s office in Phoenix taking the 5th that says they did.”

                    I realize it’s common for conservatives to jump to the conclusion that when someone invokes their 5th Amendment rights they must have committed a crime…

                2. Not a “good” operation. I chose my words poorly. How about well-intentioned operation?

                  I’m not implying you agreed with it, only that you believed their motives were made with good intentions.

                  Do you still feel that way? (I’m not trying to pick a fight here, just wondering if you still believe they have been forthright and actually meant well)

                  1. I think everything that I know about the program fits with what I know LE agencies to do: the same stupid, blind, arrogant, sloppy enactment of a morally dubious policy to reach their appointed goals. Police do this. They get little scrutiny, they are convinced they are always acting for the good and that those they deal with are their “enemies.” It sounds to me like they found out these sales were taking place and allowed some with the goal of gathering intel, catching some people and disrupting networkds. Now, any sane, morally responsible person would say “hey, wtf, you are going to allow these cartels to buy these weapons, which, you know, they might use to kill people, to do that? WTF?” But we are talking about ATF agents here…

                    1. “I think everything that I know about the program fits with what I know LE agencies to do:”

                      Then you know nothing about what LE Agencies do or you are lying or both. This in no way fits with anything they do. Claiming otherwise is just an insult to people’s intelligence. LE Agencies do not flood markets with contraband. They make controlled sales or buys and immediately arrest the person doing the buying or selling. And they do not lose control of contraband. They plan extensively to ensure this does not happen.

                      And we have had this discussion 20 times. And every time it is explained to you you just scream “I can’t hear you” and deny the obvious. You are not convincing anyone. No one on here right or left believes you.

                      I just don’t understand why you continue to die on this hill. Are you that incapable of admitting that your side might be guilty of something?

                    2. “LE Agencies do not flood markets with contraband. They make controlled sales or buys and immediately arrest the person doing the buying or selling. And they do not lose control of contraband.”

                      Yes, we had this discussion and you already ceded this point actually.

                      Remember when we talked about the vice cop that watches drug sales, sometimes for months, while they gather intel about all the players and practices, before they then make a bust? Are you saying that is not common? Or do you want to argue they somehow track the results of each of those sales?

                      Absurd dude, and you know it.

                    3. “Remember when we talked about the vice cop that watches drug sales, ”

                      There is a difference between watching other people sell drugs and selling the drugs yourself. Do you know the kind of liability you would assume if you sold someone heroin and then let them go and they over dosed?

                      In this case, they didn’t watch gun sales. They made the sales themselves. They provided guns to gun shops and ordered them to sell them to stray buyers. That is like me giving a dealer cocaine and then ordering him to sell it and then letting the buyers and the cocaine go off into never land. That would never happen.

                      So try again. We did cover this issue and like most things you are either too stupid or too dishonest to admit the obvious truth.

                    4. Thanks, MiNGe. I disagree with you, but respect your opinion.

        3. I’ll take big, fat RICO violations for $500, Munge.

  30. Good news Aspies, there’s a possible medical solution to your assholery.

    1. But do they have something for asshole objectivists ;)?

      1. It works for all forms of assholery except politician narcissistic assholery.

        1. politician narcissistic assholery

          Isn’t the cure for that lead-based?

          1. I think tar and feathers is the traditional folk remedy.

    2. It will give women uterine cramps. That’s a cure for assholery??

      1. You think she’s happier in an interminable labor?

        1. I was thinking more of an interminable menstrual cramp.

      2. Not really a cure so much as slows their movement rate and thus limits their effective assholery potential to a much smaller area.

  31. Heard a story today about the push for stronger sanctions against Iranian oil. Curious, do the people who bitched (correctly imo) about Obama’s Keystone decision on the grounds that it will impact gas prices from the supply side have the same anger over these sanctions?

    Surely they do. Surely.

    1. Only if they don’t think there is any difference between buying oil from a bunch of religious fanatics who pray every day for our destruction and buying it from Canadians.

      1. But wait, I thought you said that people that created supply side restrictions “owned” the resulting price increases? So what you really meant was “which is OK if it is for a good cause (with “good cause” defined as something you like).”

