Government Spending

Is This the Sort of Chip Manufacturer Obama Has in Mind?

|

Does the first lady know about this? The Suffolk Times reports that North Fork Potato Chips of Mattituck, Long Island, recently received a $50,000 USDA grant to promote its salty, fat-laden, calorie-packed products. The grant, which the company will use to update its website and brochures, was awarded under the Value-Added Producer Grant Program, which is "designed to help companies expand their businesses to a wider audience." Maybe the folks at the the farmers' markets that the federal government is subsidizing as a way of improving nutrition and curbing obesity.

[Thanks to Ted Balaker for the tip.]

NEXT: Reason.tv: "Markets Not Capitalism," Says Professor Gary Chartier

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. Maybe the folks at the the farmers’ markets that the federal government is subsidizing as a way of improving nutrition and curbing obesity.

    Maybe the folks at the farmers’ markets what?…

    1. Maybe the folks at the the farmers’ markets that the federal government is subsidizing as a way of improving nutrition and curbing obesity… can finish this sentence.

    2. The last sentence refers back to the “wider audience” in the second-to-last sentence.

    3. Valentine’s day is around the corner.why not to find a sexy babe to hook up?Bi-curious? =====Datebi.c/O’M===is designed for bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment. It hopes that all members can make new friends and establish romantic relationships.

  2. “” Maybe the folks at the the farmers’ markets that the federal government is subsidizing as a way of improving nutrition and curbing obesity.””

    Of course. The government needs the “problem” to grow to create the need for their “solution”.

  3. What the fucking fuck. God dammit. Fuck all these stupid grant programs. Shit.

    1. Now is not the time for austerity. This money is saving or creating jobs!

    2. Insurrectionist militia tea-bagger neo-Confederates telling the Glorious God-Emperor what he can and cannot do? Heh! Run along, libertard!

      /DNC

      1. we’ve never needed a lasgun/bridge/river combo more.

  4. What a coinkydink! This is from my Facebook feed, from the Virginia Wineries Association (shut yo mouf – VA wine is awesome!).

    Virginia Wine
    Congrats to Rosemont of Virginia Vineyards & Winery – they were awarded $300,000 from a matching USDA grant!
    http://www.vancnews.com/news/a…..3ce6c.html

    1. Let them know that you won’t be buying of their Welfare Wine.

      1. Go ahead and help yourself to it. Anyone tells me I don’t now own 50k worth of chips, every volt ever made, fuck you. Loot that shit. Fuck it up. I’m starting to take this shit personally. If I were to be “stealing” from taxpayers, fuck them for enabling this shit in the first place.

      2. Welfare Wine should be the name of a song.

        1. the number one single off “I’m Drunk, Bitch” by the “Lowdown Dirty Hobo Jugband”

      3. I’m not familiar with Rosemont, so that won;t be a problem. I like Barboursville, and some Horton.

    2. Va wine is aweseome! Picked up some great reds at Barboursville and whites at Keswick a couple of weeks ago. I’m hoping to see more Chambourcin grapes- that seems to do well in VA.

      1. This comment paid for by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

      2. Chambourcin makes a nice wine — grows nicely in the mid-west as well.

    3. If it’s so awesome, why did they need a grant?
      (neener, neener…)

      1. To be doctrinally cleansed.

        1. Sieg heil, mother-fuckers.

      2. We have to make up for those who cling to their guns, religion and crappy craft beers.

      3. If someone offered to give you $300,000 what would you do?

        1. If someone offered to help you steal $300k from a bank, what would you do?

          1. ^This

            Similarly, if someone offered me $300,000 that they stole from a little old lady, I wouldn’t touch that shit with a 10-foot pole.

            1. Then again, if the little old lady had stolen $1M from me, I wouldnt have a problem with stealing $300k back.

          2. Call me a thief, then. I have an obligation to my shareholders to maximize shareholder value.

            1. Not true.

              There are legal, ethical, and moral limits to that obligation.

              If you are the CEO of a christian bookstore, you arent obligated to carry pornography, for example.

