A.M. Links: Bob Barr Says Libertarians Should Vote for Gingrich, Romney Falls Further Out of Favor With Actual Conservatives, Private Banking Is Dead

|

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: "Margaret Thatcher, Meryl Streep, & The Iron Lady: Fact vs. Fiction" 

NEXT: Shikha Dalmia on the Foreign Aid Flap Between Britain and India

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. Megan Fox wants babies!

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

      1. Doug Stanhope: Voice of America
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgDhDa4HHo

        1. That’s great.

    1. Nasty tat removal.

  2. Taylor Swift wearing something other than a dress!

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

    1. She’s got sort of a Joni Mitchell look going.

      1. Unfortunately, she doesn’t have Joni’s musical talent going.

        1. Feature, not bug.

        2. Im not a fan of country so have a tough time judging, but she seems to have more talent than most pop-starlets her age.

          1. Then again, thats pretty faint praise.

            1. What does that say about her millions of fans, American pop music in general and “country” music in particular?

              1. They are slightly smarter than the millions of fans of the other starlets?

              2. that they are easily impressed (the fans), and that neither is in danger of drowning from talent overload (pop & country).

                1. Are libertarians elitists? Gatekeepers? Superior aestheticians?

          2. For overproduced Nashville crossover-friendly country, aimed at the teenage girl she’s pretty okay.

  3. Gay Marines sharing a wet one!

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

  4. This is like the worst chat room ever.

    1. Hey, that’s my line!

      1. There is no “my” in anarchy.

    2. u mean shat room right?

      1. Nah that’s on the trekkie site.

  5. Former LP presidential nominee Bob Barr endorses Newt Gingrich, “would consider” Gary Johnson.

    The shine is really off that apple.

    1. WTF ever happened to him? Is he like the LINO of the Libertarian Party?

      1. Apparently. If he supports Newt he must be one of those Big Giant Government Works Projects Libertarians, like Dave Weigel. Similar to being a free market socialist.

        1. If only Wayne Allen Root would have been the nominee.

          1. WAR = Trump – Class

            UGH

        2. Barr is from GA and served alongside Noot. Apparently, he’s the only ex-Congressman who still likes Gingrich.

      2. Georgian endorses Georgian.

        1. As a Georgian who used to be one of Mr. Gingrich’s constituents, can I anti-endorse him? Would that be a denouncement?

          I denounce Gingrich for President.

          1. “I denounce thee, I denounce thee, I denounce thee.”

    2. Well, Paul did publicly endorse Chuck Baldwin in 2008. But, that was only after Barr pushed him to endorse someone.

      1. Chuck Baldwin is a hell of a lot more libertarian than Bob Barr.

        1. No argument, but Paul wasn’t going to endorse anyone until Barr pressured him.

    3. So Fundamentalist. Say Amen.

    4. I believe his defense of Baby Doc Duvalier would have to be the libertarians’ true cue-to-vomit. A Newt kiss is just dry heaves.

      He would have been my choice at the nominating convention, and I voted for him in the general election. I’m sorry and I’m sorry.

    5. Dalmia was right.

    1. Nearly every comment properly eviscerated the author. Thats a rarity.

    2. “as long as they join the state’s militia, the Illinois National Guard”

      How the fuck is the National Guard a state militia?

      1. They are state militias. They are also US military reservists. Totally weird, but true.

        State governors can activate them (ie for disaster relief) and are their CIC, but if the president activates them for national service they are US military until de-activated.

        1. “The National Guard of the United States is a joint reserve component of the United States Army and the United States Air Force and maintains two subcomponents: the Army National Guard of the United States for the Army and the Air Force’s Air National Guard of the United States….The National Guard of the United States is administered by the National Guard Bureau, which…provides policies and requirements for training and funds for training.”

        2. The National Guard of the United States is a reserve military force composed of state National Guard militia members or units under federally recognized active or inactive armed force service for the United States. Militia members are citizen soldiers, meaning they work part time for the National Guard and hold a civilian job as well.[2][3] The National Guard of the United States is a joint reserve component of the United States Army and the United States Air Force and maintains two subcomponents: the Army National Guard of the United States for the Army[2] and the Air Force’s Air National Guard of the United States.[2]

          From hier.

          1. I don’t see how that quote supports the position that it is a state militia. It’s run and funded by the U.S. government. It would be like saying the Delaware Federal Court or the New York Federal Reserve are state entities. Having a local division with a state’s name doesn’t make it a state agency.

            1. The National Guard of the United States is a reserve military force composed of state National Guard militia members

              Also, RTFA for more granular info on how this works.

            2. Plus, as I said above, the state national guards are both state militias and US armed forces reservists. Exactly which they function as at any given moment depends on their deployment status. Yes, it’s complicated.

              Talk to a NG member if you don’t believe me.

              1. Because if you already said something that makes it true? At this point you are either trolling or just stupid.

            3. When I was in the USMC Reserves my company was based in Dover NJ but the Battalion was headquartered on Long Island. Because of that, we were technically members of the NYS Militia though not of the National Guard because the USMCR is under the Navy.

            4. The Constitution gives Congress the power to set rules for discipline in the state militias, and procedures for “calling them forth” for national service. So they were clearly envisioned as having a heavy federal component and in particular of being “reserves” for the federal military.

      2. Since the National Guard are employees of the government, the Second Amendment only protects the right of government employees to keep and bear arms.

        That is correct.

        An Amendment was needed to protect the right of those with the monopoly on violence to arm themselves.

        Crazy, but true!

    3. FTA: Possible reasons for the shift include our Constitution’s age, 18th century roots and guarantee of relatively few rights. But there are other explanations.

      Methinks the author of this piece doesn’t know the difference in positive and negative rights. Perhaps that would explain the lack of a byline.

      1. Then there is our Second Amendment. Only 2 percent of the world’s constitutions recognize the right to bear arms, which is rooted in our days of a colonial militia. However, it is not one we are about to surrender to world opinion.

        Nevermind. I just realized it was obviously written by some retarded kid as a class project of something.

        1. Nevermind. I just realized it was obviously written by some retarded kid liberal arts major as a class project of something.

          1. Ehh, Retarded kid, liberal arts major; what’s the difference?

          2. Nevermind. I just realized it was obviously written by some liberal arts major as a class project of something PhD dissertation.

            1. Never mind I wrote that.

              1. We’d never have known since you refuse to release your academic records.

    4. A well-educated populace, being necessary to the flourishing of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear books, shall not be infringed.

      Clearly, only the well-educated would have a right to books.

      1. What if I don’t want to keep David Sedaris books? What if I want to keep Ayn Rand?

    5. I’d be all for a new Constitutional convention–the fireworks between the various states trying to get their little pet causes enumerated as “rights,” would be a virtual guarantee that such an effort would result in them accomplishing absolutely zilch.

  6. Anyone who voted for Bob Barr in 2008 should be ashamed of themselves.

    1. Are we supposed to be mind-readers? No, Bob Barr should be ashamed of himself.

      1. Maybe look at his record prior to 2008? That might have told you something.

        1. As compared to McCain’s?

          1. His positions were different than McCain’s but no better overall.

        2. Why does it matter? Was anyone actually voting for the candidate, as though we had to contend with the possibility of a Barr administration? The only thing we could do in 2008 is send a message, and voting LP was the least ambiguous signal you could send.

          1. The only thing we could do in 2008 is send a message

            .40% of the popular vote!

            LIBERTARIANS!
            LIBERTARIANS!
            LIBERTARIANS!

            1. Popular schmopular!
              It’s in the chat rooms where the real work is being done!

    2. Im not proud of the vote, but who should I have voted for instead?

      It was a lesser of many evils argument. Of the 6 or so on my ballot, he was the clear cut choice.

      1. I voted for the libertarian party. It doesn’t really matter who is on the ticket.

        Of course, some of the folks around here would claim that merely voting is part of the problem.

        1. McCain won my state by more than 16 points.

          I think I was safe even on any “strategic” voting arguments, including those who claim voting is part of the problem.

          But, yep, my vote was a ballot access vote more than anything. I wouldnt have done it if there had been a better candidate than Barr, but I have no problem with my vote.

          1. Iowa was close going right up to the election. But still, the chances of my one vote making a difference were extremely minimal. Better to record another Lib vote that choose between McCain/Obama.

            1. ^^This^^ bears repeating.

              1. I see what you did there.

          2. Iowa was close going right up to the election. But still, the chances of my one vote making a difference were extremely minimal. Better to record another Lib vote that choose between McCain/Obama.

          3. ballot access remains very undervalued, certainly under-talked-about. If you want to see bipartisanship in action, just watch a 3rd party candidate try to get on the ballot.

            1. If the Libertarian Party nominates people like Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root, they don’t deserve ballot access.

              1. They will have better candidates this year.

        2. “Voting is merely participating in a rigged, bullshit game where you have no statistical effect but when you participate you give it legitimacy. Fuck that.”

          -Episiarch

          1. My participation is event X in no way gives X legitimacy. Epi is granting me far too much power.

            Its nice of him, but he is wrong.

            1. My hero isn’t always right but he is never wrong.

              Gotta go. Epi’s laundry isn’t going to wash itself!

      2. When there’s no one to vote for I vote for no one.

    3. The great thing about voting for someone who i snot going to win is that you never have to be ashamed about it. I don’t love the fact that I voted for Barr. But fuck it. At least I didn’t vote for Obama or McCain.

