A.M. Links: Afghans Rally Over Burned Korans (Again), Greece Gets Eurozone Bailout (Again), Dominique Strauss-Kahn Questioned About Hotel Sex (Again)

|

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: "Reason with Kennedy" 

NEXT: Shikha Dalmia on Mitt Romney's Troubled Michigan Homecoming

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. Keep fucking that chicken, EU…

    1. We’re ” skewering that lamb “. Don’t you know anything about Europe?

      1. Oh man, sorry. My gaffe is even more embarrassing considering it’s Bestiality Diversity Month.

        1. “Monkey fucking a football” has always been one of my pet metaphors!

          1. And in Black History Month, no less. RAAAAAAAACIST!!!!!!!!

            1. Well, it is the shortest month…

    2. 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.
      “/

      1. “How can you tell that a H&R spammer is bisexual?

        “He has a sheep under one arm and a goat under the other.”

  2. First!

    1. “Santorum sliding”

      1. Still early.

        1. “Santorum slipping”

          1. When more people find out about his kooky social views and how he wants to influence the public on his kooky religious ideas, there is no way he can get elected. I just hope Republicans aren’t stupid enough to nominate him.

  3. We’ve accomplished so much in Afghanistan.

  4. I can think of so many more worthy countries deserving the huge amount of cash being thrown at Greece.

    1. Like ME!

  5. Here’s another dose of retard, in case anybody needed more for the day.

    1. LZ Granderson

      ‘Nuff said. He’s a fountain of suckitude.

      1. He’s a fountain of suckitude.

        Strangely enough, that’s in his Wikipedia article.

          1. Curses, foiled again!

            ** twirls moustache **

          2. Gojira rickrolled me last week. So be careful, there is a way around Reasonable.

            1. Rickrolling“You know I learned something today.”

      2. When someone says “family values,” that’s to remind the audience that they don’t like gay people; “religious freedom” means “Christianity”; (and) … until you realize that “secure the border” is slang for “keep the Mexicans out.”

        …and when LZ Granderson writes anything it is code for, “Oh, the poor Negroes”.

        1. When he writes anything, he writes like a below-average eighth-grader. Never mind the intellectual dishonesty, poor reasoning, and lazy thinking. His writing is structurally bad. How did all those fragmented sentences make it by an editor?

          Oh, right, it’s CNN, and he’s the LZ. The editor’s job, in this case, is probably to nod and smile and say, “Thanks for the black perspective, black guy. It sure is great that you’re black.”

          1. Of course anyone who points out what a horrible writer he is just doing it out of RACISM!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!11!

            Afterall, proper sentence structure, sound reasoning, and critical thinking skills are just so… white.

            1. Wasn’t there a legislator in the past decade that said “logic” was racist?

        2. And the keep the Mexicans out bit isn’t quite fair. The secure the border crowd also wants to keep Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, Colombians, Brazilians, etc. out too.

        3. And don’t forget that the most staunch supporters of the religion of peace are the ones who are the biggest supporters of war.

  6. Amazon making Kindle in China
    http://www.intomobile.com/2012…..ng-summer/
    “Amazon’s business model isn’t to rape your wallet and pocket a 40% margin on hardware. That’s what Apple does.

    1. No. They’ll just delete books you paid for off your device because fuck you, that’s why.

      1. Maybe they weren’t the “right books”?

        1. 1984 and queer romances, thus far, IIRC.

    1. More of the Obama Admin’s “Smart Diplomacy”. What’s the problem?

    2. American Exceptionalism!

    3. Freaking hilarious. Kind of reminds me of the time when Homer wore the pink shirt to work at the nuclear plant.

    4. Man, she’s really aged in the last few years.

      1. I’m sure working with retards has nothing to do with it.

        1. Hey!!!

      2. The grown out hair pulled up sloppily with the chip clip ages her terribly. She actually looked nicer with the shorter hair.

  7. Adelson lusts for a war with Iran. Newt saying he would choose John Bolton as Sec of State must have given him a really big hard-on. $100 million worth anyway.

    1. John Bolton is an inspired choice for SoS. I’d pay to see the walrus tell some 3rd world idiot to get fucked.

      1. I’d pay to see somebody tell John Bolton to get fucked.

  8. “Liberalism is a totalitarian ideology. This means that absolutely everything must be warped to conform to politically correct theory ? even immutable physical reality. A particularly harmful example is the campaign to eradicate sex differences in developing children.”

    http://moonbattery.com/?p=8340

    1. It is the duty of Congress to amend, or even repeal, the fundamental laws of Nature.

      Government is God.

      1. Better to be a governmentfag than a christfag.

        1. That’s wrong.

          Read “Democracy in America.”

        2. Yeah, being a Commie is sooo much better than being a Nazi!

        3. I think we have shrike’s entire weltanschauung in a nutshell here.

    2. Wait, how is that eradicating the sex differences? It’s more like crossing the divide to the other side than finding some middle ground everyone can share.

      1. Not to say that having hormone therapy and sex change procedures at age four is okay at all.

        1. Not to say that having hormone therapy and sex change procedures at age four is okay at all.

          Why not? I would wager that it would make a more well-adjusted adult than someone who would undergo the therapy after his or her natural hormones began to cause sex-characteristics development during puberty.

          1. Upon further consideration, you could be right, but there’s the problem of whether a four year old actually understands enough to be able to make a determination about their sex. It’s probably unfair to attack all parents of such children as forcing “non-traditional” sexuality on their kids, as I’m sure some are just trying to be supportive of their children no matter what. It’s definitely not a simple thing to figure out either way.

    3. Where in the world would little kids get these notions? They are encouraged by their moonbat parents, who in turn are encouraged by the “mainstream” media and the alarmingly progressive medical establishment. …

      The apparent purpose is to create permanently deranged freakazoids who could have been innocent children ? like this British five-year-old boy: …

      Liberalism isn’t just a matter of ever higher taxes and ever more government intrusion. The agenda entails remaking society as something so blasphemously depraved, you wonder how long God will allow it to exist.

      Behold! The average Santorum supporter.

    4. What does that have to do with liberalism? Those people are fucking weirdos.

      “even immutable physical reality”

      Not really immutable if it can be changed with hormones and surgery, is it?

      Aren’t we supposed to be the ones in favor of parents raising their children how they see fit? (Though I would probably say that surgery or hormones for a developing child probably crosses a line into harm).

      1. The parents of that child aren’t doing anything immutable like surgery or hormones (and no responsible doctor would do either for a 5 year old – and if the UK is like Australia, it would need court approval too). And they provide him with boy’s clothing in case he wants to wear it. They’re just not making a big deal out of what might be a passing phase. Or not. And forcing him to dress as a boy is probably counter-productive. They sound pretty sensible to me.

        1. I don’t see any problem with that. Gender ambiguity does exist. Forcing a child to behave in a certain way because of gender is as much against human nature as anything. I didn’t read much of the article.

    5. Now that I have bothered to read it, I must say that is a terrible article with almost no support for the claims it makes.

  9. Girls fighting makes it on YouTube. Again. And the best part?

    It’s possible that the girls in the fight as well as those who stood by and recorded it, could all face some type of discipline.

    1. The videos were shot by multiple kids from several angles and showed up on several websites almost immediately. Mayor Kennedy says, “Without consequences to that action, I think we are sending the wrong message to those kids.”

      That is why we keep showing the video on our local news.

    2. I can’t watch crap with everything blurred out like that.

    3. What type of discipline? I bet they have a zero tolerance policy for violence and as soon as someone stepped in they’d be heading for detention at Mach 1 just like the fighters.

      In what kind of fucked up education administrator’s mind do people get in trouble for self defense but also get in trouble for not defending a third party?

      Or is the problem only that they were videoing the fight?

      1. They’re girls. Nothing will happen.

      2. The problem is that they made the school administrators look bad.

      3. As I hear it, the problem is that nobody stepped in. I think they’re throwing around some kind of bystander rule that makes a person obligated to help if they see something like this.

        1. Are there rules obligating bystander help for verbal/gestural altercations?

        2. I’d be interested in seeing such a bystander rule, particularly if the school has a zero tolerance policy on violence.

          Maybe the rule is just that they have to go get help, not actually help.

          1. My guess is that it’s tied in some way to this:

            http://www.mass.gov/ago/about-…..n-law.html

    4. I love the faux outrage.

      …OMG, high school stoooodents would stand by and watch a fight and not break it up….

      So I must conclude these reporters never went to high school.

      1. In my experience, trying to break up a fight is a good way to get into a fight.

  10. Megan Fox is still hot!

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

    1. Somehow those pictures make a 9 look like a 6.

      1. The tats are a downgrade in my book, but no way that is a 6.

        1. He must not like tatoos.

          Tatoos = woman willing to sleep with you, which is a plus in my book.

          1. According to OkCupid, the non-sexual question with the highest correlation to “Would you consider sleeping with someone on the first date?” is “Do you like beer?”. Im assuming “Do you have tattoos?” is in the database.

            1. Well yeah, but generally I meet women at a bar. Maybe there’s some perfect intersection.

            2. It’s
              beer/sex
              tats/anal

              Don’t they teach anything in the schools?

            3. Smokers put out. I think it’s because they don’t care what’s going into their bodies.

        2. Clearly she’s taking the Angelie Jolie comparisons a little too literal. Trying to outdo her in the tats department or somehing like that.

