Court Rules in Favor of Warrantless Cell Searches, Senate Republicans Fail to Reverse Contraception Mandate, Sheriff Joe Hops on the Birther Bandwagon: P.M. Links

|

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. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Reason Writers Around Town: Nick Gillespie on How Andrew Breitbart Changed the News

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. I prefer to be on top, but under you is fine as well.

      1. barfman, if I may
        *barf*

      2. All those times it wasn’t your name she was calling out when on top here. That can’t make you feel good.

        1. Touche.

          1. …is like the worst chat room ever.

            1. ….but not very many.

      3. Pics or it didn’t happen.

        1. Anyone else bored with the Sloopy/Banjos story line?

          It’s like Pam & Jim, but without the Hollywood highjinks.

          1. They’re no JsubD.

            Divorced in a year would be my bet, once their Internet validation is played out.

          2. Yeah.

            Spam is spam.

            You’re getting married we get it, what you don’t Banjoopy is that you have turned into that annoying couple who spends way too much time talking about your upcoming nuptials in inappropriate places.

            You have email. Use it to tell the people who care and stop disrespecting the ones who don’t by spamming the board with your marriage crap.

            1. Ouch. I actually enjoy hearing about them, it is fun; and I now have a secret fantasy that I will meet my soul mate on a blog called Reason (even though I am married already.) Cut them some slack.

              1. “Cut them some slack.”

                I did. A month ago.

          3. Not that we (meaning I) am not interested in your upcoming marriage…the planning, the invitations, the planning of the invitations, the guest list (will The Jacket be there?!)…

            Color me cruel, but…dudes…we (I) don’t care.

            K?

            We’re good then?

            Great.

            1. PS

              “Banjoopy”

              Awesome!

            2. Meh, suck it cunt.

              1. Too late.
                “Banjoopy” is out of the bag.

                1. “Banjoopy!”

                  I am so using this.

                  1. PS

                    Best comment ever.

          4. Nah,

            As mostly a lurker here I kind of enjoy reading about their connection.

            Plus any posts that aren’t WI shitting on the board are welcomed.

    2. I’m an attractive, caring, honest, good hearted women in search of bilover to explore bisexuality. I, so I got a profile(lily green) on –Datebi dot c’0m–. It’s the first and safe place for men and women looking for intimate encounters, casual encounters. Come in and discover the excitement you deserve! ^_^

      1. Fascinating! Tell me more (not that I am in need of your services). Yet.

        1. That’s just mean.

  1. In an election year battle mixing birth control, religion and politics, Democrats narrowly blocked an effort by Senate Republicans to overturn President Barack Obama’s order that most employers or their insurers cover the cost of contraceptives.

    All the GOP’s hopes left swimming in that tiny reservior tip.

  2. Add Sheriff Joe to the long list of right-wing nutcases. Redneck AM radio will believe every lying word of his though.

    1. That’s our shriek!

      1. Cue the laugh track, freeze frame, and that, people is how you make an episode of television.

        1. This episode of Libertarians and The Tweeker was filmed in front of a live studio audience. Many animals were harmed during production.

          1. …they all signed waivers, so….

            *eyebrows raised, palms skyward*

            1. Banjos FTW!

              Isn’t it nice of shrike to remind us that everyone NOT on Team Blue = redneck Limbaugh fans?

    2. You sure showed us how wrong it was for us to have loved Joe Arpaio.

    3. When you’re done slurping Obama’s manhood, take a dive off of a Hong Kong skyscraper without a parachute.

      1. Give us a better president. It sure as hell won’t be Santorum/Gingrich/Romney and the last GOPer was the worst POTUS in history. Huntsman could have been – but the nutfucks on the right didn’t like him.

        1. Give us a better president.

          You first. Every donk since Wilson has been steadily lowering the bar.

          1. Fuck, in retrospect Clinton was a goddamn genius. And I don’t care if every chubby intern in DC blew him.

            He created a budget surplus with ZERO Republican votes.

            1. He created a budget surplus

              It was a funny sort of surplus; the national debt just kept on rising.

              1. I have explained why the debt rose, RC.

                FICA surpluses MUST be invested in Treasuries. Full employment (lol) and a trillion dollar FICA surplus will result in a trillion dollar debt increase.

                Its easy, dude. Leave the money thing to me – and you do law.

                1. There’s an old economist joke that goes a lot like your post.

            2. What’s this surplus you speak of?

              And the fact that, you know, he perjured himself, got disbarred and shamed the office of the Presidency doesn’t mean much to you, as long as he’s on your fucking team, does it asshole?