      1. So the people who voted for David Duke in 1991 should have a clear conscience? He lost so it’s ok.

        1. Equivocate much?

        2. Duke got 39% of the votes, so there was a faint but real possibility that the asshat might have won under certain circumstances; therefore he wasn’t quite the fringe candidate as Barr. But you’re right that even if Duke had only gotten one vote, that voter should be ashamed.

  7. “The shooting was reported around 7:30 a.m. at the 1,100-student Chardon High School about 30 miles east of Cleveland….Four ambulances ? from Chardon, Kirtland, Burton and Chesterland ? are waiting at the door of the high school at 8:15 a.m. . . .Around 8:45, the Lake County SWAT team has arrived with a couple of big vehicles.”

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c…..ore-110779

    1. An hour and fifteen minute response time. WTF were those clowns doing? That is just pathetic. How long does it take to gear up and drive to the school?

      1. They had all that fancy federal grant money equipment to strap on John, that takes time! You have to look bad-ass before you roll out in these situations.

        1. This is true. And of course, we could never expect actual officers to confront a high school kid with a gun. That takes a special operations force. Just pathetic.

          1. next big opportunity for lake co swat will be retirement followed by enhanced story telling at the elks

          2. A teacher chased the kid out of the building, and regular cops ended up finding him and making the arrest. Probably all before SWAT from the next fucking county showed up.

            By most accounts, this was an extremely well-managed and reacted-to event (apart from LC SWAT, which was probably AT LEAST a 30 minute drive away).

            1. Which just goes to prove the case that we are not training and equipping enough SWAT teams. Every school needs a SWAT team on-site for just such an emergency!

              1. Don’t be silly, people. SWAT is for raiding houses with unarmed occupants growing a couple pot plants.

                1. Correction: SWAT is for raiding the homes of unarmed occupants whose neighbors are growing a couple of pot plants.

        2. A+. Don’t forget, they were probably still just rolling into work and downing their coffee and donuts first.

          1. We had to wait in line to get our donuts, eat them and then go to the school.

            1. …then go to the wrong school (and shoot their dog).

      2. Uh, what if Jenny thinks your outfit is lame? You’ll have like zero chance of hittin that at Brody’s party this weekend.

        1. OMG, is Brody into Jenny?

      3. Nothing is more important than the safety of the children. Unless, of course, a cop might get hurt. Then you take as much time as you want. Fuck the children.

        1. They are HEROES Zeb! WTF is wrong with you?

      4. Because there was an actual gun involved! Occifer safety trumps all!

      5. Let school staff arm themselves and the response time would be measured in seconds. How many times does shit like this have to happen before people realize that gun-control laws only prevent victims from having access to guns when they need them most?

        1. It’s because the anti-gun people are against guns not violence. They want more school shootings and mass murders that they can use to try to pass more anti-gun laws.

        2. teachers are way too retarded to be packing heat.

    2. Just playing games with the populace. The longer you have to wait, the more you want them.

    3. I would have thought that Lake County SWAT would be significantly further away than Geauga County SWAT, since Chardon is pretty close to the middle of Geauga County.

      1. It’s worse than that. Chardon is the county seat.

        Geauga county is partly rural with some upscale burbs, but Lake county has Painesville and much more crime, so not surprising they would arrive sooner.

        The Lake County Sheriff’s Office also maintains one of the best equipped Swat Teams in the State of Ohio. The Swat Team activations were critical to eliminating crack houses and methamphetamine labs in our patrol areas and adjoining Painesville City. Captain Walters commands the team, comprised of Lake County Deputies, Painesville City Officers, and
        Geauga County Deputies. The SWAT Team was activated (8) times in 2010, (6) were drug related, (1) barricaded suspect, and (1) assist to local law enforcement on high risk warrants.
        In 2006 the Lake County Sheriff’s Office received a grant for the purchase of a drug detecting
        dog.

        1. Painesville isn’t some wretched crime-hole, but I looked it up too, and I guess Geauga doesn’t have SWAT at all. I guess Lake County needs tanks to deal with all the ruffians from Mentor and Willoughby.

    4. Every single teacher and administrator should be mandated to take handgun courses. While school shootings are still rare, you can’t depend upon outside forces (police) to ease the situation. Columbine and Va Tech could’ve been greatly mitigated if any of the teachers had an opportunity to defend themselves and their students. The asinine position of keeping ANY place a “gun-free” zone will only ever result in a higher body count.

      – Future Teacher

    5. Sure the education sucks, but at least he was well socialized.

  8. I turn around and I’m like ‘whoa!'” Johnson said of seeing the nude man. “He said something about he was looking for work, and he was good with his hands. I didn’t know why a naked dude would be in my shop.”

    http://sacramento.cbslocal.com…..h-officer/

    1. I guess White Indian needed some cash.

  9. Fuck you, Bob Barr. What a joke of a ‘libertarian’.

    1. (1972)
      Fool me once, shame on me.

      […]

      (2012)
      Fool me twelve times…

      1. Take my purity test.

        1. 1972
          1 electoral vote

          […]

          2008
          0 electoral votes

          1. Is this a new troll, or an old troll with a new handle?

            1. A historian with cold, cruel facts.

              1. That didn’t answer my question. But, thanks for playing. We have some nice parting gifts for you backstage.

                1. I reject your premise. Try again.

                2. I’m pretty sure this is white idiot again. I would say ignore it and it will go away, but unfortunately that hasn’t worked in the past either.

                  1. Pretend it is parody. Much easier to ignore then. Or you could just join the parody. Drown him out in a sea of faux stupidity…

                  2. Because people keep responding. Also, rectal = anonypussy = WI. Whenever you see someone constantly changing handles, it’s rectal. Add to incif or reasonable and move on.

                    1. I reject your premise. Try again.

                  3. It has never been ignored, so there’s no way you can say that ignoring it hasn’t worked. Some asshole always has to respond to it, or spoof it.

    2. Bob Barr is Bob Barr.

      It was the convention that nominated him that should be blamed for putting him on the ticket.

      1. In democratic systems, doesn’t the buck stop with the individual voter?

  10. Judicial Restraint:

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c…..ore-110699

    1. Time Warner sucks worse. Experience….

    2. useful for newt’s moon colony

    3. “Brain-dead chicken”? Isn’t that kind of like “retarded cat” or “stubborn mule”? Kind of goes without saying…

    1. Hey, that’s my line!

    1. I would later find out serves the sole purpose of eliminating free thinking adolescents.

      He was taken to a public school?

      1. even worser, a religious charter school

        1. Or worse still…any location in Cleveland.

          1. Jealous hick from Cowtown.

            http://www.clevelandorchestra……story.aspx

            http://www.greatlakesbrewing.com/home

            Rock N Roll Hall of Fame
            Cleveland Museum of Art
            Cleveland Inst of Music
            etc, etc ad infinitum

            1. That’s why so many people are moving there.

            2. And has lost 100,000 people per decade since the 60s (roughly).

            3. And I could send it right back, btw:

              – Nationwide Arena / Arena District
              – Wexner Center for the Arts
              – Ohio State
              – Muirfield

              Cleveland is just Detroit’s slightly less ugly sister.

              1. Nationwide is a dime-a-dozen hockey arena that may end up going the way of Richfield Coliseum if the ‘Jackets continue to suck and the investors get tired of it.

                I’ll give you the latter three.

            4. Burning River
              Ten cent beer night
              The Cavs
              The Indians

              Based on the Morgan Quitno Press 2008 national crime rankings, Cleveland ranked as the 7th most dangerous city in the nation among US cities with a population of 100,000 to 500,000 and the 11th most dangerous overall.
              In October 2010, Cleveland had two neighborhoods appear on ABC News’s list of ‘America’s 25 Most Dangerous Neighborhoods’: Ranked 21st was in the vicinity of Quincy Avenue and E.40th Streets, while an area near E. 55th and Scovill Avenue ranked 2nd in the nation.
              – from Wiki

              In 2009, the CQ Press ranked Cincinnati the 19th most dangerous city in the United States. – also from Wiki, which means by progressive math, Cincy is almost twice as safe as Cleveland (:-O)

              It ain’t called “The Mistake On The Lake” for nothing.

              1. Burning River IPA is indeed delicious. Cincinnati is one of the top 5 most segregated cities in the country. And it’s not really Ohio, anyway.

            5. And I grew up in Cincinnati, you asshole.

              Home of The Big Red Machine, Jerry Springer and a team that’s been to the Super Bowl.

              And I’m gonna save the best for last: Suck it, Cleveland!

              1. Jerry Springer

            6. Akron’s got the 11th best brewery in the world. Eat that, bitches.

    2. That was a episode of Phineas and Ferb.

    3. I found it easier simply to not fight it. It just wasn’t worth the effort. Go to church when they ask you do and then move out and flip the church the bird as you drive to your first apt.

      1. ^^^This

        1. Or, just drive past the church and not give it another thought as you move on with the rest of your life.

          It may not seem as clever, but it’s not as petulant either.

          1. I choose to go the hard way. Told my fundie parents I was agnostic, which wasn’t wise. I also got kicked out of Christian school for vandalism. Luckily my parents sent to public school instead of military school. I look back now and I realize things would have been a lot easier if I had just kept my mouth shut and waited to be 18 to do what I wanted.