        3. I agree. Objectively, she’s 8-9. Somehow, those pics make me think I’d only look twice if I walked past her on the beach.

      2. She turns my 9 into a 6… Sha-wing!

    2. Man, Jennifer’s Body ruined that woman for me. Granted, she’s still hot, but somehow I still think she’s a succubus.

  11. Bar Rafaeli is still hot!

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

    1. You still on about her ? the hottest super model is Candice Swanepoel, it has been scientifically proven.

      1. While agree that she is damn fucking hot you just shouldn’t trust Wayne’s World about matters of sex and science!

      2. That is unpossible. Perhaps you haven’t heard of or seen the runway videos of Kate Upton. I suggest you google them.

    2. I’ll have 2 please.

      1. I want thwee!

  12. Experts in Islam say copies of the Koran should be buried or released in flowing waters if they need to be disposed of, and burned only as a last resort.

    Ground too hard, and soil tainted by foreign occupiers. No streams around. What’s the problem?

    1. No, roll the pages into spliffs and smoke them to the greater glory of Allah.

    2. That’s nice. Any American soldiers who happen to be Muslim and are tasked with disposing of Korans can definitely take that into account.

      1. Shit, why not just dump them at the local mosque and let them deal with the disposal.

    3. Technically every time you blow up or burn any house,mosque or building with a copy of the koran in it,which seems to be close to 95% or better in that region you would be guilty of breaking that law.If Islam doesn’t have exceptions for accidental destruction during warfare then every act of warfare that burns the book,by any party,including other muslims,must be punished by death immediately?I think I may have just discovered the sharia legal technicality that will end all wars and guarantee peace in the middle east.This could have more positive ramifications for world peace than the invention of TV and the internet combined.

      1. Alternatively,on further reflection,I may have actually discovered the reason FOR all the wars in that region

  13. Also, happy Mardi Gras, everybody. I plan on indulging in some sloth, followed by gluttony, lust, and hopefully fornication later (although that might be my pride talking). How about you?

    1. Anybody planning to give up H&R for Lent?

      1. Rick Santorum

        1. I doubt if he even knows Reason exists.

          Perhaps you’re thinking “B&D”?

          1. I doubt if he even knows Reason exists.

            I see what you did there.

    2. I already got my fornicatin’ done (now the man is headed to Puerto Rico for the tatted, punk-rock, old guy version of spring break. Maybe he’ll get some extry fornicain’ down there while I sit here in the dank & cold engaging in gluttony and sloth).

    1. Which raises the question: What measures should a ginger go to in order to pass amongst people with souls?

    2. Natalie Harvey’s picture of her when she was three is believed to have been posted by internet trolls who took it from her Facebook page.

      Why was it on her facebook page in the first place?

      1. I was breezing by this, caught the word “Natalie” and immediately thought “Portman,” which brought a smile to my face. Thanks.

      2. If she put it on her facebook page, didn’t she post it to the internet?

  14. Obama peddles modest American dream
    http://apnews.myway.com/articl…..KH900.html

    Four years after winning the White House, Obama is dealing with a different economic and political reality as he seeks re-election. He’s focused less on a lofty vision for overcoming divisions and remaking Washington, and more on the most basic building blocks of middle-class economic security: a job, a house, a college education for the kids, health care, money for retirement.

    What Obama describes as the American Dream can seem a spare, fundamental aspiration, tailored for a campaign that looks to be fought over who is best equipped to safeguard the interests of middle-class Americans.

    1. “I promise to give you back what I took away.”

    2. The Onion already covered this.

  15. Kennedy is still hot!

    1. She looked better on Real Time than she ever did on MTV.

      1. That was merely sarc commentary on the prevailing notion that skinniness is the prime criterion of “hotness”. She’s as homely as a mud fence.

        1. Well, I thought she looked nice.

          1. She is cute. The people on here think everyone is ugly. I think the best old school MTV VJ was Duff.

            1. Martha Quinn

              1. I always liked her too. And she has aged really well. She turned into a really cute 40 something mom.

              2. I really liked Martha Quinn in that thing I saw her in

        2. Are you saying that Rafaeli and Fox have ugly faces?

        3. SHe’s one of those people who always looks like she is tasting something unpleasant. Maybe that’s a turn on for some people. I don’t get it.

  16. Documents: LightSquared shaping up as the FCC’s Solyndra
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/02…..-solyndra/

    Documents and copies of communications obtained by The Daily Caller indicate that the Federal Communications Commission propped up broadband company LightSquared with favorable regulatory decisions and other special treatment, while driving its competition out of business.

  17. ‘She took on a persona and lied and, as a result of that lie ? what? ? somebody flew here from Idaho? So what?’ Pascal said. ‘If I were to start criminalizing when one person lies and, as a result of that lie, other people take an action, then everybody’s in jail.’

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

    1. I hope that same prosecutor would be unwilling to press charges when angry couples beat that woman within an inch of her life.

    2. “when one person lies and, as a result of that lie, other people take an action”

      Yeah, sometimes that’s fraud.

      1. But I bet there is plenty of money for that new tank or legislating about how much Salvia someone can have.

        Unbelievable.

  18. U.S. Limits on Government Can’t Work Everywhere: Ramesh Ponnuru
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..nnuru.html

    The premise seems to be that the better our constitutional design, the more we should expect other countries to seek to emulate it. But this premise is clearly mistaken. Other countries may have rational reasons not to adopt our Constitution that do not reflect badly on its design. Political elites in other countries may not want to live within the limits that the U.S. model imposes. Other countries may also lack the conditions that allow our Constitution to work.

    1. Let me be clear: what limits on government?

    2. Political elites in other our countriesy may not want to live within the limits that the U.S. model imposes.

      fixed

    3. Other countries may have rational reasons not to adopt our Constitution that do not reflect badly on its design.

      Like, the fact that we have conclusively shown that a sufficiently determined ruling class can turn it into an empty shell, eternally mocking believers in limited government?

  19. http://www.chron.com/business/…..341919.php

    US oil gusher exceeds expectations. Fuck you peak oil geeks.

    1. But they’re talking about gas prices may rise to over $5/gallon by the end of the year because of Iran. I hate speculators.

      1. You shouldn’t hate speculators. They only make money when they take volatility out of the market. They lose money when they try to move prices in a different direction than they were already heading.

    2. Drilling in the US has quadrupled since Jan 2009 – Fuck you lying “Obama won’t let us drill here” AM radio rednecks.

      1. He just won’t let them pump it or refine it. And imagine what it would be if Obama hadn’t declared war on the oil industry.

        1. Shriek is still wrong; it’s only reached a height in the private sector (not 4x), and the amount of federal leases issued has decreased.

          1. That is another lie. Federal permits have continued to be issued. Production on federal land did peak in 2004 for various reasons.

            From the link the United States now has more rigs at work than the entire rest of the world

            Gee, would that bit of reality make it past the GOP reality-denial shield?

            1. Lease != permit.

              l2english.

              1. Barack Hussein Obama
                Mmm mmm mmmm!

            2. 3 Shrikes and you’re out.

              1. I feel like that’s where this thread was going anyways.

            3. Fuck off Demfag.

    1. And we have yet to hear a gun-rights advocate articulate why any law-abiding citizen has a compelling need to buy more than one gun a month.

      Because fuck you, thats why.

      1. Actually, the best way to CCW is to have two handguns of the same type — one full-size for the range, and its mouse version for carry.

        Also, you need a pair of revolvers for CAS.

        1. Why do I need revolvers for Close Air Support (CAS)?

          1. To fire out of your open-cockpit biplane. Duh.

            1. But 8 .50 Cals with 27 feet of ammo (The whole 9 yards) work so much better.

              Or a 30mm gatling gun with wings…

      2. Change “gun” to “a pair of high heels”, just for fun

    2. I say the LA Times should refocus their eyes from 2600 miles away to their own neighborhoods where their ridiculous religion of gun control has done nothing to save lives or make people more secure in their property.

      1. But those people are black.

      2. Nanny statist twits will NEVER keep to their own neighborhoods if they can start wagging their fingers and tongues at others.

  20. The real trouble with Rick
    It’s not the social conservatism
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/o…..l6Qu2ESYfO

    Like many culture warriors, he is disappointed by America and its failings, which ? as his controversial views on the morality of birth control demonstrate ? he believes stem from an excess of self-indulgence and the elevation of sexual appetite over self-restraint.

    There is no way that a man who expresses such a dark view of the American national character can win the presidency.

    huh? The problem is not because he’s a Socon, but because of his outlook as a Socon.

    1. he is disappointed by America and its failings, which ? as his controversial views on the morality of birth control demonstrate ? he believes stem from an excess of self-indulgence and the elevation of sexual appetite over self-restraint.

      *fap*fap*fap*fap*

      1. I blame Jersey Shore.

    2. Just once I would like to see someone in a debate say to Santorum, well that is great there Rick, it would be wonderful to stop people from using porn or having premartial sex or whatever. That is a great idea. The problem is that if we endorse the use of government to make your great idea come to fruition, then we really can’t tell liberals they can’t use government to make all their great ideas come true.

      I have no doubt it would go right over his head. But the two seconds of thunderstruck look he would give would make it worth while.

      1. Even if he and/or his supporters argue that he is capable of separating his personal opinions from his role as President on the issue of birth control, I would counter that it’s very troubling that someone who is auditioning for President would use his limited time to present his best case by discussing use of birth control in the first place. Pardon me if I get the impression that he thinks his views on birth control are important to being elected.