        1. What they are really saying it that it is a really good idea to produce as much oil from sable parts of the world as we can. If anything the existence of the possible embargo, which is being driven by the Europeans as much as anyone, is a stronger reason to build the pipeline so such political disputes have less of an effect on world supply.

          1. “sable parts of the world”

            I don’t think the texture of a nation should determine whether we trade with it 😉

            Your line is nice and all, but again, will you admit that those pushing oil sanctions against Iran should “own” any price increase resulting?

            1. Sure they should. When gas prices go way up this summer, Obama will have to answer for it.

              1. You don’t support tougher sanctions on Iran?

                1. I don’t make the decision. Obama does. And yes, the higher gas prices are going to be a problem for his re-election.

                  1. This ain’t dodgeball.

                    You don’t support tougher sanctions on Iran?

                    1. I can tell you that I don’t. If anything, Iran should have a right to refuse to sell to America since we are meddling with their internal affairs and are threatening their sovereignty on an almost daily basis.

                      What has Iran done to us? As far as I can tell, they’ve threatened to defend themselves by any means necessary if we attack them? They’ve certainly not attacked/invaded and demolished almost every nation bordering us.

                    2. I agree with you sloop. I agree with RP on this and think it is a critical election issue. I wanted to throw my shoe at Brian Williams the other day when every GOP candidate but Paul beat the war drums and then when RP sharply disagreed that idiot Williams simply went on to the next topic…Debates should center on where the candidates disagree on something big.

                    3. What has Iran done to us?

                      The team red explanation is that at least some of the IED’s in Iraq were apparently from Iran.

                      Not saying I agree with that reasoning, but that’s the story from the “bomb Iran” crowd.

                    4. You’re right, that’s what they say. I always reply “so they’ve given or sold weapons to the people in the country we invaded and occupied that borders their land?”

                    5. I’m a Ron Paul guy and you don’t need to convince me at all. BTW it’s safe to say you won the argument about pointing out the silliness in the argument that “Blocking the Keystone Pipeline will raise the price of oil!!”

                    6. This is an Iran thread MNG. We are not talking about Holder and Obama selling guns to Mexican drug gangs.

                    7. What has Iran done to us?

                      Khobar towers, involvement in 1980 Beirut bombing, helping murder US troops in Iraq, etc Christ people must be willfully ignorant to ask such things.

                    8. “”helping murder US troops in Iraq,””

                      You can’t murder troops in a war zone. But you can call it an act of war.

                      I think KSM took the credit for Khobar towers.

                      “”Christ people must be willfully ignorant to ask such things.””

                      Like we helped Iraq kill many of Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war.

                      Or when our military shot down a Irainian commercial aircraft loaded with civilians.

                      Troops in combat have an expectation of being fired upon. Civilians on a commercial flight do not.

        2. Sticking it to Mooslems trumps any economic effects resulting from Iranian oil not entering the supply chain.

      2. …any difference between buying oil from a bunch of religious fanatics who pray every day for our destruction and buying it from Canadians

        So, what is the second option? (sfx: percussion sting)

        Thanks, folks…

    2. Conservatives have never been accused of being consistent on economic issues.
      Especially when it comes to sticking it to Mooslems.

    3. Killing a pipeline that will provide more secure oil supplies and employ Americans in order to placate a radical fringe and enrich cronies =/= sanctioning Iran.

      1. Shorter Dean: I approve of the motivation behind the latter restriction, not the latter, so there!

        1. It is possible, you know, to distinguish between the reasons for, and effects of, two completely different actions, so that one is defensible and the other is not.

          1. Wait, you mean different actions that result in different outcomes warrant different responses? Holy shit! /sic

          2. I just want to clarify the principle here. Can you finish this for me: supply restrictions are bad in the case of Keystone because ___ but good in the case of Iranian sanctions because of ____.

            1. How about this:

              supply restrictions are bad in the case of Keystone because ‘mericuns are losin’ jobs but good in the case of Iranian sanctions because of those fucking sand niggers ain’t gettin our money.

            2. Well, I’ve never said sanctions are good for peace and prosperity; quite the contrary, free trade appears to promote stability and peace. Example: France & UK.

            3. Supply restrictions are bad in the case of Keystone because there is no defensible policy reason for the restrictions, which were imposed solely to placate a radical fringe constituency and enrich cronies but good in the case of Iranian sanctions because of their efficacy in damaging the Iranian economy as a means of bringing their nuclear weapons program to an end.