          2. It’s not petulant to express contempt for having your fundamental rights violated, sloopy. That’s kind of like telling the armenians that they should just forget about that pesky holocaust and move on.

            1. What holocaust?

            2. Did you just compare being raised in a religious household to holocaust survivors? Sweet titty fucking christ, I know goth kids who are less petulant than your whiny ass.

            3. I’m just saying take that contempt out on your parents, not the church. They didn’t force you to go.

              That said, the Armenians should take up their grievance with Johnny Turk, not with the USofA. They sound like whiny bitches when they bellyache about it to the wrong people.

    4. Sucks to have crappy parents. But the solution of having the state tell parents how to raise their kids is worse than the disease.

      1. Sucks to have crappy parents. But the solution of having the state tell parents how to raise their kids is worse than the disease acknowledging that even minors have limited first amendment rights is the proper libertarian stance.

        1. Sure they have first amendment rights Tonio, right after they pay their own bills. Do you really think it is a good idea for the government to be telling parents what they can and cannot teach their children? You don’t think that will end badly?

          Think about where that ends.

        2. I have John. Unlike you, I’ve also thought about the rights of the youth. Do you think they have any rights, John?

          Most particularly, I’ve thought about their right to not be compelled to attend services, participate in religious indoctrination, etc.

          Not sure what exact age this should kick in, but somewhere during the early double-digit years (ages 12-14) they should have the right to refuse to participate.

          This isn’t about the state telling parents what to teach; it’s about the state guaranteeing the FA rights.

          I know you’re blind to this distinction given your past writings, but others see it differently.

          1. I’m with John on this one. A household is not a democracy; it’s a benevolent dictatorship that will hear petitions for appeal.

            As I tell my children: “If you ever become completely dissatisfied with the management of this establishment, you a free to take your business elsewhere.”

            1. Edit: A household with minor children.

              And don’t you worry. They express their opinions quite frequently and with great volume.

            2. But they aren’t legally free to do so before age 18.

              1. Minors can self-emancipate at 16 in some states.

                But, you’re missing the overall point. Without endorsing the reprobates who think they could beat the Jesus into their kid, my word is the final word under my roof. Children don’t have all the rights, nor duties, of adults in a family environment, nor should they.

                I am responsible for their actions, both legally and ethically. Their decision making skills are nominal, at best. I frequently determine actions that are at odds with their free will and I have no problem with that.

                If you’d rather I abrogate that duty and turn loose worthless parasites onto society, I can do that. I’d rather provide a worthwhile and productive person. That sometimes includes denying them their “rights” at the expense of what I think is best for them in the long run.

                1. When they can demonstrate that they can support themselves and not only have the responsibility of adulthood, but also the accountability, then I consider my job to be done and they can then have all the rights they can handle.

                  1. …then I consider my job to be done and they can then have all the rights they can handle.

                    Agreed. As long as they are ready to accept the responsibilities that go with those rights.

          2. Most particularly, I’ve thought about their right to not be compelled to attend services, participate in religious indoctrination, etc.

            They have a right to do whatever the fuck I tell them to do. If I tell them to go to church, they’ll go to church.

          3. You only have FA rights with regards to the state. The 1st Amendment does not mean you get to say whatever you want with no consequences. It just means the state can’t punish you. Sorry Tonio but your parents can. You have no First Amendment rights with regard to your parents.

            To say you even have minimal First Amendment rights is just batty. Your parents have an obligation to feed you, cloth you, educate you, and generally not abuse you. They have no obligation to let you spout whatever your feeling of the day are.

          4. Not sure what exact age this should kick in, but somewhere during the early double-digit years (ages 12-14) they should have the right to refuse to participate.

            And how exactly would the state enforce this?

        3. So, what other common-law rights do they not get until they are adults? So, it’s ok to assault and steal from them?

          1. Mommy took money out of my piggy bank! I’m calling the police!

          2. It may not be okay. But it is certainly not illegal.

            1. Pretty sure the assault part is illegal, regardless of victim’s age.

              1. John already agreed that parents are obligated to not abuse their kids.

          3. Listen Tonio, kids don’t have any Constitutional rights until the government doesn’t agree with the way the parents are raising the kids. The the government is free to step in and do whatever they like. For an example, see any case of Jehovah’s Witness children being kidnapped for medical procedures.

            1. *Then the government…

    5. Remember, kids, you get to pick your parents’ nursing homes…or not.

      And I’m being serious here.

      1. Very true. Unless your parents have the nerve to die young or suddenly.

      2. Yeah this is my argument when it comes to caring for the elderly. If you were an asshole to your kids and stupid with your money, don’t be surprised when you actually rot in the street in miserable old age. Outside of that, even if you weren’t an asshole, your kids can still be and they might not support you regardless. Best then not to be stupid with your money.

  11. “Kids get high on Polish medicine”

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/ho…..icine.html

    1. You can get high trying to find the corner of a circular pill?

  12. The Rev. Joel Hunter, a former council member and spiritual adviser to Obama, added: “Whenever there is a huge blowback on any move, there is a hesitancy and a questioning of are we still taken into consideration before something is put out.”

    Joel, you silver-tongued devil!

  13. His faith under attack, his contraception decision savaged on all sides, President Barack Obama could use backup in the religious community right now.

    But three years into his presidency, Obama’s marquee council of faith advisers has gone dark ? a little-noticed postscript for a panel that he rolled out with fanfare and high expectations during his first weeks in office but ended up playing only a limited role in West Wing deliberations.

    The Big Oh seems to be pandering hard to some voter blocs while completely abandoning others. It looks like either he thinks he can win in November with just his base or he really is going scorched earth. I mean, how difficult is it for him to pay lip service for a few Jesus votes?

    1. Obama’s marquee council of faith advisers has gone dark

      RAAACIST!!

      1. I was wondering when he’d let Reverend Wright back into the inner circle. Didn’t know Farrakahn and Sharpton would get invites as well.

    2. At some point we surely have to stop assuming he knows what he’s doing, politically-speaking.

      1. Meh, they have to at least know they’ve lost a great deal of single issue voters. The religious aren’t coming back to pull the lever for Obama so maybe it actually isn’t worth the effort for them.

        1. which religious? the southern baptist convention? well surprise surprise andy

    3. I mean, how difficult is it for him to pay lip service for a few Jesus votes?

      Not very, but every pander to the religious voters you lose votes of the non-religious and their numbers are growing.

    4. I prove my Christianity by killing Muslims all over the world. For Christ’s sake! Where are my spiritual advisers?

    1. That means you ?or any of us? could be prosecuted by an international court with all our protections asserted in the Bill of Rights thrown down the drain!! How many believe that, in this firearm-hostile world, any of us would prevail in such a lawsuit?!

      I suppose it depends on what you mean by “prevail”.

    2. John said the other day that treaties that violate the constitution arent constitutional.

      Hopefully he is right.

      1. Even if they aren’t, the courts have to make a ruling for it to matter.
        Do you really think they give a shit?

  14. When they outlaw rat poison…

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

  15. Bob Barr is just disappointed that Baby Doc Duvalier isn’t running.

  16. Bob Barr on why libertarians should vote for Gingrich: “Under Newt’s leadership we balanced the federal budget…”

    Screw that.

    1. The treasury dept disagrees, as we havent had a balanced budget, according to them, since the early 50s.

      The very last of the Clinton budgets (which wasnt done with Gingrich at leader) came damn close, but didnt quite reach.

      1. Only because they had a lot of revenue from the dot-com bubble.

        1. no, because “they” raided the SS trust just like their god reagan

        2. Of course. But that wasnt my point. Even with it, they never reached balance.

          We never ran a surplus, despite all the talk of it.

      2. And it wasn’t anything our government did. The Dot Com bubble brought in more revenue than expected, and they just couldn’t organize fast enough to spend it plus a bunch more.

        Spending didn’t decrease, and tax rates didn’t increase. Our government had ZERO to do with those balanced budgets, which never existed anyway.

        1. The Tech Bubble was a result of Fed cheap money policy, so saying that government had ZERO to do with it isnt exactly correct.

          It wasnt a positive effect, but they were involved.

  17. The government shows more concern for your safety.

    Government statistics show that 228 people of all ages die in the US each year after being hit by passenger vehicles backing up, while roughly 17,000 people are injured.

    We must save EVERY life, no matter the cost.

    1. I’m thinking that if people are too lazy or distracted to look out the rear window or rear-view mirrors they are probably too lazy or distracted to look at a video screen.

      1. This.

        Follow the money.

        1. When will the government require passenger vehicles to have the ol’ BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP when in reverse? That’ll be *really* annoying.

        2. Car makers have been adding the backup sensors to cars without any gubmint requirelment at all.

          They work too. Saved me a new bumper when I almost backed into a very skinny, metal street sign that I didn’t see.

      2. In theory, a kid close to the back of an SUV wouldn’t be visible through the back window or rear view mirrors. That said, in three years and a half years of taking my kids to school, parks, parties, field trips, museums, etc. the camera I have has shown zero (0) people while I was backing up.

        1. Not that I’m defending this regulation for SUV’s, but regular cars?

          I’m thinking people relying on these cameras are going to hit more people. You shouldn’t be looking forward when backing up. Cameras are for checking blind spots while moving forward.