        1. I don’t listen to the President much anyway. If he wants to spend for years preaching the gospel of clean living, I can’t say I would be too upset, provided he never tried to turn such gospel into law.

          1. In fact, that is time not spent on something altogether more distructive.

            But I dont think the “provided” applies in Santorum’s case. He wont succeed, but he will try.

            1. He wouldn’t turn any of it into law. At most he would stop spending money on liberal ponies, which is bad how?

              1. That isnt bad…but he would try to turn things into law, at the very least waste 30 seconds calling up a GOP leader and trying to talk him into inserting it into a bill.

                Or some amendment gets proposed and he supports it.

          2. I think the fear that he will do more than just preach his version of clean living is validated because Santorum has taken the time typically reserved for explaining why he should be President to talk about the birth control issue. His inability to separate personal opinions on the proper way to live from governing in other areas like gambling, marriage, and adoption is also a big factor in validating my fears.

            1. What has he said about birth control other than other people shouldn’t be forced to fund yours? That sounds pretty sensible to me.

              1. When he gave his personal opinions on how birth control. That feeds into my point about concern over why he would talk about it at all when auditioning for President. I’m left to conclude that he thinks his personal opinion on birth control should matter to voters. When I combine that with his other personal opinions on proper social behavior that bleed into policy prescriptions, I think it’s valid to be feel concerned about Santorum and the birth control issue.

                1. Concerned about what? What do you think he is going to do besides hold an opinion you don’t like?

      2. Just ask him: “Rick, how would you use the federal government to implement your ideas on America’s moral failings?”

        If he says “Why, the federal government shouldn’t get involved at all.” then the natural followup is “Then why don’t you shut the fuck up about it in your campaign?”

  21. “As gun culture spreads, local governments have offered to fast-track firearms licenses if men have vasectomies.”

    http://www.latimes.com/news/na…..7361.story

    1. “Bhupendra, a Shivpuri resident and affected party, says, “I underwent vasectomy for the gun licence but the collector is reneging on his promise.” Lalit Gupta, another disgruntled sufferer, says, “I underwent the operation only for the gun licence. The announcement appears to have been a trick.” He wanted the licence because he often has to travel to dangerous places, he says.”

      http://www.hindustantimes.com/…..80686.aspx

      1. *fap fap fap fap fap*

  22. No A.M. linky to Veterans for Ron Paul march?

  23. ABC Previews Inside Foxconn
    http://abcnews.go.com/Internat…..a-15750239
    “The average starting salary at Foxconn is around $285 a month or $1.78 an hour. Even with 80 hours of overtime it considered so low that the Chinese government does not deduct any payroll taxes.”

  24. Political elites in other countries may not want to live within the limits that the U.S. model imposes.

    No shit.

    Political elites in America don’t want to live withing the limits imposed by our Constitution.

    1. If the elites don’t want to live within the limits I have a win/win/win arboreal solution to this problem.

  25. Pretty sad when even the news is just sequels and reboots.

    1. It’s been a very slow week. I’m starting to think Whitney Houston was assassinated by the Writers Guild.

  26. I sincerely dislike Santorum. But I have to give him credit for this statement

    The comments came at an event in Columbus shortly after the former senator from Pennsylvania said efficacy and safety improvements in oil drilling technology are considered by the president to be “a dangerous technology.”

    “It doesn’t fit his pattern of trying to drive down consumption, trying to drive up your cost of transportation to accomplish his political science goal of reducing carbon dioxide,” he said.

    Obama, he continued, is not motivated by “your quality of life.”

    “It’s not about your job. It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology,” Santorum said. “Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology. But no less a theology.”

    http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/…..-in-one-3/

    What is interesting about this is that the media portrayed that statement as questioning Obama’s Christianity like Santorum was calling him a Muslim or something. Santorum was making a valid point. Obama doesn’t give a shit about the average person’s every day problems. He has a national to transform. He has a vision to fulfill. If a few eggs get broken making that omelet, well so be it. And that is in its own way a theology. Santorum was actually making a fairly subtle point that went right over the media’s head. What they are doing is not based on reason. It is based on a blind faith that this is the better way for country to be. And that really is in a sense a “theology”. Now when you use the word theology that usually implies the bible. And Santorum makes the point that this is not about he bible, not to question Obama’s religion or call him a Muslim since it is entirely possible to believe in both bible theology and also this theology. Sanoturum makes that distinction because he wants people to know that when he says “theology” he doesn’t mean it in the conventional term but in a different sense in that it an irrational dedication to a set of principles.

    It is a great attack. And it is too bad the media missed the point and thought he was calling Obama a Muslim or whatever.

    1. Sounds more like he’s slamming environmentalism as a theology. Which it is.

      1. That is exactly what he is doing. And the media missed the point completely. They took as him saying that Obama wasn’t basing his policies on Christian theology, implying that he should. And that is not what he said at all.

        1. I wonder if Obama, like Bush before him, fancies himself a God-Emperor.

        2. the media missed the point completely.

          Oh, they got it. Hence the nature (NPI) of their reporting.

        3. John, the MSM did not miss the point, they were deliberately avoiding his point. Yhey will take anthing out of context to protect Obama.

    2. It is a great attack. And it is too bad the media missed the point and thought he was calling Obama a Muslim or whatever.

      It was a great attack, but the media most definitely didn’t “miss the point.” They were making certain that Santorum’s point didn’t stick, instead making it look like a personal attack on Obama’s religion.

      In other words, they were merely doing their job.

      1. I am not sure about that. The media live in such a bubble, they have little ability to comprehend irony and metaphor. And they view their ideological opponents as total cartoons. I think they might never have thought that Santorum could mean anything but calling Obama a Muslim because that is what those people do.

        1. Of the coverage I heard, most seemed to be coverage of the reaction of Obama’s people. To the point that I never heard the original quote in context.

          1. I never heard the original quote in context.

            Exactly the point, they didn’t want you to hear the whole quote in context.

    3. Interesting, I hadn’t seen what he had actually said, but I did hear the coverage of it over the weekend. I don’t agree that environmentalism is theology, but it does resemble religion in a lot of ways.

      The whole thing was pretty silly, though. Even if he had been questioning Obama’s Christian theology, there is no reason that should be surprising or controversial. Everyone knows that Santorum and Obama have very different ideas about Christianity. Isn’t it obvious that Santorum would think that Obama’s theology was wrong? Duh, people who disagree think that each other are wrong. Not interesting.

  27. Luxury Hotels of the Romney Campaign http://pinterest.com/thinkprog…..-campaign/

    1. A whopping nine nice hotels in an extended campaign. I’m sure the Romney crew deserves an occasional break from staying in mostly Motel Sixes.

  28. Can we use these morning links as proof that history repeats itself?

    1. … first time as tragedy, second time as farce

      1. third time = time machines!

    1. Word, man. I’m inclined to agree and to think more along the lines of r.

  29. French minister invites 13,000 Twitter fans to bed- they’re slutty French

    1. The story fits a metanarrative:

      “The intended recipient of the message is not known, although it was probably his wife, Yasmine Tordjman.

      “Eric Besson suffered a very public falling out with his ex-wife Sylvie Brunel, who published a book in which she dubbed him a ‘serial cheat with inter-changeable mistresses’.

      “Rumour has it that at his marriage to Brunel, Besson stopped the mayor and struck “fidelity” from his wedding vows.

      “The 53-year-old minister married Tordjman, a 24-year-old art student from Tunisia in September 2010.”

  30. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes……ate-files/

    Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate Files

    The best part is the NYT reporter talking about how we need to have a rational debate on the subject of AGW. Really? I thought the science was settled? I thought everyone who doubted it was a denier and a flat earther? Now they want to have a debate?

    1. Of course John. Don’t you understand? I’m right until you prove me wrong. Then we can debate whether I’m wrong, which I’m right about until you prove me wrong. Ad nauseum.

    2. Mrs. Suderman had a writeup on the purportedly fake document in the middle of this “scandal” about a week ago, and she pretty convincingly argued on forensic grounds why it is probably fake.

    3. This is a big deal:

      Gleick heads an ethics committee of the American Geophysical Union.

      He is also the probable author of the forged “Strategy Document” based on the odd turns of phrase that was the source of the explosive scandalous claims against Heartland.

      And, if one parses his admission, he doesn’t actually deny having forged the document. HE refers to having received “a document” and leaves it at that, prompting many to infer that the forgery was the leaked document.

      1. It is a huge deal. If you read the NYT link, even the NYT guy admits that it looks pretty bad. When it is so obvious the Times can’t deny it, it is pretty bad.

        1. Bob Ward over at the BBC stepped into it – again. I’m sure the reality distortion field there that has protected him from getting disciplined for his previous serious lapses will once again protect him.

          These guys are Teflon PR hacks & journalists.

          Or maybe sons of Dracul

      2. Time to fall back on the old “fake, but accurate” defense. Get me Dan Rather on the line!

      3. Gleick heads an ethics committee of the American Geophysical Union.

        WARNING! IRONY OVERLOAD!

  31. Does the diminishing popularity of Newt Gingrich prove that Citizens United isn’t the apocalypse for democracy and money alone can brainwash voters?