              You really needed me to spell that out?

              1. Again, shorter Dean: I like the justification for one, not the other!

                1. If you asked an enviro who opposed Keystone why they did they will say “because the restriction is worth it to prevent [insert awful result feared here].” That is EXACTLY what you and your fellow GOPers are doing with your support of Iranian sanctions…You just insert a different awful result.

              2. Evidently.

              3. Needs more bolds.

  32. Oral Roberts’ son arrested for driving under the influence….of Jesus?

    1. Gotta keep the holy spirit in the trunk.

      1. I’ve actually heard fundies refer to being “drunk on the Holy Spirit”

        1. I like to get drunk on semen.

          1. Lord, some GOPer is getting all butthurt. Must be the Iran thing.

        2. Someone should start a whiskey distillery called “The Holy Spirit”.

          1. It would be great, if conflicting to some…

        3. Well, I was out on the street, about nine o’clock,
          Kicking up my heels, just a-taking a walk,
          Smiling a smile, singing a song,
          Kicking up my heels, just chugging along,
          And wasn’t it a shame that I had to stop?
          I was rudely interrupted by a big old cop, he said…
          “Kid, anybody as happy as you are has got to be loaded,”
          And I said, “But officer, you can…”

          Rattle me, shake me,
          Smell my breath and make roll up both of my sleeves,
          Search me any way you please, but I’m clean, (I’m clean)
          I got nothing to hide, (rattle me, shake me)
          The only reason I’m happy is because I got Jesus inside, that’s right.

  33. Featuring the words “bacon” and “nasal tampon”

    “Cured salted pork crafted as a nasal tampon and packed within the nasal vaults successfully stopped nasal hemorrhage promptly, effectively, and without sequelae ? To our knowledge, this represents the first description of nasal packing with strips of cured pork for treatment of life-threatening hemorrhage in a patient with Glanzmann thrombasthenia.”

    1. To our knowledge, this represents the first description . . .

      Talk about sheltered. I mean, who hasn’t run across somebody getting bacon jammed up their schnozz to stop a potentially fatal nosebleed?

      1. I do it all the time, and I’m not even a doctor!

        1. And I thought that I inhaled bacon.

          1. i’ll inhale your bacon

      2. Further down in the article it mentions a 1950s study where hospitalized children would request it in the Midwest, so it is apparently a folk remedy.

  34. Jason Elder, 31, pleaded guilty to two counts of third-degree rape, 49 counts of third-degree sodomy and 97 counts of first-degree sexual abuse. All of the charges involved one girl, who was 14 at the time.

    “Are you pleading guilty because you are truly guilty and for no other reason?” Special Judge Rob Johnson asked.

    “Yes, sir,” Elder said.

    So, they let him slide on the Scooby Doo cartoon bestiality porn as part of the plea deal?

  35. The survey-taker notes “female” for me before asking me for my age. I feel taken aback that she could so blatantly ask me every other line item but presume this answer. However, I don’t comment because I’m still too baffled that I am being surveyed about “tourism” at an academic conference, and hung up on the fact that what I consider an excessively expensive work day keeps getting framed as fun tourism vacation time.

    In Montreal. I’m a 20-something genderqueer first-generation graduate student. I feel marginalized both for my gender and my SES. What possibilities abound if the sex/gender line were always free response?

    Try to guess what SES stands for. It took me for frickin’ ever!

    1. Senior Executive Service?

    2. I’m still working on “genderqueer first-generation”.

    3. Please tell me.

    4. She’s poor, her parents are uneducated and she looks like an overweight boy.

      And she’s too dim to realize that to the host city, an academic conference is tourism, her egocentric viewpoint not withstanding.

    5. I’m just betting she’s an engineering PhD candidate.

      1. Doubtful. More like “Diversity Studies” or some other pointless social “science” bullshit. S/he will be bitching about paying off their student loans while working as a barista at Starbucks in a couple of years.

        1. Is my sarc tag broken?

    6. Sexually Embarrased Stooge?

    7. The phrase “20-something genderqueer first-generation graduate student” literally took a bite out of my soul.

    8. Self-Esteemed Sharmoota

    9. Self-Effectuated Sexuality?

    10. SES = SocioEconomic Status

      Because it’s never enough to play just one victim card in these tough times.