    2. The backup camera on my SUV was part of a package with other stuff I wanted. About the only use it really has is backing out of parking spots in tight lots. In three and a half years, I have not seen even one person in it while backing up.

      1. My new truck will have one, again, because it’s part of the package. It’s not something I would have asked for separately. The trailer brake controller was more important to me, frankly.

      2. I have never needed or used the parachute in my airplane once.

        ~John McCain
        September 1967

    3. Why doesn’t the government just make accidents illegal?

      1. I think they’d be more likely to make backing up illegal.

        1. Pull-through parking spots for all!

      2. actually if you ever get in an accident in the street, just try and keep the 5-O from coming to write a ticket for failure to avoid a collision. or a ticket for any precursor to the accident

  18. Rachel Maddow’s vagina:

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/02…..d-vaginal/

    1. I have a plan to become her favorite guest in the world: talk about dipping tea bags in vaginas.

    2. A cold and dry place.

    3. Rachel Maddow

      Wait a minute. Wait just a. Goddamn. Minute.

      That’s a woman?

      1. Funny every time?

  19. Former LP presidential nominee Bob Barr endorses Newt Gingrich, “would consider” Gary Johnson.

    What can you say, the man craves minimal relevancy.

    1. That’s Linsensitive!

    2. Fortune cookies aren’t Chinese and Chinese isn’t a race.

      1. So you are letting facts get in the way of the narrative? You would suck as a Liberal!

    3. Note to lib-tards: if you get pissed off over a cookie in a flavor of ice cream named after a popular basketball player who just happens to be of chinese ancestry, you have to much fucking free time on your hands. Get a job, read a book, do something other than find stupid shit to get butthurt over.

  20. Bob Barr endorses Newt Gingrich

    Well, okay then. But only if he picks Giuliani as VEEP. And Barney Frank can be Secretary of the Treasury.

  21. Holman has looked at the pattern and says more than 40 percent of former members actually register as lobbyists. But others, like Santorum and Newt Gingrich and many high profile Democrats too, avoid the unpopular title of lobbyist by consulting or calling themselves consultants instead.

    Santorum can call himself whatever he likes as long as I don’t have to call him Mr. President. Romney and Paul are the only two that can credibly fight over the title of “outsider” in this primary.

    1. No, not Santorum, please. But, I ask you, what kind of sea creature is Gingrich and what kind of car is Ron Paul?: 11 analogies for the presidential candidates

  22. French election: Hollande wants 75% tax on top earners.

    The Socialist favourite in France’s presidential election, Francois Hollande, has said top earners should pay 75% of their income in tax.

    Mr Hollande himself renewed his call on Tuesday, saying the 75% rate on people earning more than one million euros a year was “a patriotic act”.

    “It’s a signal that has been sent, a message of social cohesion, there is an effort to be made,” he explained.

    “It is patriotic to agree to pay a supplementary tax to get the country back on its feet.”
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17189739

    1. Yes, this is certainly going to lure the likes of Johnny Halliday back to France. Vive la Suisse.

      1. But he will come if you give him dinner and booze: http://www.lexpress.fr/actuali…..80193.html

      2. Looks like Johnny Depp and Brangelina will be relocating from France soon.

  23. Emma Watson is still hot!

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

    1. “Sorry. The page yuou requested no longer exists or is not available….”

      BLLLLLLLAAAAAST!

      1. Link works for me…

        1. Lucky YOU!

    2. Was that from the set of a 1980s music video?

    3. Too bad she wrecked her hair.

        1. I know, I just don’t see the appeal of the ridiculous pixie cut.

          1. Because, as those who have women in their lives already know, women usually take some time to get ready to be seen in public. A 5 minute hair do is just one less thing to worry about in the process.

    4. When was there doubt?

    5. She’s all growed up.

  24. Wealthy more likely to lie, cheat: Study

    http://www.financialexpress.co…..dy/917819/

    Not the JOB CREATORS!

    1. They came to the conclusion after a series of experiments examining social class and ethics. The first two took place in the street, with motorists secretly being observed as they crossed a busy junction and approached pedestrian crossings.

      Those in the flashiest cars, assumed to be wealthy ones, were four times as likely as those in old bangers to cut up other vehicles by barging their way across the junction, the researchers found.

      That is some real science there. It is called a cargo cult.

      1. Sigh. OK John, explain how this is an example of a cargo cult.

        1. Because that experiment is utter junk. Just because someone drives a flashy car doesn’t mean that they are wealthy. And there are a million different variables that could affect people’s reaction.

          It is just not science. It is on the level of a bad 6 pm news report.

          1. That’s nice, but how is this an example of a “cargo cult.”

            You just picked that expression up somewhere during a climate change debate and figured it just meant “bad science”, eh?

            1. No. I picked up that expression about 30 years ago when I read Feynman who invented. And if you read the Cal Tech inauguration speech where it comes from, he is talking about just this sort of junk social science. Calling this a cargo cult is a perfect use of it in the sense Feynman was using it.

              I am sorry you have never read that speech. I am sorry you are not better read and don’t get a lot of references to things. I just forget that sometimes.

              1. Really John. Then explain how this is an example of what Feynman used the term for, because it looks like you’re using it as a generic term for “poorly done science.”

                And that ain’t how Feynman meant it.

                1. That is exactly how he meant it. He gives a long description of a poorly run rat running experiment and the guy who fixed it. The whole point of the speech is that we have these “experts” who run horribly unscientific “studies” and call it science and use their credentials to tell other people what to do. That is the cargo cult. And this is a perfect example of the kind of “science” he was talking about. He used the term analogously. There is the literal cargo cult in the SW Pacific. And then there is the more figurative ones that inhabit our social sciences.

                  I think most of our arguments come down to me making a point that you take literally and miss metaphorical point. You the most literal thinker I have ever known.

                  1. This has nothing to do with cargo cults. I realize it’s been a popular expression in right wing discussions of climate change, but that’s not how the term, even in its metaphorical sense, is used, even by Feynman. Sorry. When you regurgitate talking points at least try to make the appropiate word changes.

                    1. You clearly haven’t ever read Feynman because that is exactly the way he used it. You just know just know “cargo cult” has been used by people you don’t like. So therefore you don’t like it. Go read and understand something for once and get back to me.

                    2. To the extent you, or Feynman, use it just to mean “bad science” it’s a pretty sloppy, useless metaphor.

                      I’ve heard him speak of it in terms of “studies” that take the results of someone elses work for use in their studies in lieu of their own experimentally derived data, in that it seems somewhat useful of a concept or metaphor. But to just mean “bad science”, not so much.

                      Anyone with any training in this field recognizes the weakness of this study as a simple validity problem.

            2. In a sense, the researchers are mistaking the object (the flashy car) for the operator (the person who is either wealthy or not wealthy).

              Mistakenly ascribing life and personhood to material objects is vaguely cargo-cultish.

              1. Welcome stretch Armstrong.

          2. Because John Wants that science to be utter junk.

            Especially when its straightforward.

            1. John the Baptist

              +2

      2. Those in the flashiest cars, assumed to be wealthy ones

        1) Define “flashy car”? Some people might reserve that label for high end brands, but “flashy” could just as easily describe a tuned up, blinged out Honda Civic as well.

        2) “Assumed to be wealthy” Good to see the scientific method is alive and well. And people wonder why I consider all social “science” to be bullshit.

        1. No kidding–interesting methodology they practiced there. Nice to see that middle school intellectualism is capable of surviving all the way up the academic ladder.

    2. Those in the flashiest cars, assumed to be wealthy ones…

      Dickheads who compensate with flashy vehicles more likely to lie, cheat.

      A glance at The Millionaire Next Door might be in order for the “researchers.”

      1. I think it’s perfectly sound to argue there was a validity issue here: in a Venn diagram of “people who drive flashy cars” and “wealthy people” there is not going to be exact overlap.

        But I can’t wait to see John spin this as a “cargo cult.”

        1. So you posted a link to a flawed study to entice John into saying something you two could argue over? Can’t you guys just go ahead and fuck and be done with all this foreplay?

      2. That was my first thought too. Is a “job creator”, i.e. someone who builds a company from the ground up, going to tool around in a flashy car? Probably not.

        1. Like I said, there is a validity problem here. But “cargo cult” is something John heard on a thread somewhere and thinks means “any science that I don’t like.”

          1. Like I said, there is a validity problem here

            When a study is published with all the intellectual rigor of something written by the Sex and the City sluts, “validity problem” might be a bit of an understatement.

          2. The phrase at issue is cargo cult science: practices that have the semblance of being scientific, but are missing “a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty”. Sounds apropos.

            1. Congratulations, you shut MNG up. It’s been almost three hours since you posted this and nary a whimper.

              Now all you’ve got to do is catch him at first post.

      3. A glance at The Millionaire Next Door might be in order for the “researchers.” everyone

        Kickass book with pretty sound research

    3. The biggest problem I see with this study (and the problems are numerous) is that of the chicken and the egg. Saying that wealth causes unethical behaviour is like saying that becoming a politician causes one to lie. It is more conceivable that unethical people are more willing to behave in ways that inappropriately garner them wealth. Most social science is not so much an education in anything scientific, but more an education in fallacious reasoning and rarely ever merits the moniker “science.”

  25. Conservative support for Mitt Romney plummeted 16 percent in the last two weeks.

    Conservative definition of what conservatism means varied 86% in the past 3 years.