    1. Doubtful.

      Though, it is cute that the same media pulling their hair out over money in elections could conceivably have contributed more to the success/failure of the Gingrich campaign through their changing narrative than the money could ever do.

  32. Strauss-Kahn Questioned About Hotel Sex (Again)

    He needs to get a few pointers from Berlusconi on politically-survivable skank fucking.

    1. Move to Italy. Own TV stations.

  33. lol, OK so who are those dudes trying to fool?

    http://www.totally-anon.tk

  34. Mexican prison guards helped orchestrate riot that served as cover for jail-break.

    Mondays on Fox, starring Wentworth Miller.

    1. Fucking AM talk radio mouthbreathers.

      1. They’re giving high school basketball players radio shows?

      2. I blame the racist mindset of Pittsburgh unionists.

    2. The players say two Monessen students in banana suits ran around the court and called them monkeys and cotton pickers and more.

      Considering how this game was filmed and broadcast (as per the P-G article), shouldn’t there be some record of this or some witnesses besides the one janitor that heard stuff in the locker room after the fight (note: I have no doubt that the kids were dropping all kinds of n-bombs after the game)? It doesn’t appear to be that big of a gym.

      1. These were two different games; four different schools.

        1. So it is. Objection withdrawn.

      2. No kidding. One of the hallmarks of our society today is that every time some shit goes down, 10-20 jerkweeds will whip out their smartphones and start recording it. You’d think there’d be some sort of easily accessed record out there.

  35. http://www.washingtontimes.com…..medium=RSS

    Violent crime in Washington DC skyrockets. Must be all those people who got guns thanks to Heller.

    1. Yes, both of them.

      1. See that is what happens when you create an environment that endorses guns.

        1. Homicides were the only category of violent crime to decline in the first six weeks this year. As of Thursday, the city had recorded 10 homicides compared with 11 at a similar point last year.

          I love the mental gymnastics required to form this sentence, and the rest of the article. Of course, Heller is being used as the example that “gunz r bad!!11” Meanwhile, the article neglects to mention that homicide rates have been on a downtrend since 04 or 05, while other violent crimes have been experiencing an uptrend. Just last year, rape alone was up 25% in DC.

          1. And depriving women of the ability to carry a gun to defend themselves had nothing to do with it. Most criminals are morons with poor impulse control. Crimes are almost never some elaborate plot like the movies. Most crimes are crimes of opportunity. If the typical rapist in DC thought the next woman he attacked might pull out a gun, he would think twice.

          2. Rape went up because they changed the way they count reports.

            1. Do you know if the same is true for assault and other “violent crimes?”

              1. It isn’t, afaik, but it might include other “violence against women” not counted as “rape”.

            2. Are you thinking of the changes made for statistical purposes? I don’t know if that applies here if the number is the actual number reported to the DC police.

              1. How else do I put this? The way they come up with that number was recently changed in DC and Baltimore.

                1. OK. I was thinking of an article recently where they had changes the way they counted rape for national statistics and thought you might be thinking of that. Apparently you know something I don’t.

                  1. If they also apply the FBI/UCR definition of the crime to the local numbers (and most localities do) that would also effect the number. But what they consider “unfounded” reports, how they count multiple crimes in the same incident, etc. still counts in addition to whether the reported offense fits the definition of the crime.

        2. Wrong, John. That’s clearly the result of Citizens United.

  36. 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.

  37. The fat-assed first lady and her daughters go skiing in Aspen. That’s their sixteenth freaking vacation in just three years!

    1. It is fucking appalling. Worst recession in living memory and that fat bitch can’t forgo even one vacation. Would it kill her to stay in the White House or gasp, go to Camp David once in a while?

      1. It ain’t cheap avoiding Barry’s pendatious droning on and on and on.

        1. You just gotta tell us what “pendatious” means, man, because I, Google, and 1062 online dictionaries don’t have any idea.

        2. BTW, you just got yourself a solitary Google hit with that word. Congrats!

          1. Sleartigamading!

          2. Weird – thirteen minutes later there are six hits. Shouldn’t he have gotten his fifteen minutes?

      2. Her vacations are always on my mind.

        1. I mean, a politician’s wife going skiing, for Chrissakes!
          Who does she think she is? People are hungry. And the children!

        2. It is tasteless and tacky and shows her to be the tacky no class neveu riche she is. There are certain social duties that come with being the first lady. Like it or not, she and her husband do represent the government country and the country to the world. She has completely failed in that regard.

          1. I practice what I preach.

            Let’s Move!

            1. If more people would take vacations in Spain and hit the slopes in Aspen, our childhood obesity problem would be a thing of the past.

          2. While she’s skiing she can’t be running around stealing the homemade lunches of schoolchildren.

          3. I agree with John. And it’s not because I hate Obama and all Democrats. I do, but that’s not the reason. It’s because the Obamas are, are tokens of our, um…they represent..she is a target, no, a symbol of…what a First Lady shouldn’t be, because she went skiing with her daughters, the classless hussy. Also she’s black.

            1. Multiple vacations, four of five a year, each of which require massive amounts of planning and security and disrupt the lives of hundreds if not thousands of people. Can you imagine how fucked up Aspen is right now thanks to Queen Michelle’s entourage right now?

              And of course the same people like you who defend this had a fit when Bush so much as played a round of golf. Bush spent most of his time on his ranch. Did Laura Bush ever do such a thing? Never and if she did, she would have been brutalized in the press for it. But liberals defend Michelle Antoinette because no one on their side ever does anything wrong. They play the race card because they have nothing else and they know what an embarrassment she actually is.

              1. Your priorities are in all the right places.
                Good to know you’re on the job.

              2. Let’s ask LZ about it.

              3. Enough with the Queen Michelle stuff. Her workload is nowhere near as heavy as Queen Elizabeth’s, or any real queen. We make our figureheads work!

                1. True. Elizabeth, if the movie is to be believed has a real sense of duty and cares about her country. And Marie Antoinette actually lived quite modestly for a monarch of her era and never said “let them eat cake”. So yeah, it is unfair to call her Queen Michelle. She is more like the wife or a banana Republic dictator. Does Mugabe’s wife have a title?

                  1. Dunno, but the Queen Mother of Swaziland is known as the Great She-Elephant. Elena Ceasescu was the Mother of the Nation, which is quite drab by comparison

                    1. I like “Lady Chewbacca” or Ms. Magilla.

                    2. “Grape Ape” contains RAPE

                  2. She is more like the wife orf a banana Republic dictator.

                    FTFY

              4. Multiple vacations, four of five a year, each of which require massive amounts of planning and security and disrupt the lives of hundreds if not thousands of people.

                This is the problem. If she wanted to be classless nouveau riche, I got no problem with that. Except that it is a huge burden for all of the other people who want to be where they go and we are paying for the massive security.

                The president and his family should not be allowed out of the White House if they can’t pay for their own security. I accept that special security is needed for the president. But it should not be paid for by taxpayers unless it has to do with an essential function of the office. Why the fuck are we paying for him to go on campaign trips and for his family to go on vacation?

                1. Go question Zeb. And they have their own vacation home provided by the tax payers at Camp David. And it is quite beautiful. And very remote, easy to get to, and easy to secure. WTF do they want?

                  1. And while we’re complaining about this sort of thing, why the hell does Romney get Secret Service protection? He can certainly afford his own security. Shouldn’t that be a campaign expense?

                    1. Yes Zeb it should be.

            2. I agree wit Mr. Know-It-All? because she should definitely be taking five vacations a year on the public dime when most in the public are lucky to take one.

              1. Most of it is paid for privately. I don’t begrudge them for the necessary security. This is all so much “Let them eat cake” political posturing.

                1. I don’t begrudge them for the necessary security

                  First, you certainly begrudged Bush. So why is this different

                  Second, security is a fact of life. When you become President you can’t just run off to New York on date night without inconveniencing a ton of people. So therefore, you have to by necessity and out of concern for others live a more constrained life. You don’t get to just jump in the car and go somewhere even if you have the money to do it. It is the price you pay for assuming the office.

                  If the Obamas were anything but narcissistic neveu riche classless trash, they would realize that and act accordingly. But it is always all about them.

                  If you want to be an international party couple, don’t run for President.

                  1. But John, see Pierre Trudeau and his wife.

                  2. First, you certainly begrudged Bush

                    I did? “I” being…who…the symbol and representative of all your political enemies across the blogosphere? I think you’re talking to the voices in your head again, John. Emotionally healthy people do not obsess over politicians’ wives’ vacations.

                  3. “The Obamas [are] narcissistic neveu riche classless trash.”

                    Any questions?

                    1. They are what they are. You just don’t like it. And of course you begrudged Bush. You just piss and moan because the truth hurts.

                    2. You just piss and moan because the truth hurts

                      The projection is strong with this one.

                      Is there a bigger narcissist in this chat room? P Brooks and Sarcasmic come close, but you’re the all-time champ, John. So please, continue regale to us with your crackpot opinions. It sure as hell beats working.

                    3. WAAWAA. You don’t like it because someone has the nerve to point out shit you don’t like and don’t have a response to. Tough shit. If you don’t like it, don’t come here.

                2. Most of it is paid for privately.

                  This is total absolute bullshit, and you know it. Who do you think you’re talking to here?

                  I don’t begrudge the family of the president getting Secret Service protection and certain perks that come with the job, but families that have class don’t abuse these privileges to this extent.

