Mitt Romney

A.M. Links: Obama Has Edge on Romney, "True" Conservatives Voted Ron Paul Over Gingrich, Occupy D.C. Winds 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: "Mormons for…Ron Paul?!"

NEXT: Steve Chapman on the Flaws of Mitt and Newt

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. You’re not going to believe this, but famous people went to a football game last night!

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

    1. Cool celebrities were there? Damn, I coulda been near them!

      1. bi-curious?looking for bi-lovers?come on in to the safest,friendliest bisexual forum on the —datebi*cO’m—

        1. Who says we’re a globe of shallow narcissists?

          During the final minutes of the game, which was won by the New York Giants over the New England Patriots, an average of 10,000 tweets per second were sent by fans, beating the previous record of 9,000 last August when Beyonc? announced her pregnancy at the MTV Video Music Awards.

    2. The most famous celebrities were on the field.

    3. looking for the bilover?”datebi.com” is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find

      hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

    4. looking for the bilover?—datebi*cO’m— is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can

      find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

  2. Childism — Think of teh children goes full retard:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_…..ldren.html

    1. Abortion is the only prevention that works

      1. tasteless, but expected from you

        1. I’m in Rome, honey

    2. I’m not following this link. I have one more week at this job and it would be a terrible thing if I went on a murder rampage this close to the end.

      1. I’m surprised the term “childist” hasn’t come around yet.

        Maybe by the end of the week.

  3. “John F Kennedy took her virginity during a debauched 18-month affair while she was a teenage White House intern….Other claims in her newly published autobiography include that he made her inhale a sex drug during a party at Bing Crosby’s ranch and coerced her to perform a sex act on an aide while he looked on.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..rd-19.html

    1. The only thing she turned down was blowing Ted Kennedy, so at least she had some standards.

      1. There are some things even the FBI and date rape drugs can’t get you to do.

      2. I got a kick out of the responses defending JFK’s honor on a thread where the story ran (maybe that one, but I recall it being mostly Americans posting). Incredible denial, and incredible insults hurled at her about being a whore. They love the whoremonger, but hate the whore? What kind of twisted morality or absence thereof, is that?

        But the denial! These are the facts. She was nineteen, very pretty in those pictures, an intern in the White House, JFK was a satyr. The chances of it actually happening are far greater than that it did not occur.

    2. another lamestream drive-by. like the wingmut signs read: dont believe the media

      1. The Daily Mail? Rednecks in London? Another example of how eventually all the skeletons come out.

        1. She has a book coming out – A bestseller bet

    3. OK, look, what really comes across is that she was basically a whore who was paid with the “privilege” flying with the eagles. The best part is that now she is a Church Lady.

      1. Pretty much. I don’t blame her. I am sure she had a lot of fun partying with the Kennedys. I am sure life was great. She had assets and she used them to her advantage. Can’t begrudge her for that. But she ought to stop claiming to be a victim. No one made her do it and she clearly got some benefits in return.

        1. Oh yeah, I was fine with her until she blew that staff guy on command.

          1. FFS, she was still a teenager; A POTUS were Gods then. The public didn’t know that they were shoving cigars into an intern’s vagina

            1. A teenage whore! Imagine!

              1. Please; will your daughter be a whore too?

                1. Don’t have a daughter, but I do have a son. If I did though, it would not matter one iota if she were a whore or a virgin whether I loved her or not.

                  1. The most confusing aspect of men is the sexualization of women and the ‘you’re a whore’ mordancy.

                    1. No more confusing than selecting a husband specifically for his risk-taking behaviors and then constantly ragging on him to give them up once you’re married.

    4. What’s an inhalable sex drug?

      1. alkyl nitrites?

      2. JFK’s pheromones, if history is any indicator.

    5. President Manslut strikes again? The guy who openly flaunted an affair with Marilyn Monroe in front of his wife and America? Does it really surprise anyone that he would use the power of the office and personal “charms” to seduce a 19-year-old virgin into becoming his Presidential concubine?

      She also tells of how JFK asked her to ‘take care’ of his friends Powers who ‘looked a little tense’ while they were swimming in the White House pool.

      ‘It was a dare, but I knew exactly what he meant. This was a challenge to give Dave Powers oral sex. I don’t think the president thought I’d do it, but I’m ashamed to say that I did… The president silently watched,’ she said.

      Take it away, Mr. Calvin Broadus

      It Ain’t No Fun (If the Homies Can’t Get None)

    6. Who gives a shit about the Kennedys any more?

  4. I love Clint Eastwood to death, but I didn’t like his Chrysler ad either.

    Hopefully, he was doing it for the money, because the speech he gave sounded like it was from the Obama re-election campaign.

    1. I think this is one of the occasions where his brand is bigger (and thus going to be hurt) than the brand he is shilling for. I was kind of hoping it was gonna be a call for open revolution, not shilling for ugly Fiats.

    2. “Chrysler – cars for anger people.”

      1. grr – angry not anger

        1. Son, I am disappoint.

    3. What was Clint thinking? That commercial was likely the worst thing he’s ever done. Everything about it felt contrived, and the fact he’d stoop to shilling for Chrysler hurts my soul.

      1. That commercial was likely the worst thing he’s ever done.

        You should see him romantically teamed with Carol Channing in The First Traveling Saleslady. Channing had an old-sounding voice even then, as you can see in her musical number A Corset Can Do a Lot For a Lady.

      2. …That commercial was likely the worst thing he’s ever done…

        I didn’t see the commercial, but I find it hard to believe that it was worse than Pink Cadillac.

    4. the speech he gave sounded like it was from the Obama re-election campaign.

      When he said this country can’t be knocked out with one punch, I though he was talking about Obama.

  5. The Caging of America

    http://www.newyorker.com/arts/…..ntPage=all

    1. Deja vu, all over again!

  6. “Justice Department came up with a new number: 216,000. That’s 216,000 victims, not instances. These victims are often assaulted multiple times over the course of the year. The Justice Department now seems to be saying that prison rape accounted for the majority of all rapes committed in the US in 2008, likely making the United States the first country in the history of the world to count more rapes for men than for women.”

    http://nplusonemag.com/raise-the-crime-rate

    1. But doesn’t that just take away of the larger threat of top shelf white girls getting drunk and sleeping with guys they find icky sober only to regret it the next day? Don’t we have to have some priorities here? And isn’t protecting top shelf white girls from doing icky things really what it is all about?

      1. I knew it! You’re in the pocket of Big Rape?!

        /sarc

        1. Say what you want about Steve Smith, but his checks always clear.

    2. where’s steve smith on this?

      1. right behind you, obviously.

      2. I’M IN UR PRISONZ, DROPPIN UR SOAPZ

        1. You should meet Lilly’s husband.

          1. I’m not sure Lily has a husband.

            All here references are to her neighbor.

              1. 4 years of close reading as a Lit major will leave you with some bad habits.

    3. Remember: do what the government says, or go in its special rape dungeon.

    4. and those are poison tipped HIV darts.

    5. I thought it might be libertarian friendly, but instead it was written by a dumbass prog who forgot why the hell politicians take such a hardoncrime stance now. I mean, he literally argued that the moral thing to do was let violent offenders back out and everyone else just fucking deal with the risk. Fucking eurotrash.

  7. “Any given middle school, high school, or college in America can expect to have exactly one homicide on its campus every 12,000 years. So how long before the UNC-Charlotte SWAT team feels the need to justify its existence by expanding its mission? I predict they’re serving drug warrants and raiding frat houses within a year.”

    http://www.theagitator.com/201…..charlotte/

    1. Binge drinking.

    2. that drunk clown (G4 campus cops promo) wagging his tongue is gonna get a mouthful.

    3. Looking at them, I’d bet that the next Whitman would only need to find a 5 story tower to shoot from without having to worry about the SWAT team being able to storm up the stairs.

  8. Update: Susan G. Komen Foundation: We Didn’t Authorize Pink Gun for Cancer Research Campaign. And If We Did We Don’t. Now.

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c…..ore-103899

    http://glocklady.com/2012/02/0…..-pink-gun/

    1. Susan G. Koman? Isn’t that the organization that exists solely to piss off leftists?

      1. It is now.

      2. It also exists to annoy me by painting everything pink. If anything all of the pink ribbon shit has made me less sympathetic to the cause. Also, how the fuck does “awareness” help treat or cure a disease?

        1. Awareness = cash

          A CBS News analysis of data released Wednesday by the American Cancer Society reveals a large disparity in funding for different types of cancer.

          For every cancer death, the most federal research dollars were spent on cancer of the cervix ($18,870) and breast ($14,095) and on Hodgkin lymphoma ($12,791). The least funded were cancers of the stomach ($1,168), lung ($1,553), and esophagus ($1,542).

          One reason for the disparity – some advocacy groups, like those for breast cancer, are more adept at raising awareness. And with awareness comes cash.

          “It’s clear that some of the gender related cancers are very effective in raising funding for research,” said Dr. Raymond DuBois, provost at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.

          Breasts are way cooler than esophagi, anyway.

        2. And of course, breast cancer research has become synonymous with “respect for women” in most circles. Ditto cervical cancer.

          Unfortunately, esophagi are like noses…

        3. Also, how the fuck does “awareness” help treat or cure a disease?

          If anything, I think people thinking/worrying about cancer all the time might actually cause cancer.

        4. I have to say it works. My 11-year old son thought this was the only type of cancer that exists.

          1. Just like his dad; tits on the brain

    2. Must be Komen’s time of the month.

      Anyhow, seeing as how guns are the great equalizer wrt violence, it’s even more important for women to have guns than men for self-defense.

      1. Yet, almost all feminists are anti-gun.

        1. That’ll change when we subject them to Warty’s male gaze.

  9. Mayors’ Against Illegal Guns Rap Sheets

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c…..ore-104085

    1. Rapping doesn’t sound like a bad career move, now that they’ve got their street cred.

      1. I still love how Mayors Against Illegal guns has a higher crime rate than legal gun owners.

        1. Only outlaws have mayors.

          1. When outlaws are mayored, only mayors will have outlaws.

            ftfy.

  10. How states are restricting political speech

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

  11. Katy Perry is still hot!

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

    1. She has a weird face, terrible singing. But a very nice body.

      1. I think I could get over her “weird” face pretty quickly.

        1. More like get off on, amirite?

      1. The media’s been trying to hook those two up for weeks now, it seems.

    2. NO, she isn’t.

  12. http://www.powerlineblog.com/a…..-cares.php

    Why the collapse of communism has had so little impact on the left. Interesting link to a Telegraph piece asking that question. It is a question I often ask liberals. If entire societies organized on the principles of fairness collapsed into poverty, injustice and murder, what makes you think your half assed Christian Democrat socialist third way is going to work?

    The answer it seems is that leftists don’t care because the whole thing is based on hate and envy not actually stopping injustice.

    1. stalin/leninism was never about fairness & equality.

      1. Yes it was you half wit. The communists were nothing if not sincere and noble in their goals. They really thought they were ushering in a new world. That is why they were so willing to kill so many people, the ends were so noble it justified it.

        The idea that Lenin was some kind of unhinged nut not committed to the ideals of fairness and justice is a smear created by liberals who don’t want to face the fact that Lenin is the end result of basing a society on fairness.

        1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

          1. It’s not only paved, but has crosswalks, curbs, and a carpool lane.

            1. Don’t forget the free public parking.

          2. So the Road to Hell is not in Somalia?

            1. You of all people should know, Almanian:
              The Road to Hell is in Michigan.

        2. murdering millions aint fair or equal. >it tries moar harder

          1. No. But it is what you do when you try to create perfect fairness. Since you can’t do it, you keep trying more and more drastic measures until finally you start killing people.

            1. It’s better that millions of people die because central planners are unable to get food to them, than capitalists get rich using the market to provide food to them.

              The central planners didn’t mean to kill these people. It wasn’t their intention.
              But the capitalists would have meant to get rich. It would have been their intention to get rich.

              Can’t have that.

              1. Michelle wouldn’t let me put that up in the Oval Office.

                I do have one in my study, though.

          2. Sure it is, when that’s your primary value.

            Let’s say we had a group of guys whose primary value was liberty. And for some reason, these guys lived in the same country with a whole lot of guys who wanted to make everyone else their slaves. The first group of guys would spend a lot of time killing the second group of guys to make them stop trying to enslave people.

            The Communists spent their time killing anyone who stood in the way of equality. Because that was their primary value. There were people around who wouldn’t work for no pay and who wouldn’t give up everything they had so everyone could be equal – so the Communists killed them. All perfectly consistent with the principles of equality.

            1. The first group of guys would spend a lot of time killing the second group of guys to make them stop trying to enslave people.

              You’ve got it backwards. People who love liberty don’t go off instigating force on others.

              Likely the slavers would go after those who value liberty, and in an organized and systematic fashion do their best to exterminate them.

              1. Killing a slaver is not initiation of force.

            2. Corpses have reached perfect equality.

    2. If justice is being free from force and coercion, then the entire leftist system is premised on injustice.

      1. You just figuring that out?

      2. Not to defend them, but Bakunin disagrees with you, and would argue capitalism is its own form of violence/force/fraud. Also, having progressive values does not inherently imply one is an authoritarian/statist. Voluntary (even contractual) collectivism/cooperativism is certainly not in opposition to libertarianism.