  26. “Former LP presidential nominee Bob Barr endorses Newt Gingrich”

    You know, back when he ran and caught a fair amount of hell here I defended Barr quite a bit, I argued his conversion seemed plainly sincere. And this is the thanks I get?

    1. Imagine that, a politician fucking you.

      Barr, you bastard!

      *shakes fists*

      1. But Barr’s conversion really seemed sincere. I mean, what in the world would he have to gain, traveling from college campus to campus debating fiscal policy with undergrads? I guess he goes back a long way with Gingrich…

        1. I have no idea what he stands to gain even now. Gingrich seems most likely to emerge from this election hated by the most groups of people and the least relevant moving forward.

          1. I was talking about what he had to gain when he ran as LP nominee. I don’t think he has much to gain here either, I would chalk it up to Gingrich and him going way back, nothing more.

            1. I have to agree with you. His conversion seemed sincere to me, too. As was remarked at the time, who in their right mind joins the LP in a bid for greater relevance?

              Still, it’s disappointing. I don’t care how far back he and the Titties go. Gingrich would be an unmitigated disaster as President.

              Except for pundits. He’d say about 12 half-nonsense things before lunch every day. You could have a field day with the random things that come out of his mouth.

              1. I don’t know, if I had someone that was my friend, collegeau and mentor I’m not sure I’d not endorse them over ideology. It’s not like his endorsement meant much.

                1. See, this is yet another way we know you’re not in the club. If you can’t or won’t publicly air your No True Scotsman debate, you’re not really a libertarian.

  27. Today’s Question: Is Santorum wins today in Michigan, will Mitt actually cry tears?

    1. Rusty or oily tears.

      1. Oil…….can……..oil……can……

    2. This is a trick question. Everyone knows robots don’t have tear ducts.

      1. Wrong. He got them two upgrades back. And he is loaded at all times with 5 oz. of “saline sorrow simulation sauce.”

        1. Well, hopefully they haven’t become clogged with dust from disuse.

          1. Gengineered mice crawl all over him every night while he is in his re-charge bay to maintain the exterior of the device. Internal maintenance is performed by the faith in and prayers to the One True God, Mormonideus The Mighty.

            1. I like the handle-tweak.
              Sensitive about something?

    3. Romneybot campaigns hard in “home state” of Michigan. Romneybot looses to uber religious so-con nut job with anal sex by-product last name. Awkward…

    4. We should all cry tears:

      Santorum questions separation of church and state
      http://articles.boston.com/201…..d-politics

  28. The Socialist favourite in France’s presidential election, Francois Hollande, has said top earners should pay 75% of their income in tax.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    1. Let me be clear. Nothing at all.

      1. gleat idee

    2. France didn’t really need any residents who make over 1 million Euro a year anyway.

  29. Quiet fade-out for Obama’s faith council

    But, but, Chapman said… and that guy is never wrong. Especially when it comes to Obama, who he will tell you he doesn’t like anymore, really, unless he asks him to the prom in which case he’ll consider it, but only as friends unless the corsage is really, really nice.

  30. Republicans are losing the class warfare fight
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    No doubt Barack Obama would love to reprise Ronald Reagan’s 1984 “Morning in America” reelection campaign, but the anemic economy is not cooperating. Without a robust recovery to trumpet, the president is betting his reelection on class warfare ? focusing on “income inequality” and “fairness.” Class warfare is not a winning strategy, but it is the only card Obama has to play.

    That’s the good news for Republicans. The bad news is: Right now, the GOP is blowing it.

    1. No doubt Barack Obama would love to reprise Ronald Reagan’s 1984 “Morning in America” reelection campaign, but the anemic economy is not cooperating.

      In 2008 everything bad that happened was George Bush’s personal responsibility. Now that the black Jesus is in office, the economy just won’t cooperate. How do these people write this shit with a straight face?

      1. Dude, you want to see bias so bad it hurts, doesn’t it? That’s hardly a flattering painting of Obama, and yet you read it in there.

        1. The sentence is what it is. The economy just won’t cooperate. It couldn’t be that is policies failed and that he made things worse. Nope. It is just bad luck. It is a living and breathing example of that Heinlein quote.

          1. Whatever John. You see bias in a piece explicitly critical of the President. As usual charges of bias reveal more about the person making the charge..

      2. Gotta agree with MNG here. Look at the guys profile:

        Marc Thiessen writes a weekly column for The Post on foreign and domestic policy and contributes to the PostPartisan blog. He is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Thiessen served as a chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and before that as a senior aide to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms.

        I don’t see any reason for the writer to have a bias toward Obama.

        1. It’s a common expression. What he is saying is “Obama would love to run on a burgeoning economy, but it ain’t so, so he’s fallen back to his one card: the fairness card.”

          That John reads that as bias for Obama says or course more about John than anything.

        2. Sorry, John. Got to agree with the above. “The economy is not cooperating” is just an informal way of saying that things are not going Obama’s way, IOW, his policies are not working.

          1. It’s like those computerized paintings, you have to stare harder to see the bias Zeb!

  31. Little something for everyone: http://sweasel.com/archives/9669

    Teh science, overly-criminalized response to common nuisance, fun ‘splosions.

    In brief: spark plugs shards can break car windows, so they’ve been outlawed as burglary tools.

  32. That was some shitty Daytoner Five Double Aught last night, weren’t it?

    You know woulda been better?

    A TRKCTER PULLLLLZ.

    1. A FLAMING TRKCTER PULLLLLZ!

    2. While I’ve never attended a tractor pull, many of my friends have outsourced tractor manufacturing jobs overseas.

  33. The New Rebellions
    Across the globe, technology-empowered protesters seek to disrupt the political and economic order.
    http://www.city-journal.org/20…..sters.html

    The media have drawn conservative fire for lavishing so much attention on the motley crew of young dropouts, half-educated college students, and older hippies who make up the Occupy Wall Street movement (OWS). Yet the movement, though its numbers have been exaggerated, may deserve all the coverage as part of a much broader political shift.

  34. After Putin
    Even the Russian leader’s allies are now contemplating the once unthinkable: a future without him.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..ifestyle_6

  35. Man, that made-up Meryl looks frightening.

    Did anyone see J. Edgar? The scenes with DeCaprio caked with old man make up were hilarious. His “long time companion” looked like G’Kar from Babylon 5.

  36. Progress through chat rooms!

    1. War, famine, genocide, and the eventual collapse of each civilization.

      1. And we’re impotent.
        Whoo-hoo!

      2. But boy! can we chat!

    2. cum. aaahhhh!

      1. If chat room comments were electoral votes…

  37. Europe in Turmoil Over Internet Anti-Piracy Legislation
    http://www.theatlantic.com/int…..on/253637/

    The European Commission has suspended ACTA’s ratification, shunting it instead into the European Court of Justice (ECJ). This is read by some as a means of putting the debate on ice for a year. ACTA’s Commission proponents seem to hope that a favorable ruling by the ECJ will provide the political cover necessary to defuse their critics’ arguments that the agreement is a violation of fundamental rights to internet freedom and privacy.

    1. Good news, an interesting phenomena happening in Europe is the rise of the “pirate parties”, political parties in a bunch of countries which literally use the words “pirate” in their names. They are a new movement of mostly youngsters that see the end results should all the “anti piracy” shit governments are pursuing.

    1. outrage over the bile extraction process, which animal rights group say is excruciatingly painful

      They should just get the bears super drunk. Works for me.

  38. WH Says Keystone Pipeline Still Possible
    http://www.rollcall.com/news/w…..os=htmbtxt

    The White House today stepped up its counteroffensive against GOP attacks on President Barack Obama’s energy record, announcing that a Canadian oil firm was resubmitting its Keystone XL pipeline plan for a federal permit.

    1. I’ll approve it right after I win the election. What, don’t you trust me?

  39. By the way, somebody should be hammering on the following issue–and since no one else is, I think maybe this is something anti-Obama libertarians can jump on…

    “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe”.

    Steven Chu,
    Secretary of Energy
    Obama Administration

    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..99791.html

    Yeah, that’s an old quote. It’s from a long time ago–from just before Chu became energy secretary.

    …but it’s one promise the Obama Administration really has endeavored to keep, isn’t it?

    If I were running the campaign against Obama? I think I’d run ads consisting of nothing but that quote–for like a month.

    “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe”.

    Think about it.

    1. If gas starts to flirt with $5.00/gallon in the summer, I could see such an add playing very well. The majority of Americans still prefer to live in auto-centric suburbs despite the best efforts of the smart growth people, and the price of gas is a major concern.

      1. If gas starts to flirt with $5.00/gallon in the summer

        In some places it already is. Luckily where I live it’s still under $4.00/ gallon, but apparently in NY it’s already over $5.00 in some places.

    2. I’m sure some wonk at the RNC knows about it already.

      1. They should already be using it.

        It’s indefensible to anyone but environmentalists.

        Hell, I’m an environmentalist, and it ticks me off!

        An even better ad would have Obama reading the Wall Street Journal (yeah, it’s farce, and you could have him do that in a farce)…

        …and he reads Chu say, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe”.

        Then Obama looks up from his paper and says, “Honey, I think I just found my new Energy Secretary!”