              1. I have a cunning plan: Launch a Christian pornography website.

                1. Launch a Christian pornography website

                  Rule 34 says it exists.

                  1. You’d think so, but the seeming contradiction makes me wonder. May be a joke site along those lines, but what about one that actually focuses on and caters to a Christian audience? The Bible doesn’t actually oppose masturbation (the bit about Onan is misread, as his sin was defying God, not spilling his seed), so why not?

                    1. So far I have successful resisted googling attempts.

                      Also, any while I agree there is nothing opposing masturbation in the Bible, there is plenty against lust.

                    2. Which is why BustyChristianBabes.com will be such a hit. Because lust will be drained by its users, purifying them.

                      Yes, someone else will have to research whether this has been attempted. Maybe a fringe church?

                    3. No matches for that domain.

                    4. I don’t think there is necessarily a contradiction. Not all Christians oppose pornography.

                    5. I hereby donate the domain name, trademark, and concept to the Reason Foundation, provided that the billions they make are used to promote libertarian values. And that I get some serious coin at some point.

              2. Yes, you are not required to go outside the ordinary course of business.

                I don’t see how the 300,000 applies. Now IF that 300K came with strings, I think under the BJR that you could reject it, but a carte blanche NSA 300K? You will get sued, I promise.

                1. Not if you were founded as a libertarian business.

                2. On an unrelated note, shareholder lawsuits are almost universally the biggest load of crap ever.

          3. Unless you oppose all taxation of any kind, I don’t think you can claim that taking a grant from the government is the same as stealing from a bank. Particularly when the money is getting spent on something similar no matter what you do. I’m not entirely convinced that symbolic acts of morality count for anything when they have no way of actually changing anything for the better.

        2. It’s money taken through taxation. I wouldn’t take a fucking cent.

          1. Well all the time ya spend trying to get back what’s been took from ya, more is going out the door. After a while you just have to try to get a tourniquet on it.

          2. What about ROAADDSS!!!

            (sorry, couldn’t help myself)

    4. We have the Williamsburg Winery, which has not received a USDA grant, but has crappy wine.

      WHAT DO I DO?

      1. I concur about Williamsburg Winery. And Loudoun Valley. Dreck.

    5. I’m going to raise your USDA grant with

      SOLAR ENERGY FOR MARYLAND WINERY – COURTESY OF THE TAXPAYER

      1. Does that mean taxpayers get free wine?

        1. You get the privilege of feeling good about contributing to buy an electric Nissan and some solar panels for some winery outside Baltimore. Does that help?

          1. *Mixes sleeping pills with lethal dose of cocaine, cocks Ruge* Do I have a fuckin’ choice, Mac?

          2. Um, do they get enough sun annually to even make that worthwhile?

            1. It’s a governmental grant. Who gives a shit about logical considerations? It’s not their money. They couldn’t give less a damn.

              1. Along those lines, who feels good about the government wanting to put subsidized biofuels in your airplane?

                http://blogs.usda.gov/2012/01/…..-biofuels/

                1. Fuck that shit.

    6. Congrats to Rosemont of Virginia Vineyards & Winery – they were awarded $300,000 from a matching USDA grant!

      Congrats! Rich guys just pocketed a ton of your cash.

      Or as old-time mobsters would say, takin’ food outta my kids mouth!

  5. “Let me be clear: The first person to tell Mrs. Obama about this will never see the Predator drone coming. That will be all.”

    1. Beat me to it. My first thought was, “My god, does the first lady know about this!?”

      1. (Mouth full of chips) Mff the mmff!

    2. just wait’ll we have green AI killbots which dont have to land…well, ‘cept to re-arm.

      USA USA USA!!1!111!!

  6. This is nothing compared to corn subsidies.

    1. As long as it remains “nothing” compared to some other program, we’ll tolerate an infinite amount of ‘nothing compared to…’

      Thank you sir, can I have another nothing?

      1. Thank you sir, can I have another nothing?

        Have you submitted the proper applications?