        1. Voluntary (even contractual) collectivism/cooperativism is certainly not in opposition to libertarianism.

          What you describe is akin to a corporation.
          Don’t progressives hate corporations?

          You cooperate with the collective because authority says so.

          What is this word “voluntary” mean?

          1. Not akin to a corporation at all. Corporations are legal statuses granted by the government that limit liability for the owners. A free market wouldn’t have state-granted corporate entities.

            I’m talking about voluntary communes and cooperatives, where likeminded people live together voluntarily, share resources, divide labor, etc. In a free market, progressives can organize themselves as they desire on their own property free from government or capitalist intrusions.

            1. “Not akin to a corporation at all. Corporations are ”

              I’m gonna go ahead and stop you there because you’re using a single, specific, incorrect definition of what a corporation is without ANY qualification whatsoever.

              Try again.

              1. Proprietist’s definition is the common understanding in 2012 America. Corporation == LLC in most people’s minds.

                Don’t nitpick because there are other more expansive definitions.

                1. Proprietist’s definition is the common understanding in 2012 America. Corporation == LLC in most people’s minds.

                  Compared to the long history of corporations, limited liability is a relatively recent invention (c. 1856).

                  1. Actually, corporations have been getting preferential treatment and limited liability since they’ve been receiving charters from the State. The oldest corporation, the Dutch East India Company, got limited liability written into its charter from the King of the Netherlands in 1602. Dutchie and it’s Brit rival were state-granted monopolies that allowed them to dominate markets for hundreds of years.

                    1. Considering that the Dutch East India Company was less like a modern corporation and more to a colonial government with stock (unless GE can coin money and declare war), this is a bad comparison.

              2. Right, how about you go out there and find me maybe five medium to large corporations that haven’t filed for government limited liability protections. Because I assume that would be a very rare bird indeed.

                Proprietorships and non-LLP partnerships are real free market entities. And yes, a business could internally or externally assign liability via contract and sell stock as a “corporation” in a free market. That’s not the standard legal structure of a modern corporation, however, which mostly exists as a socialization of risk.

            2. A corporation is an association of owners and workers acting in voluntary cooperation towards a common goal, without any use of force.

              In a free market, progressives can organize themselves as they desire

              But that’s not good enough. They want to organized others as well.

              1. 1.) No, that’s a “business”. A corporation is a type of business organization that has mostly become a legal apparatus to shield owners’ personal property from the negative effects of their business’s actions. As someone still has to assume the risk and damages for actions are potentially unlimited, victims (and taxpayers) get to involuntarily pay the remainder of the costs after the corporate investment value collapses and the corporate property is liquidated. But the owners can keep any profits they cashed in off the shortcuts that created the victims.

                2.) That’s funny, because left-wingers argue right-wingers and capitalists use force to make them participate in slavish capitalistic structures of exploitation. For instance, the legal seizure of poor peoples’ property to hand over to the wealthy, state limitations against collective bargaining and unionization, and the pollution and socialization of risk from corporations that damages the lives and properties of individuals. Communists, anarchists and socialists were prosecuted for their beliefs and affiliations, and the government did not protect workers from real initiations of force by employers – in fact governments aided in this oppression. Government has historically been preferential towards business and the wealthy over individual rights.

                Taking an honest view of history, it’s hard to deny that the Left is wrong about any of this. Unfortunately they are wrong to assume the State is the best medicine to fix the ills they decry. Big state = big business. The best solution is to grant the Left the political sovereignty to self-organize as they desire, as long as they don’t harm the rights of others to do the same.

                Forcing people into a socialistic system will never work, at least not without bloodshed and tyranny. But it can work excellently if the system is completely voluntary and small-scale, and the state doesn’t intrude on their freedom of association.

                1. The best solution is to grant the Left the political sovereignty to self-organize as they desire, as long as they don’t harm the rights of others to do the same.

                  The whole point of their ideology is to use the force of government to give them a right to the property of others, whether the others agree or not.

                  Let them organize as they desire, and all they will do is use of available wealth while creating nothing new. Next thing you know they’re begging for a handout.

                  1. “The whole point of their ideology is to use the force of government to give them a right to the property of others, whether the others agree or not.”

                    That would be true if only it weren’t based in the premise that all people on the Left are statists. They aren’t. As I said, Bakunin (anarchosyndicalists) and Proudhon (mutualists) disagree with you.

                    It would be kinda like saying “all right-wingers are theocrat war hawks.” Not true either, even if you didn’t count libertarianism as a right wing philosophy.

                    1. That would be true if only it weren’t based in the premise that all people on the Left are statists.

                      I’ve never met one that wasn’t.

                    2. I’ve met quite a few. In fact, I’ve talked quite a few into voting Libertarian, since that moves them closer towards their ideal end-state.

                      Also, I’m a geolibertarian that considers myself on “the Left” and I think economic inequality would be greatly reduced in a free market and legal system that doesn’t treat businesses and the wealthy preferentially to individual rights, and doesn’t de facto bar the poor from employment and business opportunities. Pleased to meet you.

                    3. I’m curious.
                      Do you believe the government can both protect individual property rights while also giving the poor a claim to the property of the rich?

                      I see that as an unresolvable contradiction.

                    4. No, but I do believe that the rich have historically gamed the political system to radically increase their control of the capital, that businesses have historically gamed the system to exploit workers, and that the white majority historically gamed the system to oppress minorities. I blame these evil machinations for giving legitimacy to the dangerous economics and political aspects of Marx’s message. Inequality is perfectly fine if based solely on merit and effort, but not if it’s based upon a history of opppression, discrimination and state interference into markets.

                      However, generations have passed since most of these initiations of force and it’s difficult to hold people now responsible for the sins of their great-great grandfathers. Corrective redistributions of income merely cause resentments because that person earned their income with their own legitimate labor, and even if their superior economic stature put them in a better position to earn more that can’t be inherently assumed by the tax code. I prefer voluntary land value taxes to pay for access to the basic functions of a miniarchist government and the remainder would be divided equally and returned to all taxpayers as a citizen’s dividend.

                      Moreso that that however, I support removing the remaining legal restrictions that inherently disadvantage the poor, ending the monetary inflation that debases their income and the welfare state that pauperizes them, and radically reforming the public education system that is wildly inequitable in quality.

                    5. Moreso that that however, I support removing the remaining legal restrictions that inherently disadvantage the poor, ending the monetary inflation that debases their income and the welfare state that pauperizes them, and radically reforming the public education system that is wildly inequitable in quality.

                      I can’t really argue with that.

                      You do seem quite a bit more egalitarian than myself. Inequality doesn’t bother me that much.
                      I compare my life to my own life, not to others.
                      As long as I’m moving ahead (this Wed I am interviewing for a job that could potentially increase my income by 20%), I have no right to complain.

                    6. Good luck on your interview. Everyone should move ahead and make the most of their situation and experience. Inequality is not a problem as long as the system itself is a meritocracy.

                      Since I don’t subscribe to the need for equality of outcome, I don’t really count as a socialist. But a system with more equality of opportunity will bring more equal outcomes inherently, and even if it doesn’t, more power to those who succeed without intruding on other peoples’ rights.

                      Libertarians should care about inequality because inequality is one of the easiest tools for statists to exploit, even though statism was the cause for much of the inequality in the first place. Of course, when statists do exploit it, it tends to only create more inequality, as political power attracts economic power, and market distortions cause unintended consequences that disproportionately harm the poor.

                      Libertarians need to take these truths to the Left and get them to unsubscribe from statism, assuming they genuinely care about progress for the poor and not simply pauperization and political manipulation. I also think libertarians need to think about the harmful impacts of state incorporation (limited liability, bankruptcy) on individual rights as a socialization of risk and support true free markets, instead of perverted capitalism.

                    7. You also seem to subscribe to the labor theory of value.

                      I don’t.

                    8. I mean, I subscribe to the argument that labor is the primary form of capital the working poor have, and that they should leverage that labor to get the best working situation possible for themselves. I think unionization is a great thing, until their demands become financially unsustainable and thus self-defeating.

                2. 2.) That’s funny, because left-wingers argue right-wingers and capitalists use force to make them participate in slavish capitalistic structures of exploitation.

                  Then they are fucking retarded cause no one forces you to participate in capitalism. There’s always bartering. Hell some people have turned bartering on craigslist into an art form.

                  the legal seizure of poor peoples’ property to hand over to the wealthy

                  That’s not capitalism and anyone that tells you otherwise is an idiot

                  1. The term “capitalism” has been tainted by the practice. In theory, capitalism is just a free market system with private ownership of capital. In practice, it has been highly distorted by state interference, state-endorsed slavery, etc. Some humans were once considered mere “capital” and thus as commodifiable entities without rights. The State continues to treat businesses preferably over individuals as shown recently by the Kelo, Atlantic Yards, TARP and the socialization of the BP spill damages. Sure, that could technically be considered “mild fascism” but it sure isn’t a free market.

                    In theory, communism is merely workers controlling and sharing capital equitably amongst themselves, ideally without the need for government to interfere. In practice by the socialized State, communism has been the deadliest ideology in history.

            3. A free market wouldn’t have state-granted corporate entities.

              Why wouldn’t it when the state itself is a corporation?

      3. Ding, ding ding. We have a winner.

      4. But justice isn’t good enough. You need “social justice”.

    3. You might as well ask religious people why they believe in magic, John.

      1. It really is a belief in magic.

        They believe government is the source of things. That government can simply create things out of thin air. Magic.

        1. E.g., from the childism link above:

          Why are her solutions mere wishful thinking? The author didn’t prove this point. Certainly, affordable daycare and programs which keep everyone out of poverty are solutions worth considering. The New Deal what saved millions of Americans from dire poverty.

          The government just waves it’s magic wand and everyone has affordable daycare and no one lives in poverty. Why do you hate people?

          1. Why do you hate people?

            I’m gonna hate the next person who asks this.

        2. Which is why leftism is most popular among teenagers, college students, inheritors of wealth, government workers, and entertainers, for whom everything they need has always just magically appeared.

    4. What collapse of Communism?

      We are doing great.

      1. Yes, because you abandoned many of the actual tenets of Communism. You are now Communist in name only. My Barnes & Noble Kindle was made in your country.

        1. Barnes & Noble Kindle

          Is that like a Chevy Accord? A RIM iPhone?

          1. Kindle without “Barnes & Noble” in front of it could have other meanings.

            Kindle may refer to:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindle

            1. AHHH! YOu are correct! It is a Nook Tablet!

              Damn it! I bow down in apology!

    5. What do you mean collapsed into murder?They all started with murder.

      1. To be fair, most countries start with a good bit of murder.

  13. Ford’s not pleased with the Chevy truck super bowl ad that implies Ford trucks aren’t built tough enough to survive the Mayan apocalypse.

    GM wasn’t even able to weather your run of the mill economic apocalypse.

    1. First, as a piece of propaganda, it was a brilliant commercial, in a Leni Riefenstahl kind of way. Second, it made me so sad to see Clint hawking for the government I wished he really had died at the end of Grand Torino.

      1. John, you’re conflating the GM apocalypse commercial (which ford is bitching about) with the Eastwood DCJ commercial.

        1. I must have missed the GM commercial.

          1. Apocalyptic setting. New chevy truck fires up. Drives away. Meets up w/ 3 other dudes in Chevy trucks meet up. One asks “Where’s Fred?” And another guy says, “He didn’t make it, he drove a Ford.”

            1. Yeah. I remember that now. Cute dog in the back seat.

              1. Advertising fail.

            2. Then they ate Twinkies.

              So, apparently the Hostess reorg goes well.

              1. Fool! The collapse of Twinkies was what brought on the apocalypse in the first place. These guys obviously survived off their secret stash.

            3. STEVE LOVE GM AD! FORGET STUPID TRUCKS – YOUR FUTURE IS ANAL!

              1. No shit, my first thought was A Boy And His Dog
                -the guy should have save the KY supply

            4. Ford should dust off that ad where the new owner says he wouldn’t buy a Chevy because of the bailout, and put it in heavy rotation.

              1. I’d love to see Ford do an ad were only women survived and the prize wouldn’t be food

                1. Are you treating objects like women again?

    2. Should Ford get a $7 million dollar tax credit to offset the amount the government is spending advertising its competitor? Or should Ford be paying any taxes at all, considering all the money the government has not had to spend bailing it out?

      1. how is Ford supposed to pay for the GM bailout if they don’t pay any taxes?

  14. At 11:56 a.m. Monday, the Occupy Pittsburgh movement is supposed to officially leave the space in Downtown Pittsburgh.

    http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com…..reen-park/

    1. Time to bust out them big, G-20 subwoofers.

  15. Coming soon: Individual mandate to buy Chevy Volts
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..ts/2173001

    The average price of a new vehicle will go up at least $3,200, according to NHTSA, but experts outside government such as the National Automobile Dealers Association say the cost will be substantially higher. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that there will be no vehicles costing $15,000 or less, the segment of the market that college students and low-income consumers depend upon. Altogether, an estimated seven million buyers will be forced out of the market for new cars.