  40. Why do we need cash at all?

    Wolman cites a study that estimates that by switching from paper-based currencies to electronic ones, countries could save about 1 percent of their gross domestic product annually. That’s about $150 billion a year in the United States. Cash is also dirty, both literally?all your bills are contaminated with germs and drugs?and legally, a key enabler of the criminal underworld and mass tax evasion. If we didn’t have paper money, we’d probably have less crime and better-funded governments.

    1. Yeah… there’s no way this could be abused… ever. Nope. Not ever.

      1. If we didn’t have paper money, we’d probably have … better-funded governments.

        They as much as admit to it.

    2. Why would I want a better funded government? Don’t we want them to take less of our money? Why do we want to make it easier for them to track everything we do?

      And that figure of 1% of GDP? I question that, but even if that’s accurate, you’re talking about, what, 1% of 1.8% growth in 2011?

      0.018 percent?! That doesn’t sound very impressive on a percentage basis at all.

      1. Note, 0.018%? That’s not 1.8%.

        That 0.018%

        1. Thats not 1 % of growth. That’s one percent of the level of output. You’d add a full 1% to the growth in a one time shot if it happened all at once.

  41. Barr’s conversion really seemed sincere.

    And Bruce Willis seems like he can singlehandedly wipe out a gang of international terrorists.

    1. I thought he could.

      1. No kidding. Thanks for ruining it for me.

  42. Did they run the race out to the end last night? It was pretty obvious they were going to have to throw the green for at least a few laps, with Dave Blaney sitting in P1 under the red flag.

    *Google News is hard.

    1. I don’t know how anyone can consider NASCAR car racing anymore. It is some sort of strange motor sport. But whatever they do they don’t race? Sorry but when the governing body constantly tweaks the rules to make sure that the cares are totally identical and there are as many crashes and red flags as possible, it ceases to be a race in any meaningful sense of the term.

      Intelligence minus wisdom is intellect. For those who have neither, there is NASCAR.

      1. when the governing body constantly tweaks the rules…

        …you get the NFL.

      2. No that you’re not en elitist fraud.

      3. I dunno, shouldn’t the cars be pretty identical?

        1. Not really on a big oval. That causes all of the cars to bunch up and creates a bunch of wrecks and makes winning the race a product of who is lucky enough to survive the wrecks rather than who is the best driver or builds the best car.

          NASCAR has a Byzantine points system, rather than just awarding points based on who wins the most races, because who wins weak to weak is more a product of luck than anything else. So they make it more reflective of the best driver by counting things like laps lead and so forth. It is just nuts.

          1. If the cars varied greatly then we would not have an event of “racing” as much as we would have one of “mechanics”. If two drivers drive equivalent cars then the winner must have “driven” better…

            1. You would think that. But that is not how it works. It works that way if you something like the old IROC series where you only have ten cars on the track. But when you put thirty plus cars on a track that are within a few miles an hour per lap of each other, it just turns into a wreck fest.

              1. How about we just start calling NASCAR the lazy activity it is then. If all the cars are the same, all of the drivers are the same, and you only win by being lucky then you really just have a bunch of hicks driving in a circle.

              2. when you put thirty plus cars on a track that are within a few miles an hour per lap of each other, it just turns into a wreck fest.

                You say that like its a bad thing.

                Put me down as one who thinks NASCAR has to walk a very fine line – the cars should be close to, but not quite identical.

                If all the cars are the same, all of the drivers are the same,

                Strangely, the drivers aren’t all the same. Having the cars spec out very close to each other lets you see that.

            2. Yet, GT still works.

              Anyway, calling NASCAR “stock cars” is just silly.

              1. GT runs on road tracks rather than big ovals.

                1. This is true, but all the drivers are still using the same track.

                  There are also plenty of races on closed circuits where the cars are not made identical yet are still competitive.

            3. Yeah, you’d have “racing.” Making the cars substantially the same isn’t what makes it “racing,” trying to get to the finish line first is what makes it “racing.”

              Racing != driver skill contest.

          2. because who wins weak to weak is more a product of luck than anything else

            RC’z Law strikes again. Keep up the good work John.

        2. I don’t know much about auto racing or the rules of NASCAR, but it seems to me that having the cars be the same would make it more of a contest of driving ability, which might be desirable.
          Also, it seems that for many racing enthusiasts, the crashes are a feature, not a bug.

          1. It still is, but it would be more of a contest of driving ability if it wasn’t “a bunch of retards going around in a circle”.

            1. “A bunch of rednecks driving in a circle with their IQs painted on their cars” remains the funniest description of NASCAR I’ve ever heard.

              1. “Fast cars for slow people”

        3. I dunno, shouldn’t the cars be pretty identical?

          Of course not, that’s boring. Haven’t you ever played Mario Kart?

      4. I cants spel rite either

        1. Actually, there are a lot of old school NSACAR fans who agree with me on this. And don’t even get me started on the mysterious caution flags that seem to occur for debris on the track no one but NASCAR officials seem to notice whenever someone actually gets a lead. It is WWF in automobiles.

          1. John, Sorry, I wasn’t trying to imply that you were being elitist.

            I just think it’s a *really* funny episode of South Park, and couldn’t resist swinging at that hanging curve you had put over the plate. 😉

            As it happens, I agree with you about the sport being ruined by attempts to tweak it to please the crowd.

            1. I didn’t think you were. Sorry to imply I was. And yeah, that is a funny episode. And yes, NASCAR is very mockable.

        2. I’ll bet those NASCAR rednecks drink cheap beer too.

          Look, I’m not calling for their extermination or anything, but why do they have to put their toothless, hayseed, trailer-park “entertainment” on my TV and force me to watch it?

      5. I enjoy watching old Nascar footage – when the cars were actually “stock cars” (modified for racing of course). A Monte Carlo looked like well, a Monte Carlo that you could buy from the dealership.

        Of course, in the 80s, with the manufacturers pulling away from RWD platform, it wasn’t unexpected.

        1. “I enjoy watching old Nascar footage”

          Did they have flamethrowers mounted on the hoods back then? Because I’m afraid that’s the only way I could use “Nascar footage” and “enjoy watching” in the same sentence.

          1. Speed Channel clips – and god knows that clips are more exciting than watching a whole multi-hour race.

        2. At one time in order to qualify a model for NASCAR a manufacturer had to make at least 500 (if memory serves) of them for sale to the general public. The only modifications allowed were for driver safety (roll cages, welding doors shut and the like).

          They took “stock car” seriously back then.

          That’s how we came to get things like spoilers on the back of cars (something that only affects handling at speeds far above legal highway speeds).

          1. yeah, the ’86 Monte Carlo Aerocoupe (not my favorite) was a limited run, as was the Pontiac 2+2.

            1. IIRC, the first spoiler was on an early 70s Dodge Daytona. The aerodynamics of the car were apparently such that the back end became unstable at speeds over 160 mph or so. So they put a spoiler on it and they had to put the same spoiler on every one of them that was sold as well.

            2. Also, I didn’t realize the rule was in affect as recentlu as ’86.

      6. Pshaw, spending two hours watching a bunch of guys cleaning up a jet fuel fire is the pinnacle of sporting excitement!

  43. Commenting here after the first 20 minutes.

    1. the purpose of your comment is to generate replies.

    2. Yet you will continue to snipe and whine all day long.

      Tell us again how this is the worst chatroom ever. That joke never gets old.

      Fuck off, rectal.

      1. Blaming everything on “rectal.”

        Also acceptable: Replying to trolls. Sucker.

  44. Consider this: perhaps “wealthy people” in their high-falutin’ “flashy carz” actually HAVE SOMEWHERE TO BE, unlike indolent nobodies in their proletarian rustbuckets.

    1. I like it, I like it. Limbaugh is considering you as a guest host (move over Steyn).

      1. I like Steyn – he is entertaining and he does have a way with using the english language.

      2. I heard Steyn once. I think he would be a better host than Limbaugh.

    2. Having owned a rust bucket and a flashy car I can say that my driving habits in the “flashy” car are more impacted by the fact it accelerates faster, brakes better, and is well-insured. I wasn’t more “courteous” when driving my old truck. I just couldn’t have made it accelerate fast enough to make it into the opening in traffic I’d seen.

  45. a growing breed of young Americans who have such comfort and facility with social media that they can self-radicalize to violent Islamist extremism in an accelerated time period

    Darn those internet-savvy kids!

  46. shouldn’t the cars be pretty identical?

    Allowing individual mechanics to modify their cars to be faster than all the other cars is contrary to the spirit of “racing”! Everybody knows that.

    1. Modifying your car to make if faster or corner better or whatever is kind of the whole point isn’t it?

      1. It was the point, until the cars became so fast they made the tracks obsolete. So then they capped the performance of the cars, thus making all the competitors equal.

        1. That is a good point. But, you can cap the top speed or engine size and still allow other areas of competitive advantage. NASCAR will change the rules mid season to make a single team modify their cars to eliminate an advantage. That is a bit over the top.

      2. John.

    2. The “A1” racing did that, the rules were such that all the cars were practically identical, predictably the whole thing folded. Equality in sport is not popular, not even for the most hardened of equality supporters.

      1. Dude, no one is advocating equality of the drivers, just that the cars they drive be equivalent. Otherwise you don’t have a racing contest, you have a mechanical contest.

        1. The faster the cars go, the harder they are to drive. Higher performance cars require better drivers. The relationship is symbiotic.