  7. What do you expect? Everyone knows the only true fork is South Fork.

    1. Big South Fork National Park. Beautiful area.

  8. We must take this budget deficit seriously (straight face). seriously( grin). (ROFL) ok ok I can’t do it.

  9. Maybe Reason can get a grant to update it’s website.

    1. It was earmarked under SOPA.

      1. tricksy bastards.

  10. What about us?

  11. And if he wins the nomination, Mitt Romney will do everything he can to stop this crony bullshit, right? Right?

    1. Yes, he will stop this crony bullshit. He’ll then promptly replace it with his own.

      1. Which may, in fairness, be even more hysterically pointless.

      2. I doubt he would even stop this bullshit. I doubt that this is new or unusual. Promoting products has been a mission of the USDA from day 1.

        1. One of the many department, it seems, that must be obliterated on a President Paul Day 1, eh?

    2. And if he wins the nomination, Mitt Romney will do everything he can to stop this crony bullshit, right?

      [sprays potato chip crumbs at screen]

      1. Don’t worry — I, myself, cringed the skin off of my face writing that.

        God help us all.

      2. sprays potato chip crumbs

        This sounds like an innovative new product deserving of a USDA grant.

  12. For the WWI buffs:
    German soldiers preserved in World War I shelter discovered after nearly 100 years

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..years.html

    1. I saw that. I can only hope the concussion killed them and they didn’t smother under the dirt. What a horrible way to die.

      1. Horrible yes, but then they had no business being in France did they?

        1. Considering that the Imperial Germans shot deserters and draft dodgers, they really didn’t have much of a choice. Yeah, all the deaths of the war can be laid at the feet of the Germans.

      2. They smothered, or were trapped.

        1. They were apparently found sitting as they were when the explosion happened. Not trapped, just frozen in time.

          1. Surrounded by soil.

  13. That’s some sour krauts

    1. l0l

    2. Bravo, Scruffy. Bra. Vo.

      1. I’m here all week

    3. booooooo.

      but still funny.

  14. “For too long we have tolerated a potato chip distribution system that’s a complex, inefficient, and loophole-riddled mess. The growing gap of potato chip access between the wealthy and the most unfortunate in this country must be addressed. Some say we must choose between a nation of no salty snacks, or one divided by potato and wheat. Let me be clear: I reject the idea that we cannot fill the potato chip needs of an entire nation. We can be, and will be, be a nation engorged on a wide variety of salty snacks. Thank you.”

    1. The poor should have access to the top-of-the-line chips like Kettle Brand Spicy Thai, and not just that oily crap that Lays puts out.

      Tater chip redistribution NOW!

      1. And anything made by UTZ.

        1. UTZ makes a helluva cheesy poof, though. And crab chips.

          1. Old Bay baby. Old Bay.

            1. I was very disappointed when I found that the “Crab Chips” tasted like Old Bay seasoning and not like crab. False advertising.

        2. UTZ chips suck with the exception of the Red Hot variety.

          Too thin, too much salt, greasy, blech.

          1. You are a hopeless Philistine. Too much salt? What are you watching you diet? Utz rule.

            1. Like I said, I like Utz Red Hot chips.
              Their Pub Mix is to die for.

              1. I like their salt and vinegar.

                1. Lay’s Kettle Cooked salt and vinegar are the best!

                2. You ever tried their Red Hot chips?

                  They’ll make your scalp sweat.

            2. I’m sensitive to salt. Always have been. Too much is painful.

              1. Ok. then I take it back. I can eat enough salt to supply a stone age village.

          2. The fact that the FTC prevented them from merging makes Utz taste better. Fuck the FTC.

  15. OT:

    So lately like the past 6 months reason.com has been very slow and would freeze my screen every so often and it was constantly showing loading contact with ad companies…ie it never says “Done” at the bottom of my browser.

    anyway i got a tracking blocker ad-on for my browser and the problems went away.

    I realize reason needs ads and it brings in revenue…i like helping reason so i like getting ads…but when it slows my web browsing and freezes my screen i will block it if i can.

    I have blocked it…sorry…tell me when it is fixed and i will happily stop blocking it.