                  1. They pay for their own food at the White House, too. Did you know that, Mr. Huff ‘n’ Puff?

                    1. Emotionally healthy people do not obsess over politicians’ wives’ vacations.

                      I really could have used you over 20 years ago.

                3. Most of it is paid for privately.

                  Of course, footing the bill for a five or six figure luxury vacation for the family of a sitting President couldn’t possibly be a bribe.

                  1. Is it a bribe? Prove it or shut up.

                    1. Prove it’s paid for privately first.

          4. She has completely failed in that regard.

            Dude, she reads to kids and has appeared on iCarly (have you seen that show??). That shit is exhausting. She’s going to need a vacation every few weeks to recharge her batteries. And I for one am glad to help pay for it.

      3. Hey, just because us rubes in fly over country are having a hard time doesn’t mean that our Great Leaders lovely wife should suffer!

        If I’d known she was in Aspen yesterday I would have taken the day off to go to Aspen and see if I could trigger an avalanche on whichever slope her fat ass was skiing on. Actually, I’m kind of surprised she didn’t cause one herself.

        1. us rubes in fly over country

          Your prose proves it.

          Also your class envy.

          1. Also your class envy.

            A liberal talking about class envy. LOLOLOL.

            1. A liberal talking about class envy

              Hahahahaha! Yeah, John, I’m a “liberal” (listen to Limbaugh much?) because I point out your insufferable, narcissistic nonsense.

              1. Of course you are. Only liberals think anyone who disagrees with them listen to Limbaugh. And you only get defensive about the charge because it is true. Save your concern trolling for elsewhere.

                1. Oh yeah? Well if you don’t kike it, go somewhere else, poopy pants.

          2. Whoa whoa whoa.

            I am not envious at all of people who spend their own damn money on frivolous ski vacations.

            If the Obamas were spending all of his memoir money I’d have no problem at all.

            “Political officeholder” is not supposed to be an economic class. When it becomes one, it’s time to refresh the tree of liberty yadda yadda yadda.

    2. It’s good to be the King.

    3. I’ve been living in Colorado for the past 8 months and I haven’t even been able to go skiiing/snowboarding because I’ve had too much to do at work.

    4. Yeah sure, black people on skis. Next thing you are going to tell me asians play basketball.

      1. A chink in the armor.

  38. Heads up reasonoids who are on the pill or having relations with someone on the pill: Pfizer sent out a million placebo doses.

    “Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer recently announced it’s recalling one million packets of birth control medication because it mixed up the order of the hormone-containing pills with placebos during packaging, putting an unknown number of women at risk for unintended pregnancies. While news of this error spread quickly, the question of Pfizer’s liability in this incident and how it delayed to notify the public has received scant attention.”

    1. well, we needed more babies to pay for social security!

    2. It would be great if a bunch of parents left their children on Pfizer’s front porch.

    3. Heads up reasonoids

      Uh-oh. Is Mongoloidism hereditary?

      1. You’ll find out when/ if you have kids of your own.

        1. Good thing I’m not a libertarian, then.

          1. Thank god for small favors. We’re all stocked up on retard here; go peddle it somewhere else.

            1. I will if you will. Deal?

  39. So, does Shriek == rectal?

    I need to know whether to ignore it or not.

    Nevermind, I don’t.

    1. Shrike is silly and ignorant. But he at least stays on point.

      1. John, do you have to be an asshole before I finish my first cup?

        1. When asked by a reporter why he repeated himself so hard every day, John replied, “There might be a kid out there who’s never heard me say it.”

        2. Fair enough Rather. I have come to the conclusion you are not the resident griefer troll anyway. If you are, you are either a brilliant characterist, have multiple personalities or both, which I doubt.

          1. I tell people to ignore her, and the anonopussy troll mysteriously shows up a few minutes later. What more do you need, John?

            1. I know. But I refuse to accept the horrible implications of that being true. I am like one of the hold outs in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. No, not everyone is a pod person!!!

              1. I tell people to ignore her, and the anonopussy troll mysteriously shows up

                Awesome! It’s like “Warty” has super-powers!

                1. I’d love to know who you are too. Are you clever enough to have figured out the why of their game? Or, do they just annoy your intelligence?

                  1. I’d love to know who you are too.

                    Who, me? I’m just a bored guy/gal who likes to torment the adolescents. It’s funny, watching them dance…

                    Keeps my typing skills sharp, too.

                    1. I can tell you are
                      #1 a regular
                      #2 male
                      #3 35-45
                      #4 educated

                    2. I can tell you are
                      #1 a regular
                      #2 male
                      #3 35-45
                      #4 educated

                      You forgot witty and erudite. The age is a little off, too.

                    3. A belletristic man; well-educated then

              2. So, now that she went out of her way to confirm it, do you believe, John?

                1. Ananopussy is most assuredly not educated. So maybe she is puffing herself there.

                  1. By the way, the correct spelling is “anonypussy,” as in anonymous pussy. Not that I am educated.

          2. You’re wrong, John. But it takes a while for the implications of the truth to sink in.

            1. Just like that time I told you what the phrase “drag queen” meant.

              1. It’s not about Shirley Muldowney?

                1. Is this a support group?
                  Can I join?

                  1. Pleeeeease?
                    I want to obsess over rather/rectal/anonypussy too!

      2. John: Yes it is.
        MJohn: Yes it is.
        MNG: No, it isn’t.
        John: Yes it is.
        MNG: No, it isn’t.
        John: Yes it is.
        MNG: No, it isn’t.
        John: Yes it is.
        MNG: No, it isn’t.
        John: Yes it is.
        MNG: No, it isn’t.
        John: Yes it is.
        MNG: No, it isn’t.
        John: Yes it is.
        MNG: No, it isn’t.
        John: Yes it is.
        MNG: No, it isn’t.
        John: Yes it is.
        John: Yes it is.
        MNG: No, it isn’t.
        MNG: No, it isn’t.

        1. John: Yes it is.
          MJohn: Yes it is.
          MNG: No, it isn’t.

          I thought they didn’t form the Zoltron-like thread-ruining creature known as MJohn until closer to the end of the argument.

          1. I think John and MNG are characters played by Courtney Stodden.

            1. No they aren’t.

              1. CN, I think they are played by the ghost of John Wilkes Booth.

                1. Now why would you want to go and denigrate one of your heroes like that…

                  1. Like Roger Staubach in super Bowl XIII, what Booth did was too little, too late.

              2. Yes they are.

          2. who the fuck is Zoltron?

      3. I think he’s O3. Isn’t O3 the one who was using that “AM Radio” schtick?

        1. O3’s too lazy to use proper capitalization and spelling. I sincerely doubt there the same.

          1. ^ IRONY! (“they’re”)

    2. BTW, ignore me; I hate gutless men

    3. Almost certainly, but why would you be stupid enough to talk to any of the trolls? DO NOT DANCE.

      1. Wartfly has spoken, and in the absence of his deity, he gives the orders

        1. Wartfly, part of ‘ignoring’ me is to ‘IGNORE’ me

          1. No, it isn’t.

              1. No, it isn’t.

              2. This isn’t an argument!

                Yes, it is!

              3. I tell ya I get no respect!

    4. I think that Shriek, like Tony, was once a real person, but now is mostly spoof.

      1. You’re right. Sugarfree and his trolls are most of the characters; they love to ruin a thread and then blame it on a troll; they communicate by email to set it up

        1. That’s true. E-mail me for the details.

            1. Somebody has to do it.

              Have you noticed how the regulars here rival the hippies of yore in their conformist, collectivist, group-think attitudes? And they think they’re individualists! I laugh and laugh.

              1. I think of them more as the nerd in HS who never got laid; a George McFly.

                1. You may be right. They do obsess over unapproachable, unattainable women a lot. It’s like a locker room in Neverland.

              2. That’s right, we all agree about everything. Clearly you haven’t paid attention to an abortion or immigration thread.

  40. Speaking of sequels, looks like Ron Paul is doing Romney’s dirty work, again:

    Ron Paul ad slams Santorum as ‘fake’ conservative

    1. Good ad.

      To the point, no distortion, moderately amusing.

      1. Yeah, … but I doubt if STEVE SMITH will find it amusing.

    2. Nice. Too bad Paul is just a fringe nutter kook who isn’t electable.

      ARE YOU READY TO GET SANTORUMED?

  41. Proper treatment of the Koran is a highly sensitive issue for Muslims across the world, including in Afghanistan, where international troops are fighting to defeat the militantly Islamist Taliban in a war that has entered its 11th year. Experts in Islam say copies of the Koran should be buried or released in flowing waters if they need to be disposed of, and burned only as a last resort.

    Or, as non-Muslims, do whatever the hell you want. It’s a book. Should we apeshit on everyone who burns a U.S. flag? (Well, I guess we have many of them, but not specifically for lighting up Old Glory.)

    Anyway, nothing drains sympathy for a slight like an out of proportion response.

    1. These are the same assholes who blew up the giant Buddha Statues.

    2. True, but to play Devil’s Advocate, how would you react if, say, the Chinese Army occupied the U.S. and managed to burn a whole bunch of Bibles or copies of the U.S. Constitution or whatever American symbol?

      Would we see it as an accident or yet another incident that adds to the humiliation of occupation?

      1. About the same way we react to foreigners burning flags?

      2. Didn’t you ever see V for Vendetta? You can’t destroy a symbol.

      3. the Chinese Army occupied the U.S.

        fap fap fap fap fap!!!