    Total costs, as calculated by the EPA, will exceed $157 billion, making this by far the most expensive CAFE rule ever. For comparison, the previous rule in 2010 cost $51 billion, according to the EPA. But the EPA doesn’t include this fact in its calculation: Annual U.S. car sales are 14-16 million units, yet over time, this rule will remove the equivalent of half a year’s worth of buyers. Will that be when the EPA takes a cue from Obamacare and issues an individual mandate that we all must buy Chevy Volts?

    1. The CAFE standards put an end to any pretense Democrats give a shit about anyone. What could be more callous than forcing people to buy expensive and unsafe cars?

      1. As someone who enjoys large (read BIG) RWD cars with V8 engines, I cringe at the idea of what’s coming down the pipeline.

        1. They also totally fuck over our car industry. The reason why the Big 3 swallowed the smaller car makers like Nash and Auburn and such was because of the economies of scale of 20th century manufacturing. You just couldn’t run a boutique auto company in 1950 and still be able to compete with the big guys.

          With the advancements in manufacturing, now you could. We could have small car companies again making cars for niche markets. With the ease of manufacturing, you could go back to the old days when you bought you frame and engine from one company and had the coach work done by someone else. And it could be competitive. What a great world that would be.

          But we can’t have that thanks to CAFE standards. You can’t just make one or two cars because your fleet must include a full line of echo penalty boxes no one wants to meet the CAFE standards. And only large companies can afford that.

          1. Also government safety standards require hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cars to be destroyed in crash tests, creating an overwhelming barrier to entry for anyone lacking the assets of a large company.

            1. That and the arcane state laws that prevent companies from selling directly to customers.

            2. I can’t get as upset about the safety standards. Even if the government didn’t make car makers do safety testing, insurers would still probably make them do it.

              1. Which insurers?

                I hear the line from ancap/extreme libertarians all the time that “insurers” can replace the govt in some ways and many of those times it’s not clear who the insurers are and how they would force compliance.

          2. Well the economies of scale and their collusion with the government to push out anybody that stood a chance of making a superior product ala Tucker.

          3. Not to nit, John, but Auburn/Cord/Duesenberg didn’t get “swallowed up” – they just went out of business.

            Nash, though, which eventually became American Motors, swallowed up Kaiser Jeep, which was eventually bought out by Chrysler.

            And Studebaker died, because it didn’t get bailouts. Government didn’t do that in those days… they just let auto companies die.

            1. I know that. That is what I meant. But those companies or ones like them could come back if the government would stay out of it.

        2. Oh, you’ll still be able to get a V8, just one with the HP of a mid-70s Lincoln.

          1. and 8-6-4 technology (remembering my dad’s ’81 Fleetwood)

            and hybrid technology.

            What’s a warrior of the wasteland to do?

            1. Hybrid is such a joke. You get better millage out of a high end diesel. The weight and expense of the batteries just isn’t worth it. You really have to be an idiot to buy one.

              1. This is true to an extent.

                UPS has a hybrid system on some of its diesel trucks, but it’s one that actually makes sense. It’s a hydraulic diesel; basically “braking” compresses a cylinder and acceleration is accomplished by releasing the previously compressed fluid. It’s really great for stop-and-go driving, and usable on virtually any drivetrain with pretty minor modifications.

                Also, gasoline direct injection engines now get almost as good fuel mileage as diesels.

                Hybrids are going to be a future technology worth buying into as a consumer, just not -electric- hybrids.

                1. Fun fact: my friend worked on the EPA project that designed that hydraulic regenerative braking system.

                2. I actually like the idea of the steam turbine hybrid that uses the hot coolant to turn the turbine on the driveshaft when the car is in gear. Probably not worth the weight, as you still have to have all the radiator stuff for when you aren’t in gear, but cool.

                  1. I believe that is how an M1 tank works. They have a turbine engine that is shockingly small when you consider how much power it puts out.

                    1. No, it’s just a straight up gas turbine engine. Burn gas, spin turbine, generate power. It’s throttled way back at 1,500 hp. I think the engine can do something ungodly, but there’s no transmission made that can take the strain. Most of the bulk of the M1 power pack is airflow and cooling.

              2. Hybrid is such a joke. You get better millage out of a high end diesel. The weight and expense of the batteries just isn’t worth it.

                Flywheels. Where are tha muthafuckin flywheels?

        3. Enjoy your aluminum crap cans and JLo fart wagons, boys & girls!

      2. Oh come on now. There won’t be any negative ramifications. Weren’t you guys paying attention up-thread?

        The government makes your life better using magic. There is nothing to fear. They will waive the wand and we will all magically get 54 MPG and no one will need to pay for the increased value.

        Jeez, yuoz guyz, you really worry too much. It will all work out and we’ll all have lovely rainbows and unicorns.

        1. *wave…derp

    2. The new rule … would require automakers to achieve a 40.9 mpg CAFE average by 2021 and 54.5 mpg by 2025.

      Just mandate the Star Trek transporter by 2030 and be done with it.

      1. works for us!

    3. Awesome. Then do another cash for clunkers and no poor person will be able to afford any car.

      1. It really is sad what’s happened to the used car market since Cash for Clunkers.

        I used to be able to buy a decent car that needed some work to fix up for $500. Now I’m lucky to find a 96 honda that needs a head gasket for 1500.

        1. Yeah I noticed this as well, as I’ve bought five used cars over the course of the past four years. Pre-C4C, you could buy a decent used car with under 70k miles for around $2000. Today, you’ll pay at least $5000 for the same exact car. It’s crazy.

          I feel really bad for poor people who don’t have that kind of money in the bank. Now, they get to go get screwed by an even crappier crappy financing plan than they had before for the same exact car.

          C4C is the inherent failure of progressive statism in a nutshell.

          1. Artificial markets always hurt the poor most.

          2. Poor people should be taking advantage of their localities wonderful public transportation options.

            1. Two years ago I told a colleague that he didn’t need a car to survive in Pittsburgh because of the public transit.

              Now, 65% in service reductions and 30% in fare hikes later….I barely lasted a month without a car.

          3. Yep, just happened to me. It was astounding how terrible the selection on autotrader.com below $7000 was.

            All else being equal, the rise of internet shopping-around and CARFAX should have depressed used car prices. So the fact they appear to have doubled (at least) is even more mind-boggling.

            1. Well, don’t forget there are actually many factors, like inflation.

        2. I’m with ya. I live in MT. Lots of driving and I need a truck, but want to buy a small, cheap, beater that gets good mileage to drive to town.

          Good luck!

    4. Coming soon: Individual mandate to buy Chevy Volts

      This BS is self defeating. It will simply drive people to buy older cars that don’t meet these requirements. Assuming of course, they don’t have another “Cash for Clunkers” boondoggle.

      1. Assuming of course, they don’t have another “Cash for Clunkers” boondoggle.

        Don’t be silly. They’ll just outlaw the resale of cars.

        1. Consider all the potential for fraud and the possibility of someone buying an unsafe car.

          It’s pretty obvious that automotive resale needs to be outlawed for the safety of our children and a secure society.

      2. Or we could join the rest of the civilized world in using clean mass transit rather than mostly empty greenhouse enhancers. We could learn a lot from the English and Germans.

        1. Or we could join the rest of the civilized world in going bankrupt, in part from using inefficient and expensive mass transit. We could learn a lot about needless waste of resources and capital on feel good projects from the English and Germans.

          FTFY

        2. And you wonder why people think you’re the inferior condiment.

  16. WASHINGTON (AP) ? Authorities say 11 people have been arrested in Washington’s McPherson Square since Park Police began clearing away tents from one of the nation’s last remaining Occupy sites.

    That thing is still going on? CURSE YOU, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND THE MILD WINTERS YOU BRING! Anyway, at this point I have to figure the remaining actors here are the most unemployable of the lot and are enjoying a little too much the subsidized circle jerk that was that movement, fighting with all the energy they could be using to become productive members of- meh, whatever.

    1. If only we had had another snowmaggedon this year. 60 inches would have been epic on those assholes.

      1. DC wouldn’t have gotten that much snow anyways, since it’s the Deep South.

        1. But is it Mint Julep South?

          1. If only.

      2. Europe is getting all of our winter weather.

      3. I’m really having trouble reconciling my joy at having another snow-free winter with the schadenfreude I would have received watching the Gimme Free Shit movement get buried under a DC plow-produced glacier.

        1. deeps breaths. now, a nice big swallow of beer. all better, back to Skyrim with you.

  17. So far, and I stress so far, not many people seem to care about M.I.A.s middle finger last night. So, as it stands, I must declare her middle finger more childish than the reaction. I maintain the right to change that ruling if people start freaking out. But, as it stands now, her insistence to prove she’s hipper than Madonna and need to promote herself through faux-anti-capitalism is really just an embarrassing statement for her.

    http://www.google.com/hostedne…..4029589472

    1. I think most people were too puzzled about who the fuck she was to notice the middle finger gesture.

      1. I watched Hanna over the weekend, and I sighed when they threw in a reference to M.I.A. like people know who she is. Or will know two years from now.

        1. I watched it the weekend before? What did you think?

          I liked the tight editing and it had good exposition, but I had trouble buying into Cate Blanchet’s character’s motivations beyond just being an amoral psycho.

          1. I thought it was basically just a variation of the Action Grrrrl archetype. Godspeed to the day that narrative device finally flames out.

            1. Meh. What this means to me is that I get to watch another movie with ScarJo’s ass wrapped up in tight leather outfits.

              1. Knowing Whedon, he’ll make us love Black Widow, then he’ll kill her as terribly as possible.

              2. ScarJo’s the perfect example of why looks > talent in Hollywood. Woman can’t act for shit, but her sweet uptown rack will keep her employed for a long time.

                1. And her lips.

                  But that dynamic is going away with dirt cheap Internet porn and the fact that porn actresses have gotten much more attractive over the past decade (which I suspect is because the Valley is becoming a more lucrative place to cash in on one’s looks than Hollywood, and aspiring porn actresses probably wind up having sex with fewer guys than Hollywood actresses have to).

          2. I liked it until (spoiler alert) she decides to teen-out and gets her dad killed. Wasn’t the whole point that she was engineered to be emotionally stable? I would have preferred the two join up and take down the baddies.

            Other than that, I enjoyed it well enough. Probably won’t buy it or anything, but I’m not demanding my 90min. back.

      2. I didnt see it. We were trying to figure out who she was. And failed. Good to finally have that answered.

        I think Cee Lo has a fear of heights.

        1. Who is Cee Lo and why is he on my TV all of the time?

          1. He is some guy afraid of heights. That is about 100% of my knowledge.

            I guess he might sing too, dont really know.

            1. I guess he might sing too, dont really know.

              Oh, do ya think he might sing, since he was singing on stage with a microphone at the biggest half-time show on earth? Man, look out for Sherlock Holmes over here.

              Seriously, you know he sings, but you’re feigning ignorance. For what end, I haven’t the slightest idea.

              1. I knew he was some kind of singer because of the 7-up ads. But that is it. And I still have no idea who MIA or LMFAO are.

                1. LMFAO have essentially the best beats in the business right now, and pair them with ridiculous lyrics that make the assholes who take them seriously beclown themselves when they sing along. I hope those guys make a billion dollars.

                  1. LMFAO is a musical abortion. And not those nice, neat, everyday abortions either, but the kind of abortion where the fetal arms are still moving and the lumpenmass is crawling towards you asking “Why did you kill me?”

                    1. LOL! So true!

              2. You dont get sarcasm, do you?

                Of course I know he sings…but, honestly, I cant name a single song he sings.

                1. He was part of Gnarls Barkley (Crazy) and he sings the song “Fuck You”.

                  1. And Goodie Mob. Works often with The Outkast. ATL.

            2. No fans of My Dad Rollo?

          2. Used to be the lead singer for Gnarls Barkley, went out on his own. Sold about 20M records. Writes incredibly catchy pop songs that earworm you. Now shills 7up and is a host on a TV show called The Voice, with the plastic chick and 2 dudes who I don’t know. which is American Idolesque.

            1. Brett, you’re wasting your time. They’re PROUD that they’re ignorant in Pop Culture Matters.

              “I don’t even own a television!” might as well be a biblical verse around here.

              1. RBM,

                I own a television. I just don’t listen to the radio. When every stinking thing in the top 10 became some form of hip hop, an art form that peaked 20 years ago, I just tuned out the pop charts. Call me when black people get around to inventing a new form of music. It has been over 30 years since they invented hip hop. They are overdue to invent a new one.

                1. John, there is no excuse for ignorance in the age of Google.

                  Seriously.

                2. When every stinking thing in the top 10 became some form of hip hop, an art form that peaked 20 years ago, I just tuned out the pop charts.

                  This to the tenth power. Most of the stuff being churned out these days isn’t any different than what was produced between 1991-95, other than the relentless Autotuning.