    1. I just block all javascrip & flash. I also use reasonable. I see a few ads & everything works fine.

  16. http://dailycaller.com/2012/02…..mies-list/

    The David Brock enemies list.

    1. KOCHTOPUS!

      1. You knew they were going to be on there. It is too bad the major media is totally left and would never go after someone on their side for anything but being insufficiently leftist. A full 60 Minutes treatment of Brock, including the obligatory ambush interview, would be made for TV entertainment. What a nut.

    2. Why is Carly Fiorina on there?

      1. Brock probably thinks she has tapped into his computer.

      2. She’s a Republican, isn’t she?

        1. Yeah, but not a notorious party hack like the others. Must be because she was running against Boxer, Queen of California.

    3. Conservative think thanks
      The Heritage Foundation
      American Enterprise Institute
      Cato Institute

      Poor Cato. Depending on the day, they can be hated by Media Matters, Fox News, and Paleos.

      1. The price of not being directly associated with one of the two main parties.

      2. I haz a sad that Reason isn’t on there.

        1. Me too. That was the first thing I looked for. Although isn’t Reason part of the Kochtopus?

          1. Why is WorldNetDaily on there? Do people take anything on there seriously?

            1. I laughed at that too. It is like putting Eric Dondero on the list.

              1. Final note: why Bill O’Reilly?

                1. why Bill O’Reilly?

                  Maybe dude’s afraid of leprechauns?

            2. Unfortunately, yes

        2. I haz a sad that Reason isn’t on there.

          If poeple looked to hard at reason they would discover that Reason is more socially liberal then the democratic party. Media matters does not want to happen ever. So they keep it off the list.

          They get away with calling Cato conservative because Cato tends to talk exclusively about economic rights.

    4. One of those singled out for scrutiny in the memo is PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, a self-described libertarian. Thiel “directly funded, through a small government group, prior racist attack videos by James O’Keefe, the right-wing operative who staged the recent ACORN video sting,” states the memo.

      This makes me want to use Paypal more.

      1. IIRC, paypal was really quick to jump on the anti-online poker train, making it impossible to use their service for “gaming” even before that odious law was passed. I’m not sure, but they may also have provided customer info to the Feds as well. Sooooooo libertarian.

        Of course, when I try to google I just get a bunch of links on how to get around Paypal’s restriction.

        1. Was that before or after eBay bought them?

      2. Paypal is sort of an ass now, and don’t forget Palantir. Unless he was running some kind of long con with the latter, which would sort of fit with the name, actually.

  17. As always, if you want to destroy someone… don’t write it down. Ever. I mean, if you hate them so badly, you shouldn’t have trouble remembering.

    1. Fascists always keep excellent records.

      1. And their high speed trains run on time!

        1. The Nazis were nuts about paperwork. Shirer made a number of comments about the mountains of documents that were available to him after the war, and I think he was surprised that the Nazis didn’t do a better job of destroying their records.

          1. Germans burning paperwork? Nein. It would be like the British rioting over long queues.

  18. http://rightwingnews.com/speci…..-pictures/

    Some dude I have never heard of’s pictures from CPAC. God damn there were some good looking women at that thing. A few cows. But some really nice ones too. And all the men look like they haven’t hit a gym since high school. I am think there is a serious market inefficiency going on there.

    1. I went to your link and saw one girl (the Too Hot for C-SPAN shirt girl) that was cute. ONE. Out of all of that. You have the worst taste in women.

      1. Bullshit. Ten to one you have never been on a date with a woman as nice looking as Ashley Sewell, Jenny Erickson or Katie Pavich. And Dana Lousch is really hot. Like I said, there were some cows. But not all of them were.

        The bullshit around here about women is waist deep. Any woman that doesn’t look like she fell out of a Victoria Secret catalog is somehow beneath contempt.

        I have fine taste in women. You are just a bullshit artist.

        1. Maybe he likes his women to fit into something smaller than a size twelve.

          1. None of those women I mentioned were a size 12.

            And besides, I have apparently reformed you. You linked to those live mannequins this morning and they were actual women instead of transvestites.