      1. DING DING DING DING! We have a winner folks!

    11. “What if you accidentally slept with a schizophrenic guy and had a nutter baby?”

      Said by a girl at work. I have a relative with schizophrenia and have struggled with depression in the past. Made me feel sad, angry and like people are always going to judge you and define you by your mental illness.

      I’ve got news for you honey, your behavior defines who you are. I’m sure John Hinckley Jr. is a nice guy, but he’s still nuts.

      1. “Hey, I was a nutter baby!”

        1. Is that anything like a Nutter Butter? Maybe a smaller version?

          1. Isn’t Nutter Butter what fertilizes the eggs of women to create Nutter Babies?

            Oh, and since almost all women are crazy (Banjo-playing soon-to-be-wives of mine excluded), wouldn’t the guy’s schizo cancel out the woman’s insanity to produce a normal child? Or does it not work that way?

            1. Depends on the sex of the child.

      2. Don’t want a nut? Take it up the butt!

    12. Try to guess what SES stands for. It took me for frickin’ ever!

      Huh, Google is utterly unhelpful here; there are tons of different possibilities.

      As far as the other stuff, clearly she is a very speshul snowflake.

  36. It is possible, you know, to distinguish between the reasons for, and effects of, two completely different actions, so that one is defensible and the other is not.

    Intentions are more important than consequences.

    1. And unintended consequences are entirely unforseeable, so they don’t matter.

    2. It depends on whether it’s the right people doing it, if you know what I mean.

  37. “Oral Roberts’ son arrested for driving under the influence.”

    Why would Reason give a fuck?

    1. New here?

    2. Good point. I think it’s the schadenfruede behind watching authoritarians get busted.

    3. It’s a fucking blog post of links to interesting and amusing news stories.

    4. Because evangelicals like these are anti-freedom moral scolds and the never-ending parade of evangelical hypocrisy is a source of amusement.

  38. What is the commentariat’s take on the marine sentencing case?

    I don’t understand why they even chose this one guy in the first place. He had commanding officers above him. At any rate, why drag this thing out for 6 years and then have him plea for no jail time???? I’d rather they just not charged him in the first place. This chain of events just makes the whole process look illegitimate, and I think is causing more bad blood with the Iraqis.

    1. Someone had to be guilty of something. This guy was the optimal target. High enough to be valuable, low enough that his part wouldn’t carry a prison sentence.

    2. It was a plea deal. They clearly didn’t have a case or the government wouldn’t have offered him such a good deal. I am sure the guy, innocent or not, took the deal just to make sure he didn’t go to jail. So the deal really says nothing about the question of guilt.

      1. The only problem with that is that they knew they didn’t have a good case 5 years ago. Why waste taxpayer money (for both the defense and the prosecution) on a sham trial if the end result is basically a slap on the wrist? I believe the guy is getting a paycut and demotion.

        1. Political reasons. I think this is the case Murtha called everyone a murderer on. They didn’t want to drop it so they let it go on until the heat was off and then quietly did a plea deal.

          1. Makes sense too, but I still think the whole fiasco after the incident was bullshit. Either you don’t charge them at all, or you actually punish someone. The Iraqi’s waited 6 years for this and now they’re much madder than if you had just never charged the soldiers in the first place.

  39. Bloomberg keeps running snippets of the SOTU.

    We’re doomed.

  40. dear sloopy do u have any stories about police who shoot dogs those r the best thx tommy

  41. We also know that when students aren’t allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.

    To which the states will say…y’ur kiddin’ right?

    So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. Higher education can’t be a luxury – it’s an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.

    I wonder why tuition is going up recently? Could it be that taxpayer support for Universities has gone down? Not the only cause I am sure, but…

    1. Yet, oddly, tuition also went up when taxpayer money was gushing into higher education.

      1. RC,

        Like I said, recent increases.
        Here’s a nice look http://www.washingtonpost.com/….._blog.html

      2. You are using “oddly” in the same way the New York Times was when they wrote “Despite the course being free, so many people signed up that they have a 6 month waiting list”.

    2. I think the first part is just a payoff to the teacher’s union. Less dropouts mean more students and that means more teachers.