                3. Cee Lo is maybe one of the only top-40 acts worth anything these days. Even if you don’t particularly like his music, it’s hard to deny he’s an amazing singer. I say this as a passionate music nerd that doesn’t like just about any modern music whatsoever.

                  1. Yeah, Cee Lo is great. He has a distinctive, interesting voice and actually does interesting things with music. I’d say he’s one of the few star singers who actually deserves his fame and fortune.

                4. I just don’t listen to the radio. When every stinking thing in the top 10 became some form of hip hop, an art form that peaked 20 years ago, I just tuned out the pop charts.

                  The stuff on the radio is not the best stuff that’s being made now. Yes, yes, I know I sound like an elitist beatnik, but this is true now more than it was back in the 90s and 80s etc. There are a lot of talented artists who don’t go through the record company middleman but use alternative distribution methods like PPP, web downloads, or iTunes direct. Which is the real reason RIAA wants to make music downloads illegal — not piracy, but the fact that they’re losing their gatekeeper status.

                  You just have to work a little harder to find the good stuff.

              2. I know plenty of pop culture. Even music. For example, next week Im going to see Drivin n Cryin.

                Then again, they last released an album in 1993.

                1. Heh, actually, they released a new album in 2009.

                  (also 1994 and 1997, I got the date wrong on the 94 one and forgot about the 97 one)

                  1. I’ll go on the record saying that I know who Cee Lo is, but I just can’t be bothered to waste the 1 calorie required to give a flying fuck.

                    1. Come on, “Crazy” was probably the best pop song in the past 10 years. Not that there was much competition.

                2. Mother America is brandishing her weapons… that’s just timeless.

    2. folks really watch halftime? we fired-up the grill & shot some BBall.

      1. Oddly enough, of the musicians performing at halftime since the event that shall not be named, Madonna’s music is the least appealing to me, but it’s also the only halftime I watched.

        1. I thought it was the best halftime show I’ve ever seen, and Madonna’s new single is the best thing she’s done in years.

      2. People don’t have the gril already fired up?

        What are you, new?

    3. I was way too busy laughing at my friend’s question: Why is Madonna singing “I’m 60 and I know it”?

      1. Yeah, I made the same comment during that song too.

      2. She’s the new spokeswoman for cougars.com. With her husband in Haiti, she’ll have a lot of free time.

    4. The halftime show could have been great, even as I acknowledge that I don’t care for most of the performers. The spectacle was good and most people know the music that’s on. The reason it was not good, at all, is because of lip-synching. I’ll be impressed if you can do all of those moves while singing your best, but if you can’t do both? You suck.

      1. “The halftime show could have been great”

        Lie.

        1. Uh oh – somebody’s got his panties all twisted.

          1. “Uh oh – somebody’s got his panties all twisted.”

            Funny you talk about panties and Madonna putting on a good show int he same thread…

          2. I think Madonna is great and that men wear panties!

    5. What is a M.I.A. and why would I care?

      I watched and didn’t notice it.

    6. I’m with the people who didn’t watch the halftime show at all. Indeed, I watched Laurence Olivier in The Entertainer over on TCM instead of the game.

      (I’m a Packer fan, and couldn’t give a damn about the Giants and Patriots.)

  18. On the horrors of getting approval for an ice-cream parlour in San Francisco
    http://boingboing.net/2012/02/…..-appr.html

    Ms. Pries said she had to endure months of runaround and pay a lawyer to determine whether her location (a former grocery, vacant for years) was eligible to become a restaurant. There were permit fees of $20,000; a demand that she create a detailed map of all existing area businesses (the city didn’t have one); and an $11,000 charge just to turn on the water.

    The ice cream shop’s travails are at odds with the frequent promises made by the mayor and many supervisors that small businesses and job creation are top priorities.

    1. But think of the children!

      1. Childism strikes again!

    2. Who benefits from that? Could it be, I don’t know, existing restaurants? Funny how the nanny state always dovetails perfectly into corporatism.

      1. The consumer, obviously. /sic

    3. Wake me up when boingboing connects the statism they push on everything non-Internet with this problem.

      1. nah, we just need the right TOP MEN. Then the gears of government will (finally!) work properly.

    4. She’s an idiot for hiring a lawyer to do something that the architect/designer of the shop could and should have done as part of the design/construction documentation process. But other than that, yay corporatism.

    5. a demand that she create a detailed map of all existing area businesses

      Wanna start a business? Do some work for the city!

      WTF?

    1. They are a private organization and should be able to decide for themselves who they do and do not provide funding to. I don’t see why this was so controversial – PP got donations on their own anyway.

      1. True but women who donate likely want to know that they are saving their tits from terrorism after-effects

        1. You mean like a decreased cancer rate for women who have given birth to at least one child?

          1. http://www.cancer.gov/cancerto…..ve-history

            From the article I link to above:

            “Increasing number of births: The risk of breast cancer declines with the number of children borne. Women who have given birth to five or more children have half the risk of women who have not given birth (7). Some evidence indicates that the reduced risk associated with an increased number of births may be limited to hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.”

            1. No, I mean Komen donating to the 911 Red Cross fund

              1. Actually, there has been a higher rate of cancer for people who have been exposed to the fumes from the fallen twin towers.

                  1. Hmm, then they must be psychic too because they donated before any thought of possible carcinogenic effects, and studies

                    I’m for transparency

                    1. “Hmm, then they must be psychic too because they donated before any thought of possible carcinogenic effects, and studies”

                      Or it could be they actually studied medicine. No psychic abilities needed. Any competent physician could have predicted this. It is well known, for example, that cancer rates increase among rodents with long term exposure to gasoline fuels – similar effects may result from jet fuel.

                    2. First, the jet fuel exploded on impact -any third grader could observed that little tidbit

                      Second, the argument is the carcinogenic nature of building materials; known and unknown

                      Third, the check was cut before the echo hit.

                      Fourth, by transparency I mean, well, transparency: money for tits should be for saving tits. I don’t need to be psychic to tell you few donors know this fact

                    3. This is get fuel we are talking about here, not pure grain alcohol. I have no objection to transparency but something tells me that were it not for the unrelated PP issue you would not be complaining about a charitable organization donating money to … a charitable cause.

                    4. I’m pro-choice; I have said so here, and written so in my blog.

                      http://911research.wtc7.net/mi…..ow-hot.htm

      2. Someone posed the question here a couple days ago as to why PP couldn’t have simply moved on to other sources–that they were acting as if Komen was required to make funding available to them in perpetuity.

        I made the mistake of bringing up that same question on my buddy’s Facebook, along with asking why they simply couldn’t have just shaken the dust from their feet and moved on to other sources of funding, given their public profile.

        Cue the sputtering lib-rage. First response I got was from this chick I haven’t spoken to in 16 years who said, “You must not have ever filled out a grant application or worked for a non-profit agency,” followed by a status-mongering listing of her resume. The most telling thing about her reaction was that she never actually answered the question, especially after a basically told her she was full of shit about her presumption on my non-profit experience.

        1. “The most telling thing about her reaction was that she never actually answered the question,”

          That happens quite often over here too. Responding to a question without responding to it** is usually a sign that something about that question is unnerving.

          ** The exception to this, of course, is the “Do you still beat your wife?” type of question. The answer to this type of question should always be “Mu”.

          1. “Responding to a question without responding to it”

            I caught it but not in time. Of course this should be “Responding to a question without answering it”

        2. Planned Parenthood was complaining that SGK was no longer giving them free money. So the political attacks were just a shakedown.

          1. Shakedown is a good description – yes.

            1. Right, lets say that every day you give some money to a homeless person, then one day — for whatever reason — you stop. Would that give that homeless person the right to attack you?

              1. Absolutely not, it should motivate that person to try to find another source of income.

        3. “You must not have ever filled out a grant application or worked for a non-profit agency,”

          “Why, thank you for noticing.”

          1. “ADMIT IT! You’re one of those stinking wealth-creators!”

  19. Records Show Ron Paul Trips Paid Twice
    House Appears to Have Reimbursed Congressman for Trips That Were Also Paid for by Other Groups
    http://www.rollcall.com/issues…..118-1.html

    Rep. Ron Paul appears to have been paid twice for flights between Washington, D.C., and his Congressional district, receiving reimbursement from taxpayers and also from a network of political and nonprofit organizations he controlled, according to public records and documents obtained by Roll Call.

    Roll Call identified eight flights for which the Texas Republican, a GOP presidential candidate and leading champion of smaller government, was reimbursed twice for the same trip. Roll Call also found dozens more instances of duplicate payments for travel from 1999 to 2009, totaling thousands of dollars’ worth of excess payments, but the evidence in those cases is not as complete.

    1. Doesn’t he also return most of his office’s budget every year? I could be mistaken, but I remember reading something about that…

  20. Organizing for America has its sights set on Mitt.

    So they’re going to massage Mitt’s every word to make it appear that he said things he didn’t. Hmm, this should be fairly easily countered by Romney’s outfit telling the truth about Obama.

    1. Isn’t that Big media’s job?

    2. “So they’re going to massage Mitt’s every word to make it appear that he said things he didn’t.”

      He has taken so many contradictory positions that this would not even be necessary.

  21. “Just when you thought we had enough videotape about him firing people, he gives you one more,” Mr. Burton, who leads a political action committee backing the president, said before laughing.

    The fine line between political savant and idiot is again drawn. They’re going to remind people about job losses while avoiding running on their record for the past 3 years?

  22. If there’s only one thing I’ve learned from the H&R comments, it’s that feminism means everything is an attack by the patriarchy and must be taken personally. Including beer ads.

    1. OMG. “Valentines Day is inherently couple-ist”? Is this a spoof?

      1. Nope. I’ve heard that a few times. Along with the parallel bullshit that Valentine’s Day is for couples, not just women. (Because straight guys love buying candy and flowers and going on “romantic” dinners where they struggle for 2 hours to not loudly fart.)

        1. “Did someone step on a duck?” /Rodney Dangerfield

        2. Huh. I’ve always dated women who understood that February 14th is their day to be spoiled, and at some later time a steak and a BJ would come back my way. Seems the only non-discriminatory way of handling it.

          1. at some later time a steak and a BJ

            This is the part they object to. Valentine’s Day should be enough, because it totally isn’t biased toward women, it’s for couples, see?

            1. No. But I’m between gfs for this one, so I guess I’ll stand with other singles against this couplist nonsense. Or go the whole day without thinking about it. You know, whichever.

              1. But with no girlfriend to make my food, and all these couples out to dinner that night, how am I going to eat that day?

          2. If I’m gonna pay for a BJ and a Steak, I’d rather be honest about it.

        3. I don’t understand this,especially with the internet. Valentine’s Day is one of the days where I am certain to get laid. Placing an order for delivery for flowers hardly takes longer than I do.

      2. Straight from last week’s Parks & Rec plot.

      3. Brett, google “Occupy Valentine’s Day,” and be prepared for a heaping dose of self-absorption and self-justification in the results.

        1. Why not just ask some other single person whose company you enjoy of the sex to which you are attracted if they’d like to grab a bite to eat with you on Tuesday a week from now?

          1. whoa, a relationship without any underthetable bartering of goods and services?! That’s crazy talk.

      4. Tom Waits on dating yourself:

        “But I’ve always kinda been partial to calling myself up on the phone and asking myself out, you know? Oh yeah, you call yourself up too huh? Yeah, well one thing about it, your always around. Yeah I know, yeah you ask yourself out, you know, some class joint somewhere. The Buretto King or something, you know. Well I ain’t cheap you know. Take yourself out for a couple of drinks maybe.

        Then there’d be some provocative conversation on the way home. Park in front of the house you know. Oh yeah, you smoothly put a little nice music on, maybe you put on like uh, you know, like shopping music, something thats not too interruptive you know and then uh slide over real nice and say ‘Oh I think you have something in your eye’.

        Well maybe it’s not that romantic with you but Christ I don’t know, you know I get into it you know. Take myself up to the porch, take myself inside or maybe uh, or may get a little something, a brandy snifter or something.

        ‘Would like you like to listen to some of my back records? I got something here’ Uh Well usually about 2.30 in the morning you’ve ended up taking advantage of yourself. There ain’t no way around that you know. Yeah, making a scene with a magazine, there ain’t no way around.

        I’ll confess you know, I’m no different you know. I’m not weird about it or anything, I don’t tie myself up first.”

    2. Isn’t “skepchick” the girl who complained about a guy who was nice to her and brought the full wrath of like, Sam Harris or some shizz down on her?

      1. Yes, it’s from the same site, and I think it was Dawkins who went nuts. That whole thing was a total mess and I could never tell what the real problem was for anyone.

      2. You mean the being asked for coffee on an elevator is rape thing?

        1. Yes, that. I guess it was Dawkins.

          I am going to go read a blog before I embarrass myself further.

        2. Straw man, since that was not what she complained about.

          1. No, just like the dickwolves nonsense, there were dozens of blogposts and thousands of comments comparing it to rape, calling it rape, using it as an example to talk about rape, rape rape, and more rape.

            1. SHE never said that.

              None of the writers at Skepschick did and damn few of the commenters too.