          1. Yes. The average driver couldn’t get an F1 car into gear. And race cars have to be driven fast or the down force, breaks, handling and steering don’t work. So you can’t drive them slow or they won’t stop and won’t turn. You have to drive them all out to keep from killing yourself. Top race drivers are absolutely amazing.

            1. Great “Top Gear” episode on this. The little guy endeavored to get an F1 car around the track… they had to haul him back to the start a few times because he kept stalling the thing out and spinning out. This from a guy who nearly killed himself going almost 300mph – hardly ‘inexperienced’ at driving on the track.

              1. That is a great one. There is another one where Jeremy takes on an F1 car you can buy from Lotus for 600K. For the money they deliver the car and a driver instructor to any track in the world as many times as you want.

                He had the same problems Hammond did. Your brain tells you to take a corner at 90. But you have to take it at 150 or the car won’t turn and you die.

                1. Damn joke handles

            2. Meanwhile the real racing athletes are all in Moto GP.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfPM77TsGaA

              Valentino Rossi is still the greatest world athlete most Americans have never heard of.

              I don’t know why Moto GP isn’t bigger than it is. Probably because only one race is held in the U.S.?

              1. Yes those guys are incredible. And ironically enough moto GP racing rarely results in a fatality. It may actually be safer than car racing.

        2. Dude, no one is advocating equality of the drivers, just that the cars they drive be equivalent. Otherwise you don’t have a racing contest, you have a mechanical contest.

          That’s why in F1 you have the “Constructor’s Championship” and the one for the drivers. The constructor’s is where the money is for the teams. Winning the driver’s championship gets the driver nothing beyond bargaining chips for his contract.

          The combination of Adrian Newey and Sebastian Vettel is making for some anti-climactic races, but there is still good racing going on for 2nd and 3rd.

        3. Dude, thats what I said, the cars were identical !!!

      2. “Equality in sport is not popular”

        The most popular sports organization in America, the NFL, has pretty significant equality promotion structures (“parity”).

        What’s more, this is a good example of how when you scratch a “paleo” or “rightleaning libertarian” you soon get a stock conservative. Libertarians shouldn’t have any beef with equality, just equality gained through coercion. If a group of people voluntarily adopt equality rules (like the NFL) then that should not bother a libertarian at all. A hierarchial conservative would be bothered, of course.

        1. All human society can be reduced to economics. Da, comrade.

        2. That’s retarded.

          1. The problem MNG is that the NFL has the anti-trust exemption and it and its member constituents are prodigous rent seekers – the Vikings being the latest example.

            Roger Goodell has admitted that the NFL’s a mix of capitalism and socialism.

            What I love is the FACT that MLB without the full-on socialism of the NFL, particularly no salary cap, has had more franchises win the WS than NFL teams capture Mr. Lombardi’s trophy.

            On any given May Day.

    3. I’ve always wanted to start a “factory car” race, where the models/years/trim of the cars change every time. Drivers are given random matching vehicles of the same hp, etc.

      So one time, it will be Ford Fiestas!

      And then Mercury Grand Marquis with fake convertible tops.

      Saturn SL1s

      etc etc

      Since the cars are “identical” – some slight variations will exist due to manufacturing – it will be a driver’s race, unless you’re lucky to get a “factory freak”.

  47. This is why the Libertarian Party is a joke (not to mention something of an oxymoron). It’s probably best if real libertarians ignored its existence.

    1. party or no party

  48. Dude, no one is advocating equality of the drivers, just that the cars they drive be equivalent. Otherwise you don’t have a racing contest, you have a mechanical contest.

    Brian Barnhart, is that you?

    ps- once you get past Formula Ford, spec series are bullshit.

    1. NASCAR was the apotheosis of the same kind of cars that Americans drove to work … So the masses had merely shifted their symbolic behavior focus from an emphasis on expelling smoke to an emphasis on watching souped-up ordinary cars move symbolically around in circles.

      The Twilight of Mechanized Lumpenleisure
      By James Howard Kunstler
      http://www.kunstler.com/mags_lumpenleisure.html

      1. Shouldn’t you be preparing for the coming LONG EMERGENCY?

  49. http://www.gmic.gov.af/english…..m-incident

    Koran burners to be openly tried by NATO in Afganistan?

  50. If someone doesn’t start paying attention to me, I am going to make Reason pay.

    1. Spoofers are worse than trolls.
      Just sayin’.

  51. The most popular sports organization in America, the NFL, has pretty significant equality promotion structures (“parity”).

    National Socialism writ small?

    1. It’s called egalitarianism.

      1. It’s funny how the American sports leagues are more socialist than the European ones.

  52. 320 comments in just over an hour.
    We’ll win the White House yet!

    1. Free minds, free chats?!

      1. No registration, unlimited obsessive trolls!

        1. Fund drives for chat-room enhancements…
          Everybody wins!

  53. So, is it just me, or were school shooting just not that prevalent in the 1950s?

    Knife crime… to an extent (I’ve seen my moral panic juvenile delinquent movies), and yes there were gangs, but it did seem less likely for the loner, abused as shit types to go shoot up their schools. And I can’t think that it was because kids in the 1950s were nicer, or less conformist.

    So what gives?

    1. There weren’t school shootings until schools were made Gun Free Zones.

      Back in the 70’s kids on the rifle team would bring their guns on the bus in the morning, leave them in their lockers during the day, and then use them to practice after school. And it wasn’t a problem.

    2. In the 1950s my father would take his shotgun to school and use it to shoot squirrels for dinner on the walk home.

      The world has changed.

      1. In the ’70s, my high school parking lot was full of pickups with fully stocked gun racks.

        Funny, isn’t it, how the more guns there are laying around, the less likely it is that anyone will get shot?

  54. I like how outing a commenter doesn’t rate a banning any longer. I’ll keep that precedent in mind.

    1. Cryptic, yet fascinating.
      Please elaborate. Or do I have to email you for the goods?

      1. Hmm… my handle reverted. I guess I lost my Kommisar status. Too bad. I was hoping the next step was Moderator.

    2. Oh “SugarFree,” you’re such a tease.
      Come on, who was “outed?”
      And who should be censored banned?

      Pleeeease?

      1. You were right the first time. You have to email him for the gossip. But first you’ll need the secret password: reacharound.

        1. I did it, and the information is shocking, almost incredible!
          Did you know that–I mean who–

          But I can’t divulge it. I took The Pledge!

  55. On a seperate but related note, it seems that in the last 5 years, gay teen suicide has become a big issue. I’m not sure if it just getting more media coverage now, or what.

    I mean, I do understand the argument that with cellphones and the internet, its harder to get away from your attackers. But if it is just calls to your cell and posts on facebook… what in the world says you have to have those? Like, it’s one thing if your bullies are honestly stalking you, hacking your computer and shit, but a lot of it sounds like, “People wouldn’t stop harassing him on Facebook.” And I guess my feeling is, “Okay, then, delete your Facebook account.”

    I mean, I guess people are also way less into hiding suicide than in the past, and we just wouldn’t have known if people killed themselves over gayness in the 1920s, but it does seem that WAY more people are doing it.

    1. I think it is a result of all the self-esteem special snowflake bullshit.

      As far as bullying is concerned, is it any worse than the way heterosexual students treat each other?

      1. The public schools are churning out a bunch of sissies who feel that they have a right to never be offended, so when they are they can’t handle it.

        1. Exactly, students get expelled over crap like sexual harassment and racial whatever — even over horseshit that didn’t happen in school.

        2. Still, though, as weak as the kid may have been psychologically, the little beasts who were torturing him deserve to be taken to the woodshed. I’d whoop the shit out of my kid if he was spamming or flaming some kid’s facebook page with LOL UR A FAG.

          The real lesson here is kids are vicious little trolls who need to be beaten early and often.

          1. LOL UR A FAG.

          2. LOL UR A FAG.

          3. LOL UR A FAG.

          4. LOL UR A FAG.

          5. LOL UR A FAG.

          6. LOL UR A FAG.

          7. LOL UR A FAG.

          8. LOL UR A FAG.

          9. LOL UR A FAG.

          10. LOL UR A FAG.

          11. LOL UR A FAG.

          12. LOL UR A FAG.

          13. LOL UR A FAG.

    2. “Okay, then, delete your Facebook account.”

      What kind of diseased monster are you? How would their friends know what they had for lunch and what lame shit is up on their wall?

    3. Until very recently you never heard whether the kids who suicided were gay. The growth of social media has meant that at least someone knew they were gay.

    4. I recall my high school had the highest suicide rate in the county for a period of time. But back then, why people committed suicide wasn’t necessarily broadcast to the world, nor were teenagers out of the closet as much.

  56. #1: Power through chatting

  57. The public schools are churning out a bunch of sissies who feel that they have a right to never be offended, so when they are they can’t handle it.

    They spend their days being molded by Education majors.

    What did you expect?

    1. Which is why we need to get rid of the U.S. Department of Education.

  58. Barr gets his moustache from the same place Ron Paul gets his fake eyebrows.

    1. Your Mom’s bikini line sideburns?

  59. That jsut doesnt make any sense at all dude.

    http://www.Gone-Anon.tk

  60. #2: Chatting in the defense of liberty is no vice.

    1. Let me tell you about Ron Puals eyebrows! Funny EVERYTIME!

    1. Glad I’m on a well.

      1. This explains much.
        Ever get it tested?

  61. #3: Hoppy microbrews for everybody!