              1. There wasn’t a surplus.

            3. He created a budget surplus

              That’s a funny way of saying that his plans to spend like a drunken sailor were thwarted by the Republican congress.

              -jcr

              1. Odd that shrike would want a better president than Barry, as shrike likely hasn’t gotten all of Barry’s jizz stains out of his Underoos.

        2. Why not Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson?

          All the lefties voting for Obama could vote for Paul (as a write-in, if it comes to that). But instead, they will vote for Obama, as I’m sure you will.

          Why is it so hard to admit both parties are terrible?

          1. You have a valid argument. Seriously.

            I’m just in the “No LPer can get nominated by the GOP” camp.

            1. I agree, but, instead of just voting for the “lesser of two evils,” why not just stand on principle? I know my one vote won’t make a shred of difference in who ultimately wins, so why not vote for the best candidate? You could at least send a message to those you know.

              1. Considering all your criticism of libertarians, shrike – and your love of Obama – it’s odd you’d give a shit about the GOP.

        3. Any Republican is better than Obama. He’s that bad.

      2. Just out of curiosity…why Hong Kong?

        1. Hong Kong movie stars do all their own stunts. Duh!

          1. Oh, so solly!

    4. Joe was already on the list. Hell, he founded the list.

    5. Obama is the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Christfag, out of the house of BushHitler. You shall have no other gods before Obama.

      1. ….Obama wasn’t such a BushWarMonger he would have a chance at being not among the worst of all time.

    1. Even with a great thing like guns there is a saturation point.

    2. Thanks for the list link.

    3. Since I don’t know, I’ll just question their methodology.

      Personally, even if households who own guns had been going down, I’d bet dollars to donuts it has been going up again the last few years.

    4. Yet gun sales and NICS background check frequency rates are increasing.

      The measure is kind of bizarre, since they’re measuring the percentage of households rather than the percentage of individuals. Households tend to be smaller and more numerous now than they were in 1973, so it’s more likely for a given household to have no guns now, even if individual gun ownership rates are constant or growing.

      1. Yeah, the gun sales show that they’re full of shit. Sales are through the roof, you can’t turn around without hitting a newbie in a gun shop, CCW classes are full, etc. There’s no way in hell the number of individual gun owners is decreasing.

  3. Barrichello handed Indy Car lifeline

    “SAO PAULO ? Brazilian veteran Rubens Barrichello will race in the American IndyCar series this season after his 19-year Formula One career came juddering to a halt.

    The 39-year-old Barrichello, who was dropped by F1 outfit Williams for the 2012 season, will race for the KV Racing Technology team along side Tony Kanaan.”
    http://www.google.com/hostedne…..046877a.11

    1. Jesus, when was the last time that guy drove on ovals? This will not end well.

      1. It will likely not be JPM-esque
        Read this.

    2. Early in the news about Reubens, he said that he wouldn’t drive ovals, since his wife didn’t want him doing that. Not sure if that still applies, but I’m happy for him and doubly pleased that he and TK are teammates.

      I’m fine with him not doing ovals, since ovals are like watching paint dry on growing grass.

    3. Last I heard he got the job as the Stig on the american rip-off of Top Gear

      1. Is that still on? Does anyone watch it?

        1. God it was dreadful, wasn’t it.

          1. They have Captain Slow, we have Captain Stupid.

  4. “Sheriff” Arpaio has been on the birther bandwagon for a long time. He and Russell Pearce were tied at the hip for years and he likely had a hand in Pearce’s attempted unconstitutional law challenging the citizenship of candidates. Arpaio is less a political opportunist than a legitimate full-blown racist sociopath with a love of corruption. I look forward to the day that he leaves office and his successor audits the books and finds out just how much corruption we haven’t found out about yet.

  5. Bloomberg mad at VA for repealing 1 gun per month rule. If I were the governor of VA, I would formally state that Mayor Bloomberg is NOT welcome in the state of Virginia.

    1. I will give Bloomberg credit for saying this: “If they care about innocent people and police officers being shot, they should be strengthening laws ? as we have done in New York ? to keep guns away from criminals, not weakening them,” Bloomberg said. “This is only going to make matters worse.”

      At least he knows the difference in an innocent person and a policeman.

    2. That worthless fuck sent undercover NYPD cops to my beloved commonwealth to attempt straw purchases. McDonnell, who was AG at the time, told Bloomberg if he tried it again he’d prosecute NY’s finest for the felonies they were committing in VA.