      And having a bunch of 17 year olds who are only there because it is that or jail is going to so improve the quality of life and education for those who want to be there.

      1. Raising the dropout age is a terrible idea. Having a bunch of kids there who don’t want to be there just makes things worse for the kids who actually try to get something out of it. For some people, dropping out at 16 is a better option. I have several friends who dropped out before they were 18 and would probably not have done as well as they have had they been forced to stay in school.

        1. I had a friend who dropped out when he was 16, got his GED and went and worked in Mexico for 2 years, then went to college on schedule. Brilliant guy, introduced me to Ender’s Game. I was so fucking jealous of him.

        2. But the intention is not to make things disruptive for the kids who actually want to be there.
          Intentions, dude.
          It’s all about the intentions.

    3. Of course! The problem is that there are so many brilliant quitters. So glad I didn’t watch.

    4. Tuition fees have gone up for the same reason home prices have gone up previously: easy access to credit.

      1. …as a direct result of government policies.

      2. “”Tuition fees have gone up for the same reason home prices have gone up previously:””

        So counties can get more property tax?

    5. I wonder why tuition is going up recently? Could it be that taxpayer support for Universities has gone down? Not the only cause I am sure, but…

      Tuition has gone up at four times the rate of inflation over the last 30 years. Despite the mewlings of college administrators to “GIBSMEDAT TAXPAYERMOOLAH,” they’ve been playing this game for a long time.

      Massive tuition increases are due to two things: the government guaranteeing payment of student loans for tuition regardless of ability to pay, and the non-dischargeable nature of student loan debt.

      Not to mention the exponential growth of the adminstrative class at our nation’s universities.

  42. In other news John and MNG are furiously throat fucking each other in a 69 position.

    1. Spare me your sexual fantasies. And Fast and Frious is the only thing worth arguing the MNG about. He is so blatantly dishonest about it it is fun. Every day the scandal gets worse and the ground beneath him shifts further. But he won’t back down an inch. It really forces him to let the mask slip.

      1. My sexual fantasies involve a threesome between myself, Kate Moss, and my wife. I’ll let you work out the details.

        1. You apparently have others involving MNG and me that you continually wish to tell us about. NTTAWWT I just don’t want to hear about it.

          1. Perhaps if I could scroll through the comments without seeing


            you might.

            1. Apparently you derive some kind of sexual pleasure from it, which is your right.

              1. At least I don’t study prepubescent boys’ asses and compare them to female models.

            2. Who’s more foolish? The fool, or the one who can’t stop arguing with the fool?

    2. Thank you for that visual. >_>

  43. So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.


    1. What better way to trash educational standards than to lower the already low lowest common denominator?

      1. Dumbasses are easier to control; they’ll believe anything you tell them. Remember he only got 54% of the popular vote last time.

  44. Will the federal government criminalize hiring anybody without a high school diploma? Because that would stimulate the fuck out of the economy.

    1. Hey, I’m not a “fuck”, I’m a PERSON!

      1. Don’t worry. Since no on is allowed to hire you you will be given welfare for the rest of your life.

    2. No, but the EEOC is trying to claim that businesses that require a HS diploma may be in violation of the ADA.


      1. Why should only people familiar with nuclear energy run nuclear plants? Ableism! Bigotry!

  45. Maybe they should quit fiddling around and just put leg irons on high school students. They can then put them to work clearing brush along the roads, and other menial tasks.

    1. In MD they already have to do mandatory community service or they can’t graduate. SO MUCH HATE.

      1. It’s fucking criminal, but the good news is that the standards are so lax that you practically can get hours of credit for standing around and feeling sorry for homeless puppies, as long as someone in charge signs off on the form.

        She-spawn will be able to get hours as a CIT at summer camp. She’ll have fulfilled the hours requirement by then and she’s not even in high school yet.

        1. Q: How many college athletes does it take to screw in a light bulb?

          A: One. And he get three credits for it.

  46. Romney invested in Fannie & Freddie which essentially means Newt was paid with money from Romney for Freddie to ignore the advice Newt was paid to give them. And that Romney’s investment was bailed out by taxpayer funds. Oh the irony!

    Top Romney advisers lobbied for Freddie Mac

    What really happened in the Gingrich ethics case?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.