            1. Really? I thought they’d be too skinny for your chubby chasing standards.

              1. No you are standards are changing without you even realizing it. You are finding women attractive. We will make a heterosexual out of you yet.

            2. NTTAWWT – Chubbies need sex too.

              1. Chubs can better take care of them self if they want it.

            3. No, they aren’t all fat. They’re just all ugly.

        2. Any woman that doesn’t look like she fell out of a Victoria Secret catalog is somehow beneath contempt.

          Um pretty much, yes.

          1. A few of thems are even kind of meh. But using Victoria’s Secret as a standard, everyday selection for me is more comparable than CPAC.

        3. When I was at Heritage, I was expecting to see nothing but old ladies with mustaches, before I arrived. I was never so happy to be disappointed.

          They had some of the hottest women I’ve ever worked with. One dept VP was particular to hiring suth’n belles.

          1. You were fooling yourself JW. You should have brought in sarcasmic. He could have explained to you how all those 20 somethings were ugly.

            1. And there was a good deal of fucking going on there, make no mistake. Not a whole lot of practicing what you preached.

              I was married, so none for me. (And yes, that works no matter how you look at that line.)

            2. It’s nice to see that you’re into women with big arms and big noses because that’s the most common trait in all those women. That being said, on second look I did see Andrea Tantaros and she’s a hottie so that makes two women in that whole photo gallery that I would consider attractive.

        4. I’m with you John. There seems to be a judging women’s appearances version of “internet tuff gai” that goes on all over. H&R is hardly unique.
          Though I will agree with the others that there is a distinction to be made between someone who you would consider attractive if you met them in a normal social situation and someone who you would think was hot that you see in a magazine or something.

          1. Subjective matters are subjective. I think my wife is attractive and she doesn’t look anything like any of those women. If there were women in there that had features that I find attractive in women I would gladly admit that I find them attractive. Maybe it was just a bad photographer that couldn’t get a proper picture.

            1. True. I think my wife is attractive too, but I know that no one is going to link approvingly to her picture on the internet.
              Actually, I now feel dumber just for thinking about this. It doesn’t matter. You are into what you are into, have fun with it.

          2. Of course there is that distinction Zeb. But that is not the one they are making. They are saying there are women you would sleep with and never want to be seen with, which is true to some degree.

            I am not saying someone like Loesch is on the level of a model in a magazine or an actress. But if you met her in a bar and thought “she is too ugly for me”, I call shenanigans.

            1. But if you met her in a bar and thought “she is too ugly for me”, I call shenanigans.
              reply to this

              Oh, I definitely agree with you here.

              Also, women in magazines don’t really look like that. And I don’t think that I would have any interest in anyone wearing that much makeup in real life.

              1. Or that much plastic surgery.

      2. after uve been married awhile, the hot standard morphs into good enough

        1. No. If you have a dick and enjoy sex, good enough is good enough. “She is not hot enough” is usually just pig latin for “I don’t have the balls to hit on her”.

          1. “She is not hot enough too thin, like Kate Moss” is usually just pig latin for “I don’t have the balls to hit on her”.

            ftfy

          2. Nonsense. I’ve dated some very attractive women while in college, but couldn’t keep any of them long-term. I find my wife attractive, but I have a thing for Asians, and I wouldn’t expect others to find her “hot”.

            1. I am sure you did. And I am sure you wife is lovely. I am talking the people for whom no women is ever hot enough and perfectly acceptable looking women are somehow always just not good enough.

          3. And on a side-note, there’s a world of difference between, “I’d hit that”, and “She’s hot!”

            I can have sex with a chick I only find mildly attractive.

            1. I see that is a distinction without difference.

              1. That’s where the disagreement boils down then…I see a huge gulf of difference between those two concepts.

                I’ve related this story before, but it belongs here. We were looking at chicks doing the one-through-ten thing at a bar back in college, and this Irish dude who was with us lost it. He said, “You Americans, with your stupid complicated ratings and scales! It’s either 1, or 0: you’ll fuck it, or you won’t!”