      I like my governor quite a lot actually. Much better then the last one.

  6. Police don’t need a warrant to search a cell phone for its number, a federal appeals court has ruled.

    The decision, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeal for the 7th Circuit, stems from an Indiana case in which prosecutors used evidence that police found on cell phones at the arrest scene to convict a suspect on drug charges.

    Oh, drugs. Everyone knows the Constitution doesn’t even apply in situations involving drugs.

    1. Exactly. We have to ruin people’s lives so that they don’t ruin their lives.

    2. Forget it, Jake. It’s Richard Posner.

      1. Posner’s core argument is that the threat of terrorism is so “very great” and “very novel” — “sui generis” — that the Constitution must be intepreted differently than it ever was before in order to deal with the threat (there is no transcript available — all quotes are from my listening to the podcast). Posner repeatedly claims in the interview that “the Constitution is flexible” and he even says that it is a “loose garment, not shrink wrap.” Thus, we “have to interpret the Constitution in a way to enable us to cope with unanticipated dangers.”

        “Posner’s…characterization of the Constitution as this…document which must be shaped and molded by political events led Reynolds to ask the right if not obvious question — isn’t Posner advocating the very theory of a “living, breathing Constitution” which conservatives have long claimed to despise, even consider tyrannical?

      2. [continued]

        Posner paused and stuttered quite a bit after being asked that question, and then admitted, quite astonishingly, that he “hadn’t thought about that” painfully obvious point before. But he then told Reynolds that he’s “right” about the fact that he, Posner, has an elastic view of the Constitution — that it is a “flexible” document. Posner then justified that view by essentially denegrating the Constitution as obsolete and useless in light of this grave new threat. The Constitution is nothing but “an 18th Century document,” Posner complained, and “the notion that [the Founders] had the answers to 20th Cenutry problems . . . is, I think, wrong and dangerous.”

        1. “Posner’s…characterization of the Constitution as this…document which must be shaped and molded by political events”

          Uh, doesn’t that make the constitution pretty much worthless?
          The point of the thing was (yes, past tense) to keep the government in line.
          If the government can change it at will for political purposes, WIH do we have it at all?

          1. …WIH do we have it at all?

            Well since he thinks the Founders couldn’t possibly have the answers to any of our problems, and that it’s “dangerous” to rely on their guidance, I’d guess the good conservative judge agrees with the radical left…there is no reason to have it at all.

    3. In response to this article I enhanced my phone password and am considering encrypting all its data. Never can be too safe.

      Let’s just hope they don’t rule that it is illegal to refuse to give police officers your passwords……..

      1. “With all this stress, I’ve forgotten it.”

      2. Pretty sure I’ve already read about that happening–and even if you do, they can crack them, natch.

        1. Depends on who you’re talking about. Local law enforcement probably doesn’t have the resources. Federal law enforcement might.

    4. That ruling actually made sense to me. If the police find a diary, do they need a warrant to search it? No. Why would a cell phone be even different?

      1. They can’t make you read the diary in open court. Making you open a cellphone for the fuzz is doing the same thing. It is making you testify against yourself.

        1. 1) no it isn’t

          2) the phones were unsecured so no one was forced to open anything

          do you ever bother to actually know what the fuck you’re on about?

          1. If a phone has a locking mechanism on it at all, then they cannot force you to open it.

            Fuck you, idiot.

            1. The Supreme Court already ruled on that, that’s not the issue here.

          2. Get your own handle, moron.

        2. They DIDN’T make the person open it. The only issue was needing a search warrant for the activity.

          1. That’s meant as a response to Sloopyinca.

      2. CAUSE WE FUCKING SAY SO SERF!

      3. It’s not really that hard to understand.

        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

        I think it depends on the scope of the decision. If it’s just the number, I think that’s reasonable. I hope the summary is inaccurate and this only applies to the number, rather than general searching.

        1. oh, but it’s a phone, and an 18th Century philosopher could never have envisioned such a thing so of course it’s not protected.

          bullshit!

        2. It’s a search consequent to arrest, which is considered reasonable. If you have a paper address book in your pocket, the police have the authority to read through that once you’re arrested.

          The court did not say police can just come up to random people on the street and search their cell phones.

    5. So, rather than address the court’s reasoning (which IMO is pretty sound), you just gasp in horror. Typical.

  7. 1gbps internet. Drool worthy! I wish I could get that. won’t move to Californistan for it though. I hate my ISP (AT&T), but they are my only option.