  62. Tom Woods whips out the snark, analyzes the thought processes of Republicans who oppose Ron Paul:

    http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/m…..ly-saying/

  63. “Conservative support for Mitt Romney plummeted 16 percent in the last two weeks.”

    How can you lose something that was never there to begin with?

  64. Ive come to the conclusion that Bob Barr has a mustache for a brain.

  65. Is Barr still on the LNC? If so, he should be removed. Libertarian officials should not be endorsing or supporting candidates of competing political parties. That’s just plain stupid.

    1. Remembering that I actually voted for Barr in 2008 makes want to vomit.

  66. Nagapatnam ? India, 17th July, 1702

  67. Dear Husband,

  68. I honestly hope this letter finds you well, please offer the best welcome to Mijnheer Abbott, our neighbor who has so kindly offered to deliver this letter to you as he was going to sail to my dear country.

  69. From a wife to a husband I wish your rage has stormed away by now. Strong, spiteful words were written in your last letter. They were meant, as you said, to bring a high-born wife back to the honesty and decency she should have never left. Did I?

  70. What is respectable? A life without pleasure means decency, or may it mean death? And how can one live a life that is dead already?

  71. Is honesty the murder of pleasure and desire? Or it may be more honest to take pleasure in what life gives us, our bodies too?

  72. Yesterday I went out for seeing a bit of this lovely country. Neela is my maid, a lovely young girl around the age of eighteen. She dresses in a white gown as all servants do and walks like a feather on the wooden floor. She is a good company, good at conversation and good at her chores. The Marquise surely picked the right girl to serve me, yet I like to treat the servants with more familiarity than she does.

  73. This country is so warm and beautiful that exploring it without a local guide is like smelling a rose without being able to feel its scent, for this reason Neela often joins me into my promenades out of our residence.

  74. The warm humid air embraces our bodies in a wet hug, sometimes with a light breeze from the ocean tickling drops of sweat on our foreheads. Indian women wear colored sarees fluttering in the breeze, no corsets but a small blouse; what a difference from our strict undergarments!

  75. I can only imagine how fluidly those colored vests fall on the floor showing perfect ebony bodies, not like our laces and petticoats, leaving a caricature in fluffy cotton.

  76. Yesterday we left home early morning; the air was still fresh enough to take a long stroll. Neela was with me, walking side by side. The Marquise advised me this habit of letting the servants out with me and allowing them to walk by my side, not a few steps behind me, was going to create some minor scandal through the good society. They are just blind, unhappy people craving for a satisfaction of any kind, so poor inside that they can only take it out on the servants!

  77. We walked in front of our fort, from which the Official in charge controls all the trades, then headed to the Temple. It will sound strange, dear husband, how I love that temple. All the figures carved in the rock, attractive unknown gods entering into the most human activities.

  78. Neela tells me tales of her gods from time to time. Each god has had a life, with passions and flaws; martyrdom is not their only value. Can you believe couples too are carved into statues, or painted on walls? As if our churches could ever host a husband taking his young wife. Our old society can only learn from these natives, and then we will see how valuable was the freedom we have lost for the sake of a strict etiquette.

  79. In front of the temple there is a market, families mix with merchants, selling produce of their own gardens or goods just arrived from the land. Women in colored sarees happily mix in a swirl of colors and languages, tasting, touching and haggling over the price.

  80. It is a sea of colors, sounds and scents, big sweaty merchants and women who use fragrant spices on their skin. There are so many unknown powders, fruits and roots peeping from baskets, attracting our attention. Smooth, firm mangoes their fibrous sweet pulp showing up bright yellow or red colored litchis with the pointy hard shell protecting the white pulp around the ebony seed; there is so much bounty to choose from.

  81. As the sun was getting higher into the sky the pleasant breeze from the sea faded and I started to feel tired. Neela pointed me to a group of banyan trees making quite a shelter from the road. There I sat on the grass and watched the hummingbird flying in a frenzy around flowers. The long beak entering the flower, barely touching it, sipping the nectar then gracefully fly to the next flower.

  82. Hummingbirds have nothing to hide, neither their shiny feather nor their making love to the flowers. They are a banquet for the senses to watch, sin would be hiding them.

  83. As I was lost in my thought over the hummingbirds my mind returned to the Temple gods, the sculpted figures and their poses.

  84. The image of those two gods standing with their legs entwined stood in my mind, how lucky was the goddess, engaged in an eternal kiss of stone she had hosted the divine cock for centuries. Other two gods were watching the scene, with a badly hidden interest. Maybe Neela could tell me if they all took part in that mythological orgy. Lucky gods, for they can have all it is forbidden to us.

  85. Lost in those thoughts my hand had started wandering on my corset and started tickling a breast. Lifted my skirts, aided by the privacy given by the tree and bushes sheltering our private spot, and touched my most intimate parts to send a thrill through my body.

  86. Indeed, I was wet and my breasts were strictly closed under the corset, begging for freedom. Neela was laying on her side, her quiet dark eyes staring what I was doing. I asked her to help me with the corset, definitely too strict for that heat and sat up enough to let her access the laces on my back.

  87. You could never imagine, my dear Husband, what the dear Neela did. I felt her breath on my neck and her soft lips kissing it. I turned surprised and caught her cheeky smile. She said “If Madam will allow …” and did not finish the sentence, for I had allowed her already by returning the smile.

  88. My corset came off and her thin fingers closed in a cup around my breast; what a vision! Her ebony fingers on my pale white skin, her mouth on my neck, kissing and arousing inch by inch as she was undressing me.

  89. Her tongue nibbled and tickled one nipple, then moved on the other, with a twirling motion she bought me close to ecstasy, once, twice, she did it over and over leaving me panting for more after each time. In my eyes I could only see the pointy hibiscus flowers, carefully attended by hummingbirds, just as my breasts.

  90. Her hands moved as feathers on my body, removing garments and leaving my pale skin exposed to the warm exotic air. I sat up and helped her undress; her full breasts were hanging free under her white cotton dress, and the big nipples were pointing to my mouth just as if they were calling for attention. When I got closer to suck one I felt the scent of spices, of almond and turmeric the local women use on their skin, mace, or cinnamon maybe. They were a drug to the senses, penetrating my nostrils and my mind, attracting my lips to fondle that ebony skin.

  91. Neela’s dress fell on the grass and my lips approached her crotch, what a pleasure. A smell of freshly caught fish mixing with cinnamon and other spices, my dear Husband, what a pleasure we are forbidden. Neela laid on the grass spreading her legs, showing her secrets, you should have seen those lips, darker than the rest of her skin, slightly wrinkled, soft and juicy under my tongue. The warm moist center in the middle, dark pink and wet of a white humor, inviting my tongue to probe deeply, then move up to the pinhead over it.

  92. She called me to straddle her face so she could, “return the favor Madam is doing to her,” I did not waste time and moved as she directed me.

  93. Two of my fingers plunged deep into her opening, her hips moved to meet my hand, the palm grinding on the little needle tip. What a contrast were my pale fingers against her tanned skin, how inviting was that opening, I dipped my tongue in it.

  94. I tasted her juices, moved my tongue inside and felt more of them dripping in my mouth.
    Neela reacted arching her back and moaning softly, that excited me so much I sealed my lips around her cunt, explored and sucked with passion. Any time I would push my tongue in Neela moaned; I wanted her moans to never stop so I didn’t leave her flower until her legs trapped my head in place on her groin.

  95. She was holding me between her strong tanned thighs, grabbing my hair with a hand so my tongue couldn’t leave her groin. It was like convulsions shook her, so close to reaching her final pleasure. My fingers, my face, they were all coated in her juices and I was feeling so hot and wet myself.

  96. She came like a wave, grabbing my head so strong I thought she could pull it off. My fingers inside her cunt felt her inner muscles throbbing, then every muscle of her body contracted and she let out one final loud moan before collapsing, panting heavily, just as if a demon, or a god, had just possessed her.

  97. I stood back a little and feasted on the view of her naked body, smooth colored skin. My own body was reclaiming attention and my pussy was now dropping juices all over my thighs, so my hand slipped under my garments and started rubbing my most intimate place.

  98. Standing on my knees I opened my legs as wide as my unacceptable clothing would allow me and dipped three fingers into my pussy, used them to furiously fuck my own cunt, as if they could be the most amazing tool of a man. I reached my own pleasure quickly, for I was already far on that path.

  99. The scents, the sight, all came to my senses and pleasure took a hold of me, rushing, gushing and owning my body as if the same demon that owned Neela had moved into my body. I collapsed near my trusted maid and must have needed some time to regain consciousness.

  100. I must tell you, my dear Husband. The pleasures of this world have always been forbidden to us, but no more! A life with no pleasure I will have no more.

  101. Mijnheer Abbott will deliver this letter into your safe hands but our home country and its silent rules will see me no more. The time of six months the doctor had prescribed me that dark day in Rotterdam is up, but the Sereniteit will sail back home without me.

  102. The few coppers I had sent you from my last adventure were returned. I once again enclose them into this last letter, in the hope you will use them as a payment for my services, as a loyal yet not pleasure-deaf wife, when you will take your pleasure from me. Otherwise may they just be a help to the distant memory of a once well-known person.

  103. With love,

  104. Margriet

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.