              Her complain wasn’t even a sexism complaint to begin with. It was a creepiness complaint and the example she gave backed her up.

              1. “creepy” is lady code for “a thing an unattractive guy does that I would be OK with if the guy was good looking”

                1. Right because that’s what she said in her original article, the guy was UGLY.

                  Hey, I have an idea, how about ‘reactionary feminist’ is guy code for any woman that wants to live her life free of male power fantasies?

                  See, that may or may not be true, but I’m not going to accuse you of it, because I’d rather not get into generalisations/armchair psychology/ad hominem attacks

                  1. “Right because that’s what she said in her original article,the guy was UGLY. ”

                    No one claimed she said that, so stop shooting off your dicksucker about it.

                    It’s like you’re too fucking stupid to even keep track of what you’re wrong about.

                    1. @are you really this stupid, 12:28

                      Maybe it’s the server squirrels or maybe it’s the number of replies that are getting you mixed up, but I’m pretty sure I was replying to Rev Blue moon quite legitimately because HE said ‘creepy’ was lady code for unattractive at 11:28 and my reply was posted right under that.

                    2. “because HE said ‘creepy’ was lady code for unattractive”

                      No liar, he did not. Learn to read.

                2. “creepy” is lady code for “a thing an unattractive guy does that I would be OK with if the guy was good looking”

                  THIS

              2. “It was a creepiness complaint and the example she gave backed her up made her look like a typical reactionary idiot.

                FTFY

                1. That too.

                2. You make it sound like she declared war on men over this when all she said was basically “I don’t like this. Girls find this creepy and you shouldn’t do it.”

                  1. “when all she said was basically “I don’t like this. Girls find this creepy and you shouldn’t do it.”

                    And now that you’ve resorted to openly lying, you’ve lost.

              3. I never said she said that, therefore you are the one bringing up straw men.

                1. Let’s see, Rev BM said: “Isn’t “skepchick” the girl who complained about a guy who was nice to her”

                  And you immediately replied: “You mean the being asked for coffee on an elevator is rape thing?”

                  So, really, I can’t see how I’m off-base to assume you were.

                  1. “So, really, I can’t see how I’m off-base to assume you were.”

                    Because you don’t know what words mean?

                  2. “So, really, I can’t see how I’m off-base to assume you were.”

                    Well, you’re an idiot.

                    “”You mean the being asked for coffee on an elevator is rape thing?””

                    QUOTE where he claimed SHE SAD THAT. QUOTE IT.

                    1. @ayrts 12:30

                      Head hurts.

                      If I get you correctly you’re claiming that summarising someone else’s position (like robc did), but not directly quoting them, is not claiming someone said that thing.

                      Got it. So when I read a headline: “CIA says Iran about to attack USA” but the article doesn’t actually have that quote, it means that the article never claimed the CIA said that.

                    2. I asked you to quote the claim you made.

                      Do so or admit you’re lying.

                    3. @12:45

                      Yes, binary choices!

                      After reading robc’s actual response to me, I get the impression he was characterising a part of the response to the controversy OUTSIDE of skepchick. I assumed his initial comment was aimed at skepchick, not unreasonable considering he was directly replying to a post about what skepchick said.

                      But of course, the idea that his ambiguous phrasing led me to misunderstand his statement is not a possibility. Only the fact that I’m lying could possibly explain my reaction.

                    4. “After reading robc’s blah blah blah”

                      You claimed something, you were wrong, rather than admit it, you equivocate and blame him for your stupid assumptions.

                      “I assumed”

                      Blame, YOURS and only yours, you had ample opportunity to clarify before shooting off your dicksucker.

                      You lied. Stop pretending a long, sad wall of equivocation will absolve you liar.

                    5. Why the fuck do you keep bringing me into this?

                    6. Again, sorry about that. I thought robc was J-Lo speak for RoboCain.

                    7. Neither I nor robc (two different commenters, btw) were summarizing her original complaint.

                      Although calling something “creepy” means that it is spooky, ominous, or threatening. So if she had nothing to do with planting the seeds of that shitstorm, then what sort of imminent danger was she implying?

                      Also, if I remember, her “advice” was only about men approaching women, and not about women approaching men.

                    8. @roboCain,1:01

                      Yes, of course the ‘creepy’ part applies because of the apprehension of rape that’s appended to it.

                      It’s still not the outright claim of being equivalent to rape and not even a claim that the guy was wrong to do it.

                      One of the best counterarguments against Skepchick’s positions that I heard was that Skepchick would never say ‘hey black people commit a lot of crime, so back people should stand next to me in elevators.”

                      I too used to rubbish the idea that women read rape into too many things.

                      I think the thing that changed it decisively for me was this blog where female gamers post the shit that guys say to them online.

                      It was horrendous in the number of threats of rape that came along with simple things like the girl refusing their friend request etc.

                      I think the big thing here is that critics of women who say this are refusing to accept that women could feel genuinely threatened my men on a consistent basis and are dismissing such claims out of hand. Either the woman is exaggerating or she’s being disingenuous for political reasons.

                      Really, I’m willing to take them at their word that certain behaviour that guys think is normal could be creepy and if they tell us it’s creepy maybe we should consider why and modify it?

                      (Well maybe not ME in that ‘we’ since I’m not into women.

                    9. Holy shit MNG, don’t be ‘male’; it sure as hell isn’t me and BTW, tl; dr

                    10. No, it’s obviously you.

                    11. You admitted being a liar.

                      Why would anyone care what you think after that.

                    12. “Yes, of course the ‘creepy’ part applies because of the apprehension of rape that’s appended to it.”

                      Yet, this was an example of her refusing an invitation without further incident. So whatever “apprehension of rape” she might have had was invalid, because there was no threat or danger.

                      She was alone in an enclosed space with a strange man who might have wanted to have sex with her, and nothing happened.

                      So if anything, her experience was a clear example of non-rape. Yet it was used as an example for the opposite induction.

                    13. @ RoboCain |2.6.12 @ 1:59PM

                      See, I understand that technically this incident wasn’t what she first thought it might be.

                      But I’m thinking of the recent thread about the kid that got shot for running from the cops.

                      The H&R commentariat seemed to accept in that thread the idea that young black men are right to avoid the police.

                      Yet most encounters between police and young black men don’t end in murder or even arrest.

                      Police don’t *make* black men apprehensive, but young black men tend to avoid police and many of them wish the police would approach them in a different manner.

                      saying the police should not be aggressive in dealing with blacks is not denying the right of police to enforce laws, is it?

                      Similarly, Skepchick is generally safe when approached by men, but asking them to approach differently for her sake doesn’t deny them the right to ask her to their rooms or be ‘nice’ to her. Just to be aware of how their methods make them look.

            2. Right, we can add “creepy” to the list of words that no longer mean what they mean.

              1. It’s weird what order the squirrels place comments.

          2. Yes it was you disingenuous fuck

            1. How do you figure? You non-sequitur dropping fuck?

              1. “How do you figure?”

                Because I’m better at reading than you whore.

                1. @ThePaultards 12:31

                  Wow, so far in this argument I’ve been called ‘dicksucker’ and ‘whore’ so I can clearly see you guys aren’t approaching this from an anti-woman POV.

                  Say, I have an idea, why don’t you guys take a page from your own play book and QUOTE me the piece in the article you think I’m wrong/lying about.

                  1. Shut the fuck up about your stupid anti womyn shit and support your argument twat.

                  2. “Yes, that’s EXACTLY what I said!”

                    “If I get you correctly you’re claiming that summarising someone else’s position (like robc did), but not directly quoting them, is not claiming someone said that thing.”

                    JUMBIE= Hypocritical lying whore

                  3. ” so far in this argument I’ve been called ‘dicksucker'”

                    No liar, you have not. Learn to read.

              2. non-sequitur

                Not a non sequitur.

      3. She never complained about him being ‘nice’ to her and if you look at the incident he was not being ‘nice’.

        1. “you look at the incident he was not being ‘nice’.”

          Yes, he was, it’s just that she, (and you) are too socially inept to see it.

          You’re a laughingstock. Insisting otherwise won’t change it.

          1. A sexual invitation is not ‘nice’ or ‘not nice’ in itself. So I fail to see how you equate sexual invitation as being nice.

            Second, socially inept is exactly the point of what she was saying. She wasn’t saying ‘men are evil for asking women out’ She was saying, ‘Girls find it creepy when you make such approaches to us in an isolated place like that.’

            Judging by the reaction she got from other ladies, I’d have to say she’s probably giving the view of significant numbers of women. NOTE: She never said the guy wasn’t *trying* to be nice. She said it *comes off* as creepy.

            Skepchick is taking a lot of heat over this because no one’s actually bothering to respond to what she actually said/wrote, you included.

            1. As far as I remember, it wasn’t even a sexual invitation. Regardless, the only thing that made it “creepy” was that she wasn’t interested.

              http://www.nbc.com/saturday-ni…..nt/258532/

              1. the only thing that made it “creepy” was that she wasn’t interested.”

                Right, the accompanying details in the article about her telling the group about being so tired she just wanted to sleep then about him following her from the group to the elevator and then about him asking her to his room only when they were alone in the elevator, those we’ll ignore for robc’s long-distance analysis of ‘she only got annoyed because she wasn’t interested’.

                Oh by the way, I think that if someone invites me to their room I’m pretty sure from their tone/posture if they want to play chess or play Doctor, so I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt her on calling it a sexual invitation.

                1. robc’s long-distance analysis

                  ?????

                  1. Uh, yeah, sorry about that.

                2. Holy shit, you’re an idiot.

                  If she were interested, and accepted his invitation, then the very same exact thing wouldn’t have been “creepy”.

                3. “so I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt her on calling it a sexual invitation.”

                  In other words, you’re making shit up like she did and using ti to justify your “point”.

                  Why lie?

                  1. @12:37

                    If it’s a lie, it’s her lie about what the guy seemed to be saying.

                    I’m just accepting her statement at face value since she was there.

                    1. “I’m just accepting her statement at face value since she was there.”

                      Ours too right?

                    2. “I’m just accepting her statement at face value since she was there.”

                      And you’re an admitted liar, so no one really cares what you think.

                4. “I think that if someone invites me to their room I’m pretty sure from their tone/posture if they want to play chess or play Doctor, so I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt her on calling it a sexual invitation.”

                  Unless it’s a guy, in which case any signals I give off are totally unimportant because I AM THE SOLE ARBITER OF WHO DATE RAPES ME.

            2. Judging by the reaction she got from other ladies, I’d have to say she’s probably giving the view of significant numbers of women.

              …and if the Skepchick commentariat isn’t representative of womaninity, I don’t know who is.

              1. @Trespassers QW:

                “significant numbers of women” = all women.

                Yes, that’s EXACTLY what I said!

                1. “Yes, that’s EXACTLY what I said!”

                  NO, it’s what you were trying to imply until you got told to shut the fuck up and had to cry about it.

                2. @Jumbie:

                  “significant numbers of women” = all women.

                  Yes, that’s EXACTLY what I said!

                  I note that in the process of complaining that I misrepresented what you wrote, you have misrepresented what I wrote.

                  Let me unpack that for you so that, if you choose to respond to my point, you can respond to what I really mean.

                  Although I’m sure you’re correct that “significant numbers” felt the same way, it’s also true that “significant numbers” of women believe just about any proposition X. I’m not sure what I’m supposed to conclude from that.

                  If it were a representative sample of women, I might conclude something from that. In this case, I have good reason to believe that your sample is non-representative. In particular, the Skepchick commentariat is self-selected toward agreement with Rebecca Watson.

                  1. OK, first of all thanks for being calm and taking the time to lay out your point.

                    I was aware that Skepchick doesn’t speak for woman kind when I made the statement and that’s WHY I made the statement the way that I did.

                    pointing to the ‘significant’ numbers was just my way of saying that you can’t discount this as the personal reaction of one woman and that it’s an aspect of female psychology that you have to consider as a guy when you deal with them: They feel vulnerable and how you approach them makes them apprehensive in certain cases no matter what the guy’s intentions.”

                    1. “They feel vulnerable and how you approach them makes them apprehensive”

                      1) How someone “feels” is up to THEM.
                      2) I don’t “make them” anything, the CHOOSE to become apprehensive. NOT the same.

                    2. OK, first of all thanks for being calm and taking the time to lay out your point.

                      No problem. Some folks need to calm down here.

                      They feel vulnerable and how you approach them makes them apprehensive in certain cases no matter what the guy’s intentions.

                      I don’t doubt that.

                      I propose a grand compromise: Men should try to be a little more self-aware and not make advances while women are in a situation where they can reasonably feel vulnerable (elevators, parking lots, alleys, warehouses, whatever). That’s a fair demand. If that was really RW’s point, I can hardly argue with it.

                      In return, maybe these women could try to grow up a little. If you want freedom to choose a mate, you’re going to have to make your own advances at the risk of some embarrassment or humiliation and/or learn to tolerate some amount of unwanted, even creepy advances. If you still feel vulnerable, take self-defense and/or shooting classes, like a regular old adult with adult responsibilities, unless and until you find a nice, non-creepy man who is not only willing to tolerate you and accompany you, but also defend you.