                And I do think there’s something to that. We were walking around at the ren faire (pls make fun of me if you wish) just popping off with, “1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1…” all day. One dude said it sounded like we had binary tourettes. And most of the time when somebody said, “zero”, we’d look at him, and say, “be honest!”, and he’d hang his head in shame and admit it was a “one”.

                1. You can rate all you like. But if you will look at a woman like Loesch and say “she is funny looking I wouldn’t be seen with her” they you are either lying or nuts. I would say 80% of the women under 50 in the world are not as attractive as Loesch. People like Sarcasmic and Angus make me laugh. To have standards that make otherwise attractive women unattractive because they are just not perfect is just stupid. What is the point? No woman is perfect after she hits 19 anyway.

                  I always found guys who couldn’t appreciate anything but the absolute hottest of women to be really fucking weird and oddly misogynistic.

            2. Exactly. There’s a difference between someone you’d screw and someone you would want to be seen with.

              1. Good luck with that. Most women who don’t charge by the hour actually expect you to talk to them. And they have a nasty habit of being seen with you.

              2. If you wouldn’t be seen with the two women in the first picture or Loesch, you are stupid are lying.

                1. Or, in my case, you’ve got something even better at home.

                  1. I am sure you do. But in that case, you wouldn’t want to be seen with any of them no matter how good looking. That is not the point.

                    1. The one on the left is pretty nice looking.
                      The one on the right looks like she’d balloon right after the wedding.

                2. If you wouldn’t be seen with the two women in the first picture or Loesch, you are stupid are lying.

                  Or you just don’t find them attractive. Don’t be such a butthurt douche John.

                  1. You are the one who is butt hurt and felt the need to snark at me.

                    1. You posted a gallery of unattractive women, called them hot, and called everyone stupid liars for not agreeing with you. It wasn’t snark, it was my opinion compared to yours. You got all butthurt because NOBODY else agreed with you.

                    2. Yeah! What Sparky said!

                    3. They are not unattractive. And only you and sarcasmic bitched about it. And if you don’t find at least some of those women attractive, then you don’t find the overwhelming majority of women in the world attractive. And for that I really feel sorry for both you.

                    4. We didn’t bitch about it. We disagreed.

                      You’re the one being a bitch.

                    5. Also John, so you are aware, you are using ad-hominem argument tactics right now, straight out of the playbook of your gay lover MNG.

                    6. I am not attacking you at all Sarcasmic. I am just saying that you seem to find most women unattractive. There are very few women in the world who look like Kate Moss. If that is the standard, then maybe you just don’t like women. If I hated 95% Porsches made and thought they were funny looking, it would be safe to say that maybe I am a Ferrari guy. NTTAWWT

                    7. There are very few women in the world who look like Kate Moss.

                      And I got to marry one who looks pretty darn close.

                      Lucky me!

                    8. You seem to think that the women in those picture represent 95% of women in the world. If that’s the case, then my wife is in the other 5%. Feel sorry if you like, but like sarcasmic I have a woman at home that is pleasing to my eye.

                    9. Why do you people hate women so much? I hate to go all Jezzebelle but good lord. Every woman is ugly or fat, or if she is not fat she will get fat after she is married. I would love to hear what women say about you.

                    10. Do you consider size 9 fat? I don’t, that’s what size my wife is. I think the problem is, you’re judging how attractive they are by their body. Someone with nice skin and a decent body = attractive to you. Sorry, I was actually looking at their faces.

                    11. There is nothing wrong with a nine. And I am sure your wife is lovely. You are the one saying most women are unattractive, not me.

                    12. And for that I really feel sorry for both you.

                      Save it.

                      I’ve got a pretty redhead who looks great in size four jeans, ready to romp as soon as the wee one is put to bed.

                      No sympathy needed.

                    13. I am sure she would love to know that if she ever hits a size six, you will call her a cow and not want to be seen with her again.

                      Why don’t go home and tell her that tonight? That way she will be motivated not to turn into a fatty. Good luck with that.

                    14. I am sure she would love to know that if she ever hits a size six, you will call her a cow and not want to be seen with her again.