    3. Every time I hear about people freaking out over someone burning a Koran, it makes me feel like burning a Koran. Fuck those people. Fuck them ’till they’re dead. I don’t even care anymore that the people doing the burning are assholes. The people willing to riot over it need to lose all credibility.

      1. Your credibility is wanting.
        Just sayin’.

    4. Those Korans were likely government property. There is an actual National Stock Number for them. Gov’t can dispose of Gov’t property as it sees fit.

  42. “Could Lesbianism Have Saved Whitney Houston’s Life?”

    http://thegloss.com/odds-and-e…..-life-741/

    1. Only if it resulted in a non butch girlfriend and a decent sex tape.

    2. The Government killed her, you know.
      I saw it on Reason.

    3. LiLo is doing do well as a lesbian with all the no drugs…

  43. So, does Shriek == rectal?

    I need to know whether to ignore it or not.

    Why does that even matter?

    If you think he’s crazy and full of shit, ignore him.

    1. Damnit Brooks, you missed the last sentence.

    2. No, see, because if he’s really a dude we can’t ignore him because of the secret rules.

      1. Shhh, ixnay on the ecretsay ulesray!

  44. Courtney Stodden And Dakota Fanning Are The Same Age

    http://thegloss.com/beauty/rem…..e-age-597/

    1. That is horrible. Dakota Fanning is not that pretty. But she does look like a lovely young girl. A woman can only look like that for a few years. Why would any women want to look like an aging party girl when she is 17?

      1. Chelsea Handler and Reese Witherspoon are also essentially the same age.

        1. So are Betty White and the corpse of Veronica Lake.

          1. Betty has got to be 80. And frankly she looks like she has fewer road miles than Handler, who is maybe 40.

              1. (So is the corpse of Veronica Lake)

            1. Handler was born in 75. She turns 37 in a few days. Which means Im 5.5 years older than her. I would have guessed her a decade older.

              1. I know she is a big drinker and partier. But it is not like she is the only one. Handler really does seem to be setting some kind of record for being rode hard and put up wet. I bet Lindsey Lohan looks better than Handler when she is 37.

                1. You’re making a bet Lohan makes it to 37? Bold choice.

                  1. Houston made it to 49, and Houston make Lohan look like an amateur.

                    1. Yeah. Now that I think about media darlings with serious substance abuse issues do live longer than I’d thought.

                      I still don’t agree that Lohan will look better at 37 than Handler does. Lohan strikes me as the type who will rapidly, and frequently, hit the plastic surgeon as soon as she realizes what her lifestyle has done to her looks. Her change from how she looked in her late teens to how she looks now is like a Meth poster.

                2. Are you there, Botox? It’s me, Chelsea.

        2. When Handler wrote her first book, she was pretty hot. But she looks horrible now. Part of it is that she has had bad work done and she always looks like she just doesn’t give a shit.

  45. from: http://www.nationalreview.com/…..ael-barone

    Thus, taking each individual by turns in its powerful hands and kneading him as it likes, the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrial animals of which the government is the shepherd.

    – Tocqueville

    1. Tocqueville’s observational skills really were amazing.

      1. It’s uncanny.

    2. In other words, it makes everyone more risk -averse. Ouch.

    3. Reads like a romance novel

    4. it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them;

      Which pseudo-libertarian Big Brain likes to go on about “nudging” and so forth?

      Whoever it is, needs to be nudged about the head with a hardback copy of de Tocqueville.

  46. it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrial animals of which the government is the shepherd.

    This reminds me of something I once read about boa constrictors: it claimed they do not actively “crush” their prey so much as just inexorably take up slack, until the victim is unable to move, or even expand its lungs enough to take a breath.

    1. Boa’s are members of the Church of Subgenius?

      1. No idea why the ‘ is in there.

  47. you missed the last sentence.

    Oops.

    Reading all the way to the end is hard.

    1. It’s OK. You comment what…500 times daily? There are bound to be mistakes. Buck up and move on.

  48. So does anyone have any good book recommendations for U.S. foreign policy in the 20th Century?

    Looking back, I realized that in every history class I took in high school never got past WWI – so I’m woefully ignorant of world politics past that point. It makes arguing foreign policy with people older than me difficult since they’ve lived through a good deal more of it than I have.

    1. Duh, that’s because FDR was the greatest president evar and that’s all you need to know about modern history.

      But yeah, I didn’t even know there was a Korean war until I got out of public school.

      1. Yeah, I’ve been finding out a lot of things recently: Didn’t know that there was an Iran/Iraq war in the eighties (I was born in ’88), had heard about the Iran-Contra debacle but didn’t know exactly what it was, etc.

        1. Do you know what Henry Kissinger said about the Iran/Iraq war? “It’s a pity they can’t both lose.” I have swiped it for personal use

    2. Ive been thinking that the standard college US History of “pre civil” and “post civil” probably needs to be split into threes: — pre civil, civil thru ww2, and post ww2.

      1. I guess we probably need to understand that a lot of college professors grew up in the post ww2 era.

      2. My American history class went at a steady pace until the civil war, then sped up to an insane rate when the teacher realized he couldn’t finish it all in one year. The next year, I took History of the Americas which covered South American and Mexico southward. That was a terrible idea – there were so many regime changes in South America and Mexico that you can never hope to keep straight which dictator believed what, what country they were in, and how many coups they instigated.

        1. My American history class went at a steady pace until the civil war, then sped up to an insane rate when the teacher realized he couldn’t finish it all in one year.

          Nary has there been an AmHx (or WorldHx) class any different.

          1. Ive always thought too much time was wasted in the colonial era.

            Its not US history until 1776, IMO. Until then, its British history.

          2. When I took AP US History, we spent maybe a week on the post-Korean War period. It really fucked what was left of the class (half the students dropped it mid-year) because one of the essay questions on the test was on 1950s cultural trends.

            My best friend and I did well because 1) I knew my stuff and 2) he was a master bullshit artist, but nearly everyone else got poor scores. Not surprisingly, that teacher ended up leaving the profession the very next year.

      3. I haven’t seen these yet, but you might want to try the Khan Acadamy for a quickie.

    3. Try the Wise Men. It tells the story of the people who made cold war foreign policy.

      http://www.amazon.com/Wise-Men…..838&sr=1-1

    4. Looking back, I realized that in every history class I took in high school never got past WWI – so I’m woefully ignorant of world politics past that point. It makes arguing foreign policy with people older than me difficult since they’ve lived through a good deal more of it than I have.

      It strikes me that listening to them rather than arguing with them might be one approach to the problem. Just a thought.

      1. The problem is we get wrapped around the axle as to what’s the cause and what’s the effect. Such as Iran taking hostages in the 70’s – he, my father, sees it as just another instance of Islam hating the West, I see it as retaliation for the U.S. supporting the Shah.

        I would try to listen more except he’s a religious statist, gets all his news from Fox, and has been spewing party talking points for the last few decades – so I consider his views suspect and go look for my own.

        1. I see it as retaliation for the U.S. supporting the Shah

          But of course when it counted we didn’t support the Shah. We restrained him and talked him out of putting the revolution down with force. That fact always gets lost. The only thing we did to trigger the Iranian hostage crisis was to let the Shah come to the west and prevent them from killing him and his family.

          The Iranian revolutionaries were two bit criminal fanatics. There really isn’t anything positive to be said about them.

          1. John, you and I would love to be supported for 26 years the way we supported the Shah.

            The problem is that the support would come with some strings, like establishing and maintaining a secret service that kidnapped, tortured and murdered at will.

            1. SAVAK was minor league compared to what they have now. And that was not what caused the revolution. What caused the revolution was the Shah actually going after the corrupt Imams and trying to secularize society. The Shah did a lot to modernize Iran. You guys act like he was all evil and the people who opposed he were all good. Bullshit. The people who most hated him were much worse than he was. And this has been born out by the last 30 years. I would much rather have lived in Iran under the Shah than under the Mullahs.

              1. What caused the revolution was the Shah actually going after the corrupt Imams and trying to secularize society.

                What caused the revolution was the Shah’s corrupt and tyrannical rule. That’s what turned the people of Iran against him.

                That revolution became Islamicized because the Shah had relentlessly ground into the dust any potential opponent or institution that could threaten his rule, and the only institution he couldn’t destroy was Islam.

                It’s no accident that the more repressive the monarchy or one-party state in the Middle East, the more likely it is that their primary opponents will be Islamists. The Islamists are the only people fanatical enough to withstand the totalizing impulses and police state apparati of these petty authoritarian states.

                The same thing happened in Poland with Catholicism.

                If we had never supported the Shah in the first place, would he have been replaced by the mullahs? Nope. We originally were afraid he would be replaced by secular Communists. But by 1979 the Communists, and everybody else BUT the mullahs, was dead.

                1. That revolution became Islamicized because the Shah had relentlessly ground into the dust any potential opponent or institution that could threaten his rule,

                  That is just untrue. He didn’t ground a lot of things into the dust. And when push came to shove, he didn’t put the revolution down. The Shah was a pussycat in comparison to what Assad is doing right now in Syria. If he had been anything like the way you claim him, there never would have been a revolution.

                  And the revolution became Islamized because the Islamists were more fnatical and more willing to kill than the Shah was. It is that simple. And the proof of that is the military, which never became Islamist and had to be purged after the revolution. Why didn’t the Shah use the military like Assad is?