            3. “A sexual invitation is not ‘nice’ or ‘not nice’ in itself. So I fail to see how you equate sexual invitation as being nice.”

              There was no sexual invitation.

              I have no idea why you think lying will support your claims.

              1. @12:32

                Not letting go of my claim that this was indeed a sexual approach in Skepchick’s eyes, but lots take your argument:

                A *platonic* invitation to his room isn’t nice or not nice in itself either. This instance may be more on the not nice side since he knew she was tired and wanted to go sleep.

                So characterising this as him being ‘nice’ to her is wrong.

                1. “Not letting go of my claim that this was indeed a sexual approach in Skepchick’s eyes,”

                  Don’t care, not responsible for your or her perception, how you choose to perceive my actions is your choice and not my fault.

                  More to the point, why are you continuously arguing about what you think others think?

                2. “So characterising this as him being ‘nice’ to her is wrong.”

                  So, in the twisted world you inhabit, do people invite others to spend time with them in an effort to be something other tyhan nice?

                  I think you’ll find that inviting someone to spend time with you in any context is as close to a working definition of “being nice” as you can get.

                  Do you think it’s an insult? NOT bwing nice?

                  “hey bitch I HATE YOU SO MUCH I WANT TO SPEND HOURS DISCUSSING IT WITH YOU INTIMATELY?”

                  Seriously?

                  1. In this twisted world we all inhabit, while most invitations are to be nice, I’ve seen it otherwise.

                    Got invited to swimming classes by a coach once. Found it to be a not nice invitation based on the guy being creepy and said no.

                    And hey, he came next to me and felt me up in the pool later after I swam away from him.

            4. “Second, socially inept is exactly the point of what she was saying. She wasn’t saying ‘men are evil for asking women out’ She was saying, ‘Girls find it creepy when you make such approaches to us in an isolated place like that.'”

              And guys find it moronic and pathetic when you take something that was not in any way a sexual invitation and fabricate a complaint out of thin air to support you gross lack of self esteem, like this cunt did.

              SO yes, she was talking about being socially inept, just not that way she thought.

    3. What is it with men assholes who review and critique feminist sites?

      Is it your little boy masturbation/mother’s underwear drawer complex?

      1. What is it with men assholes who review and critique feminist sites?

        This is bizarre coming from the local, non-libertarian troll. For the same reason that you torture us, visceral hatred?

        1. Don’t respond to it, or it’s going to start stealing names and arguing with itself.

          1. Stop reading my comments RBM, and sugarfree’s dick needs sucking

        2. I’m more of a libertarian than most of you; I love how some of these jackasses want to control mine/and everyone’s comments -that’s so government

        3. Now you’ve done it. Prepare for an onslaught of grayed-out posts.

                  1. Reasonable says “shut teh fuck up rather” and you have no choice but to comply.

                    1. I love that I get more hits every time Warty shoots his mouth ass off. One of these days, I’ll write about the why….well, I did promise I wouldn’t but then….Oh, I forgot, I can’t lie because I don’t have a prick

                    2. “Reasonable says “shut teh fuck up rather” and you have no choice but to comply.”

                    3. It gives me a sexual velvet to know that I control what your eyes see….I think I’ll work that into my novel.

                      Fuck the blindfold, she harrowed her men with the ….

                    4. “Reasonable says “shut teh fuck up rather” and you have no choice but to comply.”

                    5. It gives me a sexual velvet to know that I control what your eyes see

                      Actually, since he’s using Reasonable, Amakudari controls it.

                    6. No, he only thinks he is

                    7. No, Amakudari definitely controls Reasonable. No one sees anything from you unless they choose to.

                    8. Oh sweetheart, that National Merit, Robert C. Byrd Scholarship recipient is really too small KKK for me to play with; I have an amazing amount of readers from Japan

                    9. See, thanks to Amakudari, nothing but grey.

                    10. I altered the script a little so now every instance of “rather” is scoured completely.

                      It doesn’t even exist.

                    11. I love that you assume importance; how irrelevant you are to me. Most of you are toys that ‘mused me till I get bored…

      2. I merely think it’s funny to look at some of these ideas and how poorly thought out they are. Wollstonecraft and her idealogical descendants made real progress, and women in the modern Middle East are doing real work in establishing fairness. But the stuff linked to here is just first-world whining about nothing and deserves mockery.

        1. They get mocked because there’s such an air of solipsistic decadence about them. It’s one thing to critique society on things such as domestic violence when we’re talking about actual physical abuse. But when the most mundane things are turned into proxies for TEH MALE GAZE, eventually you’re going to become nothing more than a self-parody.

          1. Right, see below.

            Words like rape, sexual harassment, battery, domestic violence, etc. no longer have any denotation.

    4. Well, I predict a Morning Links that is going to turn into a shitshow any second.

      1. Then control yourself, RBM

      2. Mein got! You’re psychic!

        1. Jeane Dixon ain’t got shit on me.

          1. Think about how much more psychic you’d be if you weren’t spending all your time sucking my dick.

  23. Just for the record, it’s now Feb 6, and I rode my motorcycle AGAIN yesterday. A tad chilly, but nowhere near normal, midwest winter suckitude.

    Moorsickle riding in February. In Michigan and Ohio. Thanks, Mother Nature!

    1. I agree. I’ve been riding the past week.

      If this is “global warming,” sign me the fuck up.

      1. yep no question. waay cheaper gas bills

      2. Actually, its global cooling. Europe is getting screwed.

        1. Redistribution of coldness.

        2. Serves ’em right, the pantywaist pricks.

    2. Don’t blame Mother Nature for Ohio. Mother Nature had nothing to do with that!

    3. I’ve been riding my motorcycle all winter. Who knew it would be like that in Boston.

  24. Based on his roughly 14 percent tax rate on 2010 income of about $22 million, the public by a broad 66-30 percent says Romney is not paying his fair share of taxes; even nearly half of Republicans say so, as do half of very conservative Americans.

    People who answer polls are so very stupid, and apparently not only because they waste time talking to pollsters. Journalists should report the dollar figure Romney paid, in addition to the percentage, and let people compare it with how much they paid into the coffers. Or perhaps analyze why Romney paid that rate and whether investments should be encouraged or taxed greater. Or do some fucking thing rather than take polls and report the results.

    1. And they also might want to consider how much tax revenue is created by those investments. It is not like he buried his money in his back yard. Funny how liberals are always yapping about the multiplier effect when they want government spending but refuse to admit private sector investment does any indirect good whatsoever.

    2. I’m kind of proud that I paid more just in Federal taxes last year than the median household income, in a “fuck you little prole 99%ers” kind of way.”

      Then I get pissed that I paid so FUCKING much tax to get very little in return so some cocksucking OWS fuck can get his student loan backed by my $$ and my deadbeat neighbor who can’t pay his mortgage gets help from the gummint, and have my little tax man work very hard to get as much back as possible.

      Fuckin’ prawns…

      1. You and me, both, Pro L.

        For what I pay in taxes, the government should assign a median family to do the chores around my hosue.

        1. I am a two income family with no house and no kids. The taxes I pay are astronomical.

            1. I LOOM LARGE!

              1. We are ALL Pro L now…

  25. Also, I think we know who REALLY won yesterday:

    Tebow

    1. I’ve been joking Brady pissed God off by beating Tebow so badly.

    2. I was just waiting for someone to Tebow after a touchdown.

      1. Bradshaw should have Tebowed at the one rather than scoring the touchdown at the end of the game. It would have been epic.

        1. Okay, now you’ve got me started. That whole scenario about not scoring just pissed me off. If your defense can’t hold Brady for 1:20 instead of :20, why the fuck are you in the Super Bowl? They just assume that the field goal will be uncontested. Fuck that. Take the touchdown.

          1. I agree. Screw leaving your game to the kicker. Go ask Tony Romo how easy it is to kick a chip shot field goal to win the game. Score the damned touchdown. If Brady can go 80 yards in a 1:20 to beat you, you don’t deserve to win.

          2. Something wrong with the league that these two teams are “the best.” And the officiating was very, um, laissez faire? There were three solid pass interferences against the Giants (no surprise there, as New England has very little defense) and quite a few noncalls on blatant holds (the worst one might’ve been on the New England TD pass).

            Yuck.

            1. Yeah. The refs pretty much swallowed their whistles in the 2nd half. Although calling the safety on Brady may be the bravest thing I’ve seen an NFL official do.

              1. I think that safety would up being the difference in the game.

                Take away those two points, and the margin when Brady gets the ball at the end is either two points (Giants don’t get their two point conversion) or three (Giants kick an extra point).

                Now Brady just needs a field goal, and I think he gets them in range for that because he doesn’t have to throw hail Mary’s, but can chip them down the field.

                1. But RC without the safety it is 17-13 and the Giants need the TD to win. That means the Patriots don’t give them a TD and it comes down to them scoring, which was hardly a given. But they would have used all of the time trying. So without the safety, Brady never sees the ball again win or lose.

                  1. I’m not convinced that the Patriots “let” them score that TD. They stopped them on the previous play or two, which they wouldn’t have done if they were going to let them score to get more time.

                    I think that series would have gone off the way it did regardless of the safety. But the safety forced Brady to play for the TD, which is much tougher to do with a minute left in the game than playing for an FG.

                    1. I’m not convinced that the Patriots “let” them score that TD.

                      Watch the replay. They stand up and don’t even try to shed the blockers.

              2. I don’t see how it was brave, it was an obvious safety.

                1. It was brave because (a) it was the Super Bowl, so every call is going to be under an even-higher-powered microscope and (b) intentional grounding calls are essentially judgment calls, and usually a ref will give a QB wide latitude on “eligible receiver in the area” or however the language reads.

                2. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an intentional grounding called on a ball down the middle. Ever. Doing it to Golden Boy in the Superbowl was a big deal to me.

                  1. It’s a correct call. Usually, those throws are vaguely at a receiver. Brady really screwed up.

                    To be honest, I was saying “Safety!” before the flag was thrown, but I thought they’d never throw it.

                    1. I was shocked on the safety call. Sure, it was the right call, but you just never see it on a throw down the middle.

                    2. To be honest, I was saying “Safety!” before the flag was thrown, but I thought they’d never throw it.

                      Ditto. If the refs want to (and they usually do), they can expand “in the vicinity” pretty generously, and even though it would have been a reach, I don’t think anyone would have been outraged for a noncall, either.

                    3. I think it was a blown route. Brady was looking for someone to go deep (Branch?) but he cut instead. Tossing a pass 40 yards deep over the middle isn’t intentional grounding. It’s a WR and a QB being on the wrong page. The only reason Tuck was able to pressure Brady is that the play was designed to take longer than 3 seconds to develop.

                    4. I think “intentional” is an objective standard. That is, if you were under pressure, you threw the ball to avoid a sack, and there was no receiver in the vicinity, then it must have been “intentional”.

                    5. “It’s a correct call. ”

                      No, it wasn’t. A route that long requires the QB to throw the ball before the receiver breaks.

                      If the receiver break wrong, it looks like there wasn’t anyone in the area.

                      In short, only a total football ignoramus would think it was a correct call.

                    6. There was no one around for 25 yards. And I had no idea that the rule book was supposed to be designed around route-running incompetence.

                      As a huge Redskins fan, I am still willing to say that Joe Theismann is an idiot.

                    7. “There was no one around for 25 yards. ”

                      1) That’s a lie.
                      2)”If the receiver break wrong, it looks like there wasn’t anyone in the area”
                      3)Joe Theismann is an idiot who played QB in the NFL while you’re a whiny bitch talking about how dumb he is on the internet.

                    8. “And I had no idea that the rule book was supposed to be designed around route-running incompetence.”

                      It’s the reason the call has so much leeway for the refs.

                      In fact, because you’re so profoundly stupid, it IS DESIGNED TO ALLOW REFS THE ABILITY TO TAKE ROUTE RUNNING INCOMPETENCE INTO ACCOUNT.

                      Congratulations, you managed to make a fool of yourself AGAIN.

                    9. And I had no idea that the rule book was supposed to be designed around route-running incompetence

                      It is, your ignorance of the fact notwithstanding.

                      You fail.

                    10. Jesus. No. The rule doesn’t care about intentions. No one within a quarter of the field–penalty.

                      And citing Theismann for his opinion on football is like citing Lindsay Lohan for advice on temperance. I say that as someone who loved the old Joe Gibbs’ football, too. “Come on, Sandy baby, loosen up. You’re too tight.”

            2. The NFL has had inconsistent officiating for a while now. In the regular season they call anyone who so much as touches a receiver or breaths on a quarterback. But then in the playoffs it becomes old time football complete with Jack Tatum style muggings in the secondary.

              I actually prefer the latter to the former. But I wish they would pick a way to officiate and stay with it instead of changing the entire game every year in the playoffs.

              1. Without the flag football rules, neither team last night makes it.

                1. No. Had they officiated the game in the playoffs the way they did in the regular season, no way do the Giants beat the Packers.