                      Them’s fighting words, Johnny.

                      I love my wife.

                    15. The whole point of that went over your head. I am sure do love your wife. And if she isn’t a cow at size eight, then neither are other women.

                      And speaking if fighting words, who said my wife was fat?

                    16. You’re just jealous that I’m getting a lap dance every night from a beautiful (thin) woman while you’re waxing your carrot to internet porn.

                      TFB loser

      3. I agree, the CSPAN one is the only one I’d be interested in going to a bar with to decide if I want to bang her. Not even hot enough for me to instantly say “I’d hit that”. The others were scary or funny looking.

        1. You wouldn’t bang Lousch? I would. And the cute brunette with the short hair in the first picture? There is nothing wrong with her.

          1. Angus and guys who say those kind of things about being ultra picky are guys who aren’t getting laid at all, because no chick ever meets their standards.

            1. What a terrible way to live.

            2. “because no chick ever meets their standards.”

              Yeah. That’s why their not getting laid.

          2. “Lousch?”

            Loesch. Her hair looks like she hasn’t taken a shower.

            “brunette with the short hair in the first picture?”

            Scary looking.

            “Pavich”

            Not bad.

            1. In the married over 40 mom weight class, she is extremely cute.

              https://www.google.com/search?q=dana+loesch&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=znU5T7zPC8qftweqrsDvCQ&biw=1440&bih=680&sei=0XU5T66UKMiTtwfeuYGrAg

              And calling Sewell, a thin women in her 20s with nice skin and a decent body “scary looking” is white indian level stupid. I don’t know, maybe young attractive women scare you.

              1. Its mostly the Picasso mouth in combination with the hair look. And her fly is open.

                Looking for trim at a politics thing is a standard just below going to a bar.

              2. Sparky hit it on the nose. I bet you dig four down on the right, the scariest one.

                1. Her nose could be smaller but so what? She is still cute and still has a good body. As I said above, you guys apparently find 90 to 95% of the women in the world unattractive. That is your choice, but at some point you might ask yourselves whether you really like women very much. I mean you think the vast majority of them are ugly and scary looking. NTTAWWT

                  1. True. There’s a lot of low cards out there. 10% of total probably gets me to around 33% of 18 to 35, which is a respectable selection. Then comes the personality evaluation.

                    1. If you only think 1/3 of the women between the ages of 18-33 are attractive, you have never been to a college campus, let alone one in the South.

                    2. If you only think 1/3 of the women between the ages of 18-33 are attractive, you have never been to a college campus, let alone one in the South.

                      Dammit John, why do you keep saying dumb things. If you put together all of the women on all college campuses you wouldn’t get 33% of 18-33 year-old women. Where they are located is irrelevant to the statistics.

                    3. Damn it Sparky, you are stupid or nuts if you think at least a good majority of women under the age of 35 are not attractive. Not all of them are knockouts. But most of them are at least attractive.

                    4. There is quite a difference between “not ugly” and “attractive”. Maybe that’s not a distinction you make.

                    5. Yes, I have, spent years near a college campus. Not quite rebel, but it is in the redneck south. Plenty of bugawulfs or girls that would be attractive, but sucked as people. Talking about the ones that hang around the “bros”. That was at least half of them right there.

                    6. I am speaking physically Angus. I won’t speak to their personalities.

                    7. Physically, 33% of total college girls is a good number. And most of the time I can be more selective than that, for example, skipping ones who wear trashy shit.

              3. And calling Sewell, a thin women in her 20s with nice skin and a decent body “scary looking” is white indian level stupid.

                Her haircut is stupid, her eyes are too small and slightly too far apart, her chin juts out too much, her smile is creepy, and her face isn’t quite long enough.

                1. By that standard Sparky, nearly all of the women in the world are ugly. Again, I can’t imagine going through life thinking all the women I met were ugly.

                  1. I can’t imagine going through life thinking all the women I met were ugly.

                    And judging by your taste here you don’t have that problem. Good on you.