                  1. The military split, John. And there had been endemic armed resistance to the Shah for years prior to 1978.

                    1. But when push came to shove, the Shah left peacefully and didn’t start a civil war. If he had been Joe Stalin or the mad killer you claim him to be, he would not have walked away. And indeed, our giving him a place to walk away probably prevented that. We saved who knows how many lives by talking him into leaving. But we hate all Iranians and wanted to kill them.

                2. We originally were afraid he would be replaced by secular Communists.

                  And the funny thing is that the iranian socialists were no more leftwing than the English socialists who instigated the coup (although the coup occured under Churchill, the trouble started with the Attlee government).

                  Strange that after nationalizing a huge swath of the British economy (railways, coal, steel and road transport) the Attlee government should baulk at negotiating with Mossadegh over terms fro Iran to nationalize BP.

              2. John, Mr. Straw may think that the Shah was all evil and that those who opposed him were all good.

                You know that most of us here do not. In fact, I will prove it to you:

                Based upon my LIMITED knowledge, I, too, would have rather lived in Tehran between 1953 and 1978 than from 1979 to the present.

              3. The Shah did a lot to modernize Iran.

                The Shah “modernized” Iran in roughly the same way that Stalin modernized the Soviet Union. Read Paul Johnson (Modern Times IIRC) for a good summary of where and how the US screwed up.

                Paul Johnson is certainly no America hater. The plain fact is that Ike backed the wrong horse in 1953. That and refusing to abide by the Geneva accords on Vietnam were two grand errors in an otherwise generally good administration.

                1. Yeah, that’s a popularization, but a first-rate one.

                  The section titled “The Bandung Generation” is one of the best summaries of how statism doomed the post-colonial nations that I’ve ever read.

              4. Of course you’re completely ignoring the fact that the Iranian people had a democratically elected government prior to the Shah’s reinstitution.

          2. The only thing we did to trigger the Iranian hostage crisis the invasion of Afghanistan was to let the Shah Osama bin Laden come to the west stay in one of our caves and prevent them the US from killing him and his family entourage.

            Signed,

            The Taliban

            1. They did more than that. They supported him and he pretty much bankrolled the government. And then told the UN and the rest of the world to fuck off when they demanded he be turned over.

              Seriously, Fluffy, you really seem to think of the entire middle east, sans Israel to be completely morally blameless for everything. I am surprised you are willing to live in a country that you consider to be the most monstrously evil ever conceived rather than a more morally blameless one like Pakistan or Iran.

              1. Too bad, dude.

                The Shah was a mass murderer. If Iran wanted to hang him after he fell from power, more power to them. Iraq hung Saddam and everybody cheered.

                When you claim that Iran should not have been angry because “all we did” was refuse to extradite a mass murderer to face the punishment he so richly deserved, then we should not have been angry when the Taliban refused to extradite a mass murderer to the US.

                Your only way out of this is to say, “Well, OK, I guess not extraditing the Shah was pretty shitty and it’s natural that they got really pissed off at us. But we owed him a bunch of favors and we didn’t want any of our other client rulers to feel like we wouldn’t help them out in a pinch, so we decided to take a chance on sheltering the guy.”

                You’re the one who always wants the US to be morally blameless. Actually, it’s worse than that. Even in instances where you admit that the US did something wrong, you think that other countries should just suck it up and not get mad at us because “Hey, World War II, man!” or “What do you expect? We were trying to win the Cold War!” or “It would have been worse for everyone if we hadn’t bombed you and killed your kids!”

                I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that supporting the Shah was an unfortunate necessity of the Cold War and the US pretty much had to do it. But the price we pay for that necessity is acknowledging that the people the Shah tortured get to be pissed off at us. That’s the trade-off. But you’re such a patriotic yokel and self-centered bastard sometimes that you can’t bring yourself to admit that.

                1. Sure they were pissed off at us. But that doesn’t mean they were right either. And that doesn’t mean that the people who were pissed off were nice people either.

                  You are such a closet fucking leftist you just can’t accept that just because someone is pissed at the US, even rightfully, doesn’t mean they are good or even not bad people. You refuse to admit any fault on anyone but the US’s fault or admit that maybe people might have motivations for doing things beyond all their legitimate grievances against the US. In fluffy world, it is as if US evil drives all actions.

                  You are the fucking yokel. You are the one who thinks everything that happens in the world is the result of US action not me.

                  1. You are such a closet fucking leftist you just can’t accept that just because someone is pissed at the US, even rightfully, doesn’t mean they are good or even not bad people

                    Wow, project much?

                    Strictly speaking, if someone has a legitimate grievance vis-a-vis the US, that grievance to me COMES BEFORE the question of whether they are good or bad people.

                    Obviously the Iranian regime sucks. But that doesn’t mean that they aren’t right and we aren’t wrong under (for example) the terms of the NPT.

                    Iran’s rights under the NPT (again for example) are the same whether they’re good people or dicks who lust after genocide.

                    And if the history doesn’t matter because the current Iranian regime is made up of dicks, then why don’t you just argue that? Instead you have to jump up and make fantastical claims every time someone points out the real history. You can forestall all of that just by saying, “Well, sure, Fluffy, you’re absolutely right about the history and also about the rights and responsibilites of the US and Iran under the NPT, but I think the Iranians are jerks and I want us to squash them regardless of those things.” Then we could talk about the merits of that idea separate from these other issues. But you WON’T DO THAT, at least not consistently, because it’s imperative to you that everyone think the US has clean hands, even when we don’t.

                    1. It’s like John has an opinion on everything!

                    2. “It’s like John has a shitty, poorly thought out opinion on everything!”

                      FYP.

                    3. Apparently between attacking queen Michelle and your meds running out, you are now in full manic mode. Way to spoof dipshit. Everyone knows it is you and no one cares what you have to say, whoever you are.

                    4. The truth hurts me.

                    5. “no one cares what you have to say”

                      YOU cared, enough to respond at least.

                      Owned again.

                    6. Attention is what you want so badly, being too stupid to actually understand anything that is being said and all. Just say thank you and move on.

                    7. Obviously the Iranian regime sucks

                      Why do you think that? You are the ones that claim they are right under the NPT. You are the one who thinks that they have a peaceful nuclear power program.

                      What do they do that makes them dicks? Every time the topic comes up, you are always on the side of how Iran is right under the NPT and how they have peaceful intentions.

                      If take what you say on its face, I don’t see how you could say the IRanian regime are dicks. They are embarked on a peaceful and lawful nuclear program. They are being unfairly picked on by the evil US. They are in power as a result of a popular revolution against a mass murder put into power by the US. What is not to love?

                      You say they are “dicks”. But the rest of what you say doesn’t indicate that at all. I don’t think you are being consistent here. Most of the time you are explaining how they are a peaceful law abiding government brought to power by a popular revolution against a horrible tyrant. So are they that or dicks? Which is it?

                    8. “So are they that or dicks? Which is it?”

                      I am asking of course, because I am so unsophisticated that I cannot picture an entire REGIME of people existing over DECADES being both.

                      My tiny mind is incapable of that level of thinking.

                    9. The Iranian regime is made up of dicks because they maintain a system of both official and paramilitary religious police that abuse Iranian citizens for engaging in innocuous acts which I, as a libertarian, think they should be perfectly free to pursue.

                      So that’s a big reason for me to consider them dicks.

                      Do I think they’re dicks for pursuing their rights under the NPT? Nope. And unless and until we withdraw from the NPT I will go right on not thinking that.

                      Do I think the fact that they seized our embassy over 30 years ago means they’re the WORST COUNTRY EVAH? No, not really. Not in the context of overall US / British / Iranian relations for the last century. It was an unfortunate event, but not one that should preclude tolerable relations forevermore.

                      Do I find their overall political system legitimate? Not really. But they do have a limited system of republican elections, which is a lot more than you can say for many of our allies in the region.

                      Do I care that they don’t like Israel? No. I don’t.

                  2. “You are the fucking yokel. ”

                    I know you are but what am I!!!

                    And my butt hurts.

          3. Well, I coming from the position that if you truly believe what the Declaration espouses, then you believe every nation has the responsibility to determine what form of government they want to live under. When the Shah fell, that was a legitimate revolution and the U.S. attempted to undermine it and prop up somebody else on the U.S. pay roll.

            It doesn’t make since that we, as libertarians, would be against statism and tyranny of the majority domestically, but be perfectly fine with influencing the governments of other nations, whether they are democracies or not.

            So, even if there is nothing positive to be said about the revolutionaries, I don’t see how the U.S. has the right to interfere in the internal politics of other another nation.

            John, from what I understand the Shah was trying to secularize a nation that was 90% muslim and the people said no, so the Shah tried to do it by force. If the people want to live under a theocracy, then they have the right to do that. There’s still no imperative for a foreign nation to mess with their internal politics.

            1. Sure they can. But that doesn’t make it the right choice. And I think the now the majority of the people in Iran would prefer not to live under such a theocracy.

              1. But that doesn’t make it the right choice

                Right, and I’m not in favor of our government forcing people to make the right choice, domestically or internationally.