                  1. I hope the NFL brings back defense, because this “Let them score” strategy sucks.

                    1. To know the rules of the game, so your opinion on what sucks and what doesn’t it pretty worthless.

                    2. Pull the stick and the sand out of your vagina anonapussy.

                  2. You have that backwards. Bad calls gave the Packers two TD in that game.

              2. It’s a little worse than that. If you watched the Giants-Packers three weeks ago the refs were so inconsistent that game (that being said, Bill Leavy is the NFL’s official-unofficial “keep it fair” ref).

    3. Well, apparently Katy Perry now wants to have sex with him, or something.

      1. Her ex hubby Russel Brand wants to have sex with newly single Zooey Deschanel.

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

        1. Then again who wouldn’t?

          1. Zooey has already shown she has bad taste in men, so he has a shot.

            1. She has shown to like emo-dweebs, not womanizing Greeks.

              1. I have noticed that women (or men) with bad taste seem able to hit bad taste in multiple categories.

                1. That would explain why my wife chose me.

          2. That’s a good point.

        2. Brand looks like a brown-haired Rocky Dennis from “Mask.”

    4. No cameras = no rings. Brady and Belichick 9-0 in the playoffs and 3-0 in the SB pre-Spygate, 7-5 in the playoffs and 0-2 in the SB post-spygate. That is all.

      1. For some reason losing two Super Bowls by… what… 10 points total… doesn’t seem like a proof that they needed “cheating” to win. They’re in the Super Bowl and lost because two mid-tier receivers made the most spectacular catches of their lives.

        1. They also lost, because two of their supposedly “elite” receivers dropped passes.

          1. “They also lost, because two of their supposedly “elite” receivers”

            They have none of those.

            Tight end? Yeah. But that wasn’t who you were talking about.

      2. Er, they’re not 9-0 in the playoffs pre-2007. They lost in Indy in 2006, which was before the videotaping scandal.

  26. One way or the other, boys, it’s never free.

    1. That is great. It is all true.

    2. All true. Love it.

  27. Why the official 8.3 percent unemployment rate is a phony number?and what it means for Obama’s reelection
    http://blog.american.com/2012/…..eelection/

    Bottom line: The unemployment rate is dropping because economic growth continues to be so anemic that nearly 4 million Americans have quit looking for work and have been disappeared by the Labor Department. This still isn’t much of a recovery.

    1. I don’t think that is a lie that is going to work. People can look around and judge whether the economy is getting better and clearly it is not.

      1. The economy seems to be doing pretty well in Texas. I don’t think that’s going to help him much in Texas.

        1. It doesn’t seem any worse than it was three years ago, but it doesn’t seem better either. Plus shit keeps getting more expensive.

      2. whistling past the job-yard eh john? >romney’s main schtick now involves gymnastics

        1. Creating an economy so bad millions of people give up on looking for work and then dropping them off the rolls to make the unemployment rate look better, is not making things better.

          Obama is the worst President since Hoover. Utterly hopeless.

          1. ur appeal to emotion effects me not

            1. Stats from the BLS = appeal to emotion?

  28. World’s Biggest Twilight Tattoo?

    http://io9.com/5726760/worlds-…..ack-tattoo

    1. It’s not a fair contest. Twilight fans have, on average, twice the surface area of other fan-groups! That gives them more room for tattoos!

      1. But she dropped 14 dress sizes!

        1. Only 22 more to size 0.

  29. I will say this about the Super Bowl ads. If I had a real estate agent that looked like that red head in the Century 21 ads, I would probably own a lot of real property right now.

    1. I’d certainly be looking at a lot, anyway.

      1. I guess I’d have to buy a fiat, too. I’d just have to keep it in the back yard and use it for sledgehammer practice.

    2. A redhead could sell me anything. We need the goverment to institute regulations to protect me from their hotness.

  30. “Another thing that really bothered me about online panty hawking over the internet was the way you had to advertise your wares ? with pictures of you in the underwear. In order to rope these paying pervs in, you have to use visuals that will encourage the wanting of the ownership of the drawers in question. There’s really no other way to do it and this non-negotiable aspect of the industry drove me insane. (I realize I was agonizing about something a natural born panty slinger would have just sucked up.) I was sending these guys pictures of my scantily clad nether regions with no guarantee they were going to buy anything at all. I felt like I was contributing to their soft-core porn collections for free. This led me to rage at every picture inquiry that didn’t end in a sale.”

    http://jezebel.com/5881749/i-s…..-found-out

    1. I have a solution… Get a real job. Fuck. Quit othering these poor men.

    2. TL;DR

      How much did her dad end up paying for the panties?

      1. that just makes it kinkier! /perv

        1. “You mean the [panties] your mom laid out for you?”

    3. I can see the appeal in having the panties from a girl whp spent the night, but some random over the internet doesn’t really appeal to me.

  31. Organizing for America has its sights set on Mitt.

    Psst. Ixnay on the iolentvay etoricrhay.

  32. Being Fired for “character” and “work performance” is sexual harassment:

    http://jezebel.com/5878949/my-…..harassment

  33. They (Bloombergers) keep talking about some Clint Eastwood ad which I did not see. Somebody even went so far as to ask how many cars they would sell because of that ad.

    I did not even see the damn thing, and I can tell you the “target market” for that ad was the current occupant of the White House, and any spillover is pretty much irrelevant.

    1. Yeah it was Clint Eastwood narrating an ad about how America will recover because we have such a great work ethic, how Detroit is such a success, etc.

      Fails to point out that every company that wanted to be bailed out has lost millions of dollars of tax payer money, Detroit is a shit hole, and saying “America will recover because we are America” is tantamount to saying “Oh, well I’m glad I live in America so someone else can turn the economy around and I don’t have to accomplish shit.”

      1. In some ways that is true. The country will recover because that is what it does, if left alone. Sadly, we have a government that keeps trying to “help” by putting it foot on the country’s face.

        1. I agree, John. It’s really hard to kill the American economy, but I don’t really want to find out exactly what it takes to do so.

          When Belicheck(sp?) went into the locker room last night, I’m guessing his speech didn’t contain the words “hey, don’t worry guys. We’ll win this easy. Fuck, we’re the Patriots. We can’t lose.”

          Just don’t like encouraging complacency.

      2. I’ve been having to do a lot of work travel this past quarter, and needing to drive rentals. My past four rental vehicles have all been 2011-12 Chrysler products (a Charger and three Jeeps).

        They have all been terrible, terrible cars. Horrifying build quality, cheap materials, uncomfortable, and terrible rides. I got it, they’re rentals. They get the base model. And some of it is my fault, I’m 6’5 and if a driver’s seat doesn’t offer full range of motion I can’t get it to move far enough back, and low enough, to make me really comfy. But there is a difference between the general discomfort I feel in most other not-mine cars I drive, and the feeling that these cars were designed to actually be intentionally uncomfortable.

        If the only way to save Detroit is to buy Chrysler, there isn’t a nuclear device large enough to satiate my desire to turn it into glass.

        Fuck Fiat.

  34. looking for the bilover?—datebi*cO’m— is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can

    find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

  35. That whole scenario about not scoring just pissed me off. If your defense can’t hold Brady for 1:20 instead of :20, why the fuck are you in the Super Bowl?

    Exactly.

    And did the Bills “let” the Giants score intentionally to “save” the clock? “Wylie Coyote Bill Belichick: Super GENIUS” my ass.

    1. The last time it happened was the Packers letting the Broncos score to save time. It didn’t work out well for them either.

      1. Of course it didnt work. Its a desperation strategy.

        Desperation strategies rarely work. Just like the hail mary on the last play. That is why the ones that work stick in our memories, because they usually end exactly like the one last night.

        But, letting the Giants score did get the Pats 20 yards closer before they had to throw the Hail Mary.

        1. But if the Giants hadn’t scored, they would have had to try a field goal, which they might have missed. And the Patriots would have only needed a field goal to win.

          1. I agree. Although I don’t see how letting the Giants score a TD instead of a FG would get the Pats 20 yards closer.

            1. About 45 seconds difference.

              1. That TD was on what, 2nd down? They still might have scared anyway.

                I can’t see how letting the other team score a TD is the right strategy, but then again you’re not supposed to let them drive the field for the last four minutes of the game. The Pats D was never good enough this year to win it all.

        2. I actually wasn’t criticizing from the Pats side. That part I get. You have more control over the outcome of the game inside your own 30 with the ball than without, even being down 4-6 points. The idea that you’d not take the go-ahead score whenever it presented itself is just stupid, though.

          1. I agree. I think that’s why he didn’t do anything but take a second or two more off the clock. They were losing, and I can’t believe they’d risk a turnover, sack, penalty, missed field goal, whatever, because they were cowering in fear over Brady’s ability to drive 80 yards. Given the way the game had gone so far, there was no reason to think they couldn’t win.

          2. Apparently that was Coughlin’s reasoning too. He didnt tell them not to score. Bradford said this morning that Eli yelled “dont score dont score” as he handed off the ball. He processed it about the 2 and couldnt stop.

            1. See, I think he could have stopped, but said “Fuck it. I’ll never get another chance to score the winning touchdown in a Superbowl. I’m going in.”

              1. He would have had to fall into the end zone anyway. Brandon Spikes looked to be about two steps from nailing him at the 1, and the RB might have risked a fumble had he not scored.

              2. Agree Dean. I’ve never gotten a handoff with a minute left in the Super Bowl though, so I’m not really sure how I’d react to those instructions. 😛

                1. I’ve never gotten a handoff with a minute left in the Super Bowl

                  Really? That’s too bad. Trust me, you haven’t lived until you get a handoff, inside the 10, during a Superbowl, while your team is trailing, with a minute left in the game.

                  1. Winning TD: huge fullback turns at goal line, falls back on his ass. Hysterical.

  36. Speaking of officiating, there was an egregious facemask which went uncalled, which (as I recall) might have kept a drive going.

    1. Maybe the officials hate New York. Which I can understand.

      1. Helloooooooo. Haters gone hayt.

  37. Who else watched the Puppy Bowl? Come on. I know I’m not the only one here.

    1. Who else watched the Lingerie Bowl? Come on. I know Warty’s not the only one here.

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

    2. *raises hand*

      I watched the beginning for about 1/2 hour. Who can resist cute puppies? I have five dogs – I cannot resist their cute and adorable antics.

    3. I accidentally caught part of it. It came on after Too Cute Puppies!, right? I only put that on for my daughter stop judging me

  38. I only watched the last quarter of the game, and was mostly bored. The last couple minutes were just a replay of the AFC title game, with the opposite result. Also, didn’t care who won, which didn’t increase my interest.

    Therefore, I’ll STILL watch the NFL next year, because of my long-repressed hope that the Lions might a) MAKE the playoffs again and 2) actually win a playoff game.

    There, I’ve probably jinxed them for a decade, the poor bastards.

    1. The Lions jinx themselves – we are just (as Michiganders) innocent bystanders.

  39. Clint Eastwood narrating an ad about how America will recover because we have such a great work ethic, how Detroit is such a success, etc.

    In my alternate reality fantasy world, it would be Clint telling the President to step down, and take those fucking anti-American ghouls Napolitano. Pistole, and Holder with him so America can be the nation it once was.

    1. Clint’s getting pretty fucking soft in his old age.

  40. Richardson is going to be the guy. He’s the only one with any substance at all, and he’s coming from the governor’s mansion. That’s like having a great defense in football–everyone hypes the other side of the ball up till game time, then defense ends up winning like it always does. Senators are losers when it comes to running for POTUS.

  41. They’d never abuse red light cameras.

    Never!

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…..DTL&ao=all

    1. Your anti-authority fetish is just adorable!

    2. Apparently the state of Iowa has some bills in the legislature that would ban speed cameras/red light cameras in the state.

      Naturally the Pulitzer prize winning and ever-shrinking Des Moines Register has an editorial about why cameras are so awesome. We gotta make money by fining people committing victimless crimes!

      http://webcache.googleusercont…..clnk&gl=us

    3. Apparently the state of Iowa has some bills in the legislature that would ban speed cameras/red light cameras in the state.

      Naturally the Pulitzer prize winning and ever-shrinking Des Moines Register has an editorial about why cameras are so awesome. We gotta make money by fining people committing victimless crimes!

      http://webcache.googleusercont…..clnk&gl=us

      1. A post so nice you should it read it twice!

  42. Took me rather a long time to get my shower to JUST the right temp this morning. I hate when that happens.

    #FirstWorldProblems

  43. Who else watched the Puppy Bowl? Come on. I know I’m not the only one here.

    I watched the last half hour of Alien instead of the halftime extravaganza.

    Does that count?

    1. We had it on for awhile. Its a tradition, now.

    2. I watched the last half hour of Alien instead of the halftime extravaganza.

      What’s the difference?

  44. He processed it about the 2 and couldnt stop.

    I had no idea what the fuck he was doing. I think he stopped, and then said to himself, “It’s the Super Bowl. Fuck it, I’m goin’ in.”

    1. We’re looking into it. If a player can score, he should. The integrity of the game is at stake. Don’t laugh. And now, three minutes of commercials.