                    1. Judging by your taste you hate all of them. What did they ever do to you? Or not do to you as the case may be?

                    2. I don’t hate them, I don’t even know them. All I said was that they’re unattractive. WTF is wrong with you, did your wife bend your dick this morning?

                    3. You don’t hate them. You just think they are all ugly. Again, maybe you are just a Ferrari guy.

                    4. Ferraris are lame.

                    5. Again, maybe you are just a Ferrari guy.

                      Are you now saying I’m not a stupid liar for not finding these women attractive? I appreciate your willingness to get your sense of self-importance in check if you are.

                    6. Get over yourself Sparky. If you didn’t want me to come back, you shouldn’t have said I had terrible taste in women. If you can say that, I can come back and say you must not like women. What did you think I was going to do?

                    7. The fact that I don’t like women that you like means I don’t like women? How very liberal of you.

                    8. The fact that I like women that you don’t means I have terrible taste, how very liberal of you Sparky.

                    9. Note how my statement didn’t include the fact that you don’t like all women. Can you not see the difference? Note also how I didn’t call you either stupid or a liar for not agreeing with me. I said you have bad taste in women, period. Apparently that’s as offensive to you as calling your wife a dumb whore.

                    10. It is not offensive. But I am not going to let it stand either.

                2. Damn G we should be wingmen.

    2. That’s just typical of DC, and probably of any arena of power. Any man in DC who bitches about dating gets no sympathy from me. The women here are 100000x better looking than the men, and there are shitloads of them.

      Advice for doughy policy nerds – get yo ass to DC and get laid without really trying. Seriously.

      1. I was thinking the same thing.

        It’s the pear-shaped man jackpot!

      2. You are dead right Kristen. Any guy that can’t get a date here is a real loser.

        1. Heh. I read the first sentence as “You are dead; right, Kristen?”

          1. Close, but not quite!

            1. Come on Kristen, if you are not a size four and have perfect features, you might as well be to this crowd. 😉

    3. World set to end circa 2013-2014, but HEY let’s talk about chicks!

      1. Can’t think of a better subject.

      2. When there’s nothing you can do about the big things you might as well concern yourself with the small things that make life worth living.

    4. Here’s the hilarious thing: if we took all those pictures out of context and told you they were from some Obama fundraiser dinner, you’d be talking about how nasty looking they all were.

      1. No I wouldnt. There are tons of nice looking liberal chicks. And it is not like CPAC is any place I have any desire to be.

  19. I’m Slim Chiply the guy you see
    On the Paramount Potato Chips? bright-red pack.
    I’m the flavor deputy
    protecting crispness in every pack.
    They’re delicious!
    And so nutritious!
    Yes siree they’re pips!
    Paramount?
    Potato Chips

    Flint, MI – we never ate ’em, but their commercials were on all the “mid-Michigan” TV stations when I was growing up. Slim Chipply kicked ass…

    PS The power of advertising – I haven’t heard that commercial in nigh on 40 year…and just wrote it down from memory. SCARY!

    (pics o’ Slim): https://www.google.com/search?q=slim+chiply&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=zmk5T6zHJcrm2gWk742EAg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=616

    1. Advertising jingles are awesome. Seriously, the guys who create those jingles earn their money. That’s why forty years later, I still have this little ditty firmly implanted in my brain.

  20. I’m a useless piece of shit.

    True story.

  21. Who comes up with all that stuff? Wow.

    http://www.anon-stuff.tk

  22. salty, fat-laden, calorie-packed products

    How about its “starchy, carb-laden products.” The problem isn’t the oil, since every human diet needs a large component of energy-intensive fats (humans will die without access to fat), and the problem isn’t salt, which makes the nervous system possible (most people can efficiently filter out any excess salt). The problem is empty starches: the same thing that makes bread, rice and pasta so horribly unhealthy.

    Which just underlines just how stupid dietary regulations are. Even if you set aside the case for freedom, the government is often laboring under incorrect and incredibly outdated notions of what is and isn’t healthy. Even if we accept that the government morally could serve as nanny, it’s not clear that government would have any idea how to actually improve our health.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.