                1. And thanks for the book recommendation, by the way.

    5. White Man’s Burder is badass.

    6. Not directly on US foreign policy, but I can recommend Arthur Goldschmidt, “A Concise History of tge Middle East,” as a nice factual take on ME history from pre Islamic times to now. I have the 6th edition which was published in 1999, which is when I took Goldschmidt’s course at Penn Sate. He’s up to 8th or 9th edition now…wonder why?

  49. I realized that in every history class I took in high school never got past WWI

    Woodrow Wilson, a Great and Noble Man, overcame the objections of teabagging haterz and made the world safe for Democracy.

    and they all lived happily ever after

    period;

    The End.

  50. it takes a while for the implications of the truth to sink in.

    OMFG I GET IT NOW!!!!

    “Rectal” is joe.

    1. You’re scaring me. It’s shockingly plausible that joe never left.

  51. Politically incorrect advertizing.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..d-now.html

    1. i’ve posted it before, and by God, I’m posting it again

    2. Since when is a Colt a bad xmas gift?

      1. I want one of those for $69.99.

    3. Sitting around the pool deck in your new suit watching a guy do “Kookla, Fran and Ollie” hand puppets. Could a cruise get better than that?

      1. That does sound kind of gay.

    4. Not just for Christmas: Two adverts you wouldn’t see today, one for American Export Lines (left) and the other suggesting a gun might be a good gift

      Fucking Limeys. What kind of scumbag hasn’t gotten a gun as a present?

      1. Age-appropriate gun gifting list in the South
        2 yo — cap gun
        6 yo — BB gun
        10 yo — .410 or .22
        14 yo — 12/16 ga duck gun or hunting rifle
        18 yo — hand gun in self defense caliber

        1. The best birthday present I ever got was a Makarov.

      2. Clearly that author hasn’t watched local TV or read billboards in the Pittsburgh area around the winter holidays.

  52. “Given the sadly widespread attitude that women who go out drinking are basically consenting to sex with whoever might decide he wants it, the ad is a bad move.”

    http://jezebel.com/5886591/com…..im+blaming

  53. Reason users annoyed by crappy mobile site (again).

    1. Perhaps your life would be less vexing if you stuck with the print copy and left the narcissism to us professionals.

    2. Other reason users annoyed that your moron ass was given a perfectly acceptable solution, but you continue to bark anyway.

      1. What solution? Buy a new phone?

  54. When you become President you can’t just run off to New York on date night without inconveniencing a ton of people. So therefore, you have to by necessity and out of concern for others live a more constrained life. You don’t get to just jump in the car and go somewhere even if you have the money to do it. It is the price you pay for assuming the office.

    I disagree. If you broadcast your intentions (and itinerary) for weeks, you probably need structured security. If you just jump in the Bulletproof Suburban with a driver and a couple of guys at your side to grab a milkshake, you should be fine, UNLESS YOU ARE SO UNIVERSALLY DESPISED YOU ARE A TARGET OF OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYBODY ANYWHERE WHO LAYS EYES ON YOU.

    And, if that is the case, you’re doing it wrong.

    1. UNLESS YOU ARE SO UNIVERSALLY DESPISED YOU ARE A TARGET OF OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYBODY ANYWHERE WHO LAYS EYES ON YOU.

      And, if that is the case, you’re doing it wrong.

      Because every petty authoritarian tyrant with delusions of grandeur knows that if you’re doing it right, people will despise you to the point of actually trying to kill you no matter how much security you have around at all times.

  55. Man who shot daughter’s laptop defends himself

    I thought the video was great, though I think a shotgun would be been better to watch that sucker get obliterated. Still, it was a great watch. But then, of course, CPS gets involved and ruins everything. Is there anything the government touches that doesn’t turn to shit?

    1. The sad thing about CPS is that if you poke them back with a stick, no matter how well-deserved you might feel it is, you just invite more trouble.

      But… it’s for teh childrenz!!

      1. There are genuinely bad people whose children should not have to endure what they do with their parents. Those are kids who are beaten to broken bones, bleeding, or any real damage. They are kids who are sexually molested or raped by parents or relatives. They are kids who are forced to live in filth and squalor. They are children whose parents tie them up or lock them up, verbally abuse them, physically abuse them and starve them.

        For kids who get mad at their parents and make up stories, I think CPS is a wonderful thing. They’ll likely be put in a home worse than they were in with strict parents who wouldn’t let them stay out past 10 PM on a school night, or make them eat all their vegetables. They’d discover how lucky they were to have those parents instead of many of the deranged people that CPS gives children away to.

        1. What’s so frustrating about CPS and its analogues is that it can be great at hassling basically OK parents, and bloody awful at dealing with the scumbags. The horror stories of dead tortured children always seem to note that the child was known to the authorities – and a fat lot of good it did them (at least here in Australia and in the UK). Like this one

    2. First, it was meant for the Facebook friends she has her own age that thought “Hey, that’s so cool that you stood up to your parent’s that way. That’s awesome!” I wanted them to know in no uncertain terms that she didn’t get away with it.

      if you work in IT and you didn’t think that video would go viral, you are too stupid to live.

      How he disciplines his daughter is his business. But if he wants to keep it his business, he might want to avoid putting videos of said discipline on the internet.

      He reminds me of one of these women who gets caught up in some public scandal claims they just want their privacy back right after they pose in Playboy.

      And I think this guy is a douchebag. But fuck CPS. They need to stay out of it.

      1. It’s not really easy to predict what will or will not go viral. You can probably determine what may or may not, but there is not certainty when it comes to internet popularity.

        1. One thing is a certainty, if you don’t put it up there, it won’t go viral.

        2. Oh but how I disagree. There are plenty of forced memes around the internets to back it up.

          1. Impossibru!!!

  56. Latest PopMech has a piece by Joe Pappalardo titled The Winning Way to Trim the Pentagon that includes this:

    “These changes involve the Pentagon’s core missions of nuclear deterrence, regime change, humanitarian aid, and pinprick airstrikes.”

    While we’re trimming areas of nation building, why not cut back on subsidies for Afghanistan mineral exploration, private investment, industrial development, banking and financial system development, agricultural diversification and revitalization, and energy development?

  57. That Drudge link apparently is about to link to a tape where Santorum in 2008 claimed that Satan had infiltrated all the major Protestant churches and the government and that only Catholics had any hope of saving America.

    1. I offer this link as proof that there is no God.

  58. Saying that the Protestant churches are infiltrated by Satan is not a good plan for winning the GOP nomination.

    1. He is saying that “Major Protestant Churches” have been infiltrated by Satan. The evangelicals left such churches because they thought the same thing. It won’t hurt him.

      1. Yeah. A colleague of mine can talk your ear off about how the churches have failed. The undercurrent hetries to hide is the whole “satan coopts the church” part of the End Times narrative. He doesn’t know how much I have read about this and he thinks he’s being sly but he gives too much away.

  59. Rick, Rick, Rick – when you unselfconsciously refer to Satan as “the Father of Lies” several times in your speech, it makes me think that you go home and and whip yourself with a cat o’ nine tails while screaming the Hail Mary in Latin.

    1. Did Satan make you double-post?

      1. No, that was the Greek God Nerdrageon.

    2. How *should* he refer to Satan? “The leader of the Democratic party”?

      1. I think it’s a matter of expressive mode revealing a state of mind.

        It’s one thing to talk about the presence of evil in the world.

        It’s another thing altogether to personify it and give it a proper name.

        It’s yet one more thing to have all sorts of Hercule Savion Whatever all-capitalized phrases you use to refer to that personified evil.

        When Person A says “I think that the presence of evil in the world is a weighty question for philosophy,” and Person B says, “I believe that there is a literal devil named Satan who opposes God throughout history,” and Person C says, “Yea verily, for the Father of Lies and the most horrible Lord of the Flies did smite down upon the servants of the lamb, and lo they were led into temptation!” Person C is a fucking loon.

  60. Rick, Rick, Rick – when you unselfconsciously refer to Satan as “the Father of Lies” several times in your speech, it makes me think that you go home and and whip yourself with a cat o’ nine tails while screaming the Hail Mary in Latin.

  61. If I see that “Whitney’s angel ascending to heaven” video still one more time I’m gonna vomit.

  62. Man you would think those guys would have learned by now!

    http://www.Privacy-Wares.tk

  63. U.S. troops burn Korans, Afghans throw rocks, shoot gunsU.S. troops burn Korans, Afghans throw rocks, shoot guns

    “”Experts in Islam say copies of the Koran should be buried or released in flowing waters if they need to be disposed of…””

    ….FLOWING WATERS?: urinating??

    “”Adding to the negative perception of U.S. troops was the release of a video last month that showed four U.S. Marines urinating on the corpses of dead Taliban fighters. “”

    Seriously, can we please leave now? WTF. Let the Taliban have the @#$@ place. Next time we’ll just bomb them. It turns out to be much more humane, and we don’t make news stories like this.

    There’s gotta be a “Operation Enduring Freedom = I fought the Taliban in Afghanistan and all I got was this (@*#$@ T-Shirt” out there somewhere by now.

  64. Does the diminishing popularity of Newt Gingrich prove that Citizens United isn’t the apocalypse for democracy and money alone can brainwash voters?

  65. I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article and i am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well. cheap wedge shoes

    cheap dancing shoes

  66. I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article and i am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well http://www.cheapjordanssite.com.

  67. You have a very good site, well constructed and very interesting i have bookmarked you hopefully you keep posting on http://www.nikejordansfreeshipping.com/.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.