    2. I thought he was taunting the defense. Instead of diving in the endzone.

      I would have pulled down my pants and tripped into the endzone, but to each his own.

  45. Somebody spent too much time around Ghaddafy.

    “To round out their squadron of flying boats and UFO project, an estimated 3,500 Iranian women are training in Japanese ninjutsu, according to a state-run news station.”

  46. Rev. Blue Moon |2.6.12 @ 9:56AM|#
    John, there is no excuse for ignorance in the age of Google.

    Actually, I…DON’T…FUCKING…CARE works as an excuse for me every time.

    1. Well, then you, unlike John, would not have asked “who is Cee Lo?”

      1. Actually, I might have momentarily wondered and then said, oh, screw it, I…DON’T…FUCKING…CARE.

        1. If you don’t know who he is, how can you possibly say you don’t care who he is? If you really “don’t know”, he could be a guy who cured cancer, for all you know.

          1. Context, sonny, context.

  47. I thought the Clint Eastwood ad was wretched.

    It was like one of my wife’s arguments: it went on and on and on after you already got the point.

    I left the room, went and did all my laundry, and came back and he was still droning on.

  48. I see R C beat me by about a minute.

    Seriously, are you going to tell your grandkids, “Yeah, I played in the Super Bowl, and I STRATEGICALLY passed on a chance to score a touchdown. In the Super Bowl. I took the handoff, blasted through the line of scrimmage, stopped on the six inch line, looked into the end zone, and fell down. In the Super Bowl. The fucking Super Bowl. That’s what kind of a ballplayer I was.”

    1. I still thought it was weird how he sat down.

      1. I am telling you, he should have Tebowed. Lots of people have scoring winning touchdowns in the Super Bowl. But how many have Tebowed to run the clock out?

  49. About the CAFE standards, have any of the Republican candidates promised to eliminate them? Because I don’t fucking believe the extent to which these totalitarian cocksuckers are willing to gut the greatest economy in world history. I sincerely hope Barack Obama dies slowly and painfully, that fucking tyrant.

  50. If you don’t want to score, don’t hand off the ball. Take a knee.

    1. That doesn’t use up much time, or move the ball forward.

  51. Obama is the worst President since Hoover. Utterly hopeless.

    That’s unfair to Hoover.

    Now, if you want to compare 0 to LBJ (or Nixon), knock yourself out.

    1. Franklin Delano mother-fucking Roosevelt.

      1. Or TR, who was a complete pig-fucker.

        The Big O loves being compared to that imperialistic narcissist.

        1. TR came before Hoover so he’s not in the running.

          But when it comes to presidents since Hoover the only ones I can think of who were actually better are Ike, Reagan and Clinton.

          The remainder would very likely have screwed up just as badly if confronted with the conditions that Hoover faced.

          And if intelligence and decency were the primary qualifications for a successful presidency Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter would be in a photo finsh miles ahead of the rest of the pack.

          1. Anyone who calls Reagan a fiscal conservative must pay their mortgage with a credit card.

            Isn’t he the guy who started to current tradition of doubling the debt every term?

            1. I didn’t call Reagan a fiscal conservative. And, yes, his failure to get spending completely under control is to his discredit. Although the same people who sabotaged Jimmy Carter were the ones who actually held the purse strings for most of his administration as well.

              1. That first sentence should actually read:

                “I didn’t call Reagan a fiscal conservative any more than I called Ike or Clinton fiscal conservatives.”

                1. What I said was that they had cleared the relatively low bar of being better presidents than HH.

                  1. I dunno. The federal government exploded under Reagan. The deficit was cranked to the point of no return, the military industrial complex kaboomed, extorting states into passing laws as a condition of federal funds became common place, the war on drug users became paramilitary…

                    If actions speak louder than words, Reagan’s actions were not those of someone who loves liberty.

                    1. Actually, in the decade 1951-1961 the federal debt increased by about ten per cent. In 1961-1971 the increase was about forty per cent. In 1971-1981 the federal debt increased by a factor of about two and a half times. In 1981-1991 the number was roughly three and a half.

                      The increase in the federal debt was a spiral that had started before Reagan became president.

                      Much of the increase in the eighties was due to high interest rates on an allready high debt. The remainder was mostly due to higher spending on entitlements enacted in the seventies who’s full costs started to be seen in the eighties.

                      You’re quite right to say that spending is out of control but blaming it all on Reagan is off target.

                      Reagan’s actions were not those of someone who loves liberty.

                      And when did we have a president whose “actions were…those of someone who loves liberty”?

                      Oh, and contrary to myth, Reagan’s military spending increases were only slightly higher than those projected by the Carter Administration. Entitlement spending on programs already in place grew at a much higher rate and accounted for the bulk of the debt increase.

                      You seem to be suffering under the same illusion that others seem to have that Reagan had access to some magical revenue enhancing spigot that he failed to open.

                    2. You seem to be suffering under the same illusion that others seem to have that Reagan had access to some magical revenue enhancing spigot that he failed to open.

                      I don’t know where that came from.

                      My point is that the federal government ballooned under Reagan.
                      Whether or not he followed Carter’s projections doesn’t matter. He didn’t have to.
                      Whether or not the entitlement programs were already in place doesn’t matter. He could have cut them or not expanded them.

                      For him to be hailed as a conservative hero is a bunch of crap.

                      Much personal liberty was swept away on his watch. Between MADD, the war on drug users, paramilitarization of the the police and the greater use of SWAT, exploding prison populations (doubled on his watch)…

                    3. He could have cut them or not expanded them.

                      No, only Congress can do that. The congresses that Reagan had rejected even his lukewarm requests to cut entitlements.

                      Congress holds the purse strings. At any time during the 198s, or any other decade, congress could have balanced the federal budget (or not voted for mandatory minimums or whatever). They didn’t.

                    4. I’m not really sure why I spent that much time arguing.

                      I made a statement. You disagree.

                      If you disagree that reagan belongs on th BTHH list, fine. You provided plenty of reasons why he was defficient as a president, many of which I agree with.

                      The issue wasn’t whether Reagan was the best president, just that he was better than Herbert Hoover.

                      I would have though that the more controversial part of my statement should have been that every president since HH except those three has been worse.

                      At least no one showed up to tell us how great JFK was. 🙂

                    5. Also, FWIW, it is my opinion that those things you are complaining about would have happened no matter who the president was. The American people turn reactionary in the eighties.

                      On the other hand, I doubt that Warren Harding or Calvin Coolidge would have reacted the same way that Hoover did to the Crash.

                      Neither one had that level of faith in the ability of government to engineer great social outcomes the way that Hoover did.

          2. And if intelligence and decency were the primary qualifications for a successful presidency Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter would be in a photo finish miles ahead of the rest of the pack.

            How does Truman stack up with that list? Or are we figuring that anyone who could rise as high as he did in the Pendergast machine had to be dirty by definition?

            1. “[I]ntelligence and decency” are the last qualities I think of when considering Harry Truman.

      2. Jackson basically unilaterally ignored the other two branches of government in order to break a treaty and carry out complete ethnic cleansing that would make Balkans envious.

        1. IIANM, the issue at hand is presidents who have held office since Herbert Hoover.

  52. I also have a Puppy Bowl confession.

    My wife had heard that in addition to a kitten halftime show, this year’s Puppy Bowl was adding a piglet pep squad.

    “A piglet pep squad?” I said. “That sounds really cute.”

    But then when the show came on the piglets were all those black pot belly style pigs. And I thought to myself, “Man, pink piglets are so much cuter than these homely black ones.”

    And then I thought:

    Man, that is straight up racist.

    1. I completely squeeeeeeeed over the piglet cheerleaders, and I’m not at all ashamed about it. Plus, that one kitty totally stole the ref’s flag.

  53. Although I did wonder why the Giants didn’t run a more elaborate time-consuming play on the two-point conversion attempt. Whether they got the two points, or where the ball ended up didn’t matter, so they could have ran a double-reverse, lateral, whatever.

    1. Clock doesn’t run on conversions or extra points.

      1. Oh right. Then what was the point of the two-point conversion? Hoping the Pats might miss an extra point?

        1. Yup. After the Giant TD, the Pats have to score a TD or they lose. If the Giants kick an extra point, then the Pats win with a TD. If the Giants get the conversion, then the Pats tie with the TD, and need the extra point to win.

          No reason not to try the conversion.

          1. Absolutely the right call and no downside.

      2. Some crazy elaborate play for the conversion would make sense if the game clock did run. I believe the NFL doesn’t allow the defense to score on conversion attempts (dead ball once the defense takes possession). Different in college, of course.

  54. about that ABC Poll:

    WaPo/ABC ends sample transparency in national polling
    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..l-polling/

    More importantly, though, the poll series has dropped its reporting of partisan identification within their samples. It’s the second time that the poll has not included the D/R/I split in its sample report, and now it looks as though this will be policy from this point forward. Since this is a poll series that has handed double-digit partisan advantages to Democrats in the past (for instance, this poll from April 2011 where the sample only had 22% Republicans), it’s not enough to just hear “trust us” on sample integrity from the Washington Post or ABC.

    One cannot determine whether Obama’s improvement in this series is a result of the State of the Union speech, as Dan Balz and Jon Cohen suggest, or whether it’s due to shifting the sample to favor Democrats more so than in previous samples. The same is true for the Post’s report that Obama “for the first time has a clear edge” over Romney head-to-head. One would need a poll of registered or likely voters to actually make that claim (one has to register to cast a vote, after all), and one would need to see the difference in partisan splits between this and other surveys in the series to determine whether the movement actually exists or got manufactured by the pollster.

  55. Question about local control versus central control:

    The Nevada State GOP is blaming the counting/reporting fiasco on the local county GOP organisations.

    They say the locals refused to do things their way and thus put half-assed, non-professional measures in place.

    As a libertarian, my first instinct is, ‘fuck you’ local control is best.’ but the County GOPs did fuck this up.

    So, what’s the libertarian response to this? The only one I can think of really is ‘hey local mistakes stay local and centralised mistake screw up everything. Imagine 2000 with butterfly ballots in every state.’

    Also, you know who else wanted local govt control?

    “The regional governors will now have direct control”

    1. Private entities can screw up their elections all they like. The GOP is not a governmental entity. The GOP could determine via a Council of Elders that Gov. X will be the candidate, for all I care.

      1. Yes, but the idea of central/decentralised is often touted as a principle that applies to the federal govt, so if decetralised creates mistakes then that has bearing on the govt debate.

        1. decentralization is federalism. Its a separate idea from libertarianism.

          You can, in theory, be a federalist libertarian or a centrist libertarian.

          I think federalism is the better idea because I think that disperal of power is good. Get decisions as close to the people it effects as possible.

          That isnt a statement about competence.

          1. Actually, its an ACHKNOWLEDGEMENT of incompetence. Mistakes will be made, better they be made at the county level and 700k people screwed than made at the national level and 300M screwed.

        2. Jumbie, decentralization is to, as robc said, to disperse power, not to ensure competence.

          1. Its damage control, is what it is. You assume people with power will screw up, so you give them as little scope as possible.

            1. So, last weekend I got into a political argument at a bar with some socialist. At some point I yelled POWER TO THE PEOPLE, and then pointed out that unlike the creators of the slogan, I meant it, I wanted as much power as possible to reside with the individual. He got pissed off and roamed off to talk to others instead.

              1. When I meet someone who claims to be a socialist I ask if they are a Voluntary Socialist or a Coercive Socialist. I explain that I have no problem with people who live on 1960’s style communes or Kibbutzes or monasteries because these are voluntary organizations and that I only have a problem who want to force ME to participate in their socialism. This shifts the argument towards one of force vs. voluntarism.

            2. Yeah, I accept the spread out your mistakes principle.

              But thinking back to say FEMA in NOLA, we hear a lot about how FEMA stopped locals from doing things that could have worked and local control would prima facie have been better because they understood the local conditions and needs better.

              This seems to be a case of locals not understanding what would work.

              1. ‘This’ meaning the Nevada counties.

      2. This.

        And its up to the National/State GoP to set rules for local GoP if they want. Or not.

  56. So, what’s the libertarian response to this?

    Pure, cleansing flame.

  57. In dog bites man news, Tour de France winner convicted of doping. I can’t figure out why they don’t just stop giving the tests. Everybody dopes, the guys who train hardest still win. Just quit testing. No Frenchman is going to win anyways.

  58. Reagan’s actions were not those of someone who loves liberty.

    Reagan was pretty much a pawn of the nannies (WOD, 21 drinking age, anyone?).

    1. The only really positive move made was “staying the course” with the Volcker treatment (which to be sure was started under Carter). Many others would have knuckled under to political pressures to pressure the Fed to ease up. That’s the main reason he made my list of BTHH (better than Herbert Hoover) presidents.

  59. It is well known that the christian louboutin Evening shoescan show your beauty and fasion. By wearing them, you wll be the most beautiful woman in the world. Also, the boots are important for your health. The beautiful and sexy boots can help tone the body, condition muscles and improve the sex life by working out the pelvic muscles.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.