    1. It sounds awesome, but I don’t even know what I would do with it.

      Even here on the edge of silicon valley I can’t typically get stuff served fast enough to saturate my end of the connection and I’m “only” at 30Mbps.

      Might be useful for bittorrent, but what’s the upload rate?

      1. The company admits it’s mostly for show. You won’t get 1 Gbps speeds from anything on the Internet. Even the speedtest sites cap out well below that limit.

        You don’t get 1Gb residential service for the speeds; you get it for the add-ons, future growth potential, and WHOO LOOK-A ME!

        1. Hey, dude! My amp goes up to *11*!

        2. It wouldn’t be mostly for show for me. If their backbone is up to the gigabit commitment, I’d have iSCSI drives that could be shared with friends and family performing almost exactly as a local drive. Offsite backups become a snap. Everyone could just point their Picasa backups to the new Z: drive and the backup would go to a relative’s house.

          And that’s just family stuff. For the company this kind of network speed means mobile workers have the identical computing experience to local workers. Running big analytics cubes from home becomes possible, for example. As does running heavy client software remotely (many heavy apps will fail with low bandwidth to their data servers, particularly older ones).

          Not to mention bittorrent. Universal gigabit connections would make bitttorrent an absolute torrent of bits.

  8. Why is Bobby Bowden’s picture on the PM Links?

    1. Haha. Never made that connection before.

      Question: who has been associated with more felons in his career: Bobby Bowden or Joe Arpaio?

      1. They don’t call us the Criminoles for nothing! Although, I think UM is still in the state lead by a long stretch.

  9. You don’t know the power of the dark side.

    1. Whether you meant to or not, you replied to Brett.

      1. It’s my Florida powers at work.

        1. My alt text was gonna be: “Mickey’s 4th quarter defense always felt like someone was doing this to me those last few years.”

          1. Wasn’t the same after Richt left.

            1. You’d think someone on the staff could’ve taught the free safety not to let receivers get behind him.

              1. Pretty advanced stuff.

  10. …..so I grabbed his nards just like this and said “where’s your green card, buddy?”

  11. Is Stratfor a joke? Well, I know I stopped subscribing to their free email because it was so wrong, so often. It didn’t provide much actionable intelligence, and was really, really wrong about O&G stuff, which I always assumed was their main client-base.

    1. I hope it’s a lot like ISIS

      1. Danger Zone!

  12. The posse says it has identified at least one person of interest in the alleged forgery of Obama’s birth certificate.

    Namely, Barack Obama.

  13. March 1, 2012 is going down in The Other Kevin’s calendar as a fairly shitty day.

    1. What’s the matter, Bunky?

    2. Go back a couple of threads. Not a good news day.

      1. My condolences.

  14. According to the most recent survey of Georgia voters, a Survey USA/WXIA-TV poll taken Feb. 23 to 26, Gingrich maintains a 15-point lead over Santorum, 39 percent to 24 percent. Romney placed third with 23 percent of the vote.

    Oh, Georgia, you bunch of braindead rascals. Giving the country Gingrich in the first place, and then voting for more of that terrible. Politician-wise, you’re like the Illinois of the South.

    1. I’ll be voting for Paul on Tuesday and Johnson in the general.

    2. GA voters cast more LP votes in a single statewide race than any LP presidential candidate ever received nationwide.

      I early-voted for Ron Paul today as I will be up in the frozen Midwest next Tuesday.

      1. Are you telling me you people actively export your Gingriches to D.C. and keep the Libertarians to yourselves? Diabolical.

        1. The candidate (John Monds for PSC) got more than a million votes but still lost.

          Still, more votes than the total Ed Clark received for President.

  15. The U.N. Security Council, in its first statement on Syria in seven months, deplored the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation there

    Oh, the humanity!

    1. That’ll show em! I’ll bet this will make Assad rethink his brutal crackdown.

  16. A U.S. appeals court says police don’t need a warrant to search a cell phone.

    This means there will be no 6th season or movie version of The Wire. They’ve made it too easy for Lester.

    1. Will encryption be criminal now?

      1. Har dee har.

        Maybe you should read the article about the decision first.

        1. This was a search consequent to arrest, ie no warrant needed

        2. Doesn’t apply if the phone is password protected

    2. A U.S. appeals court says police don’t need a warrant to search a cell phone.

      Self-destructing cell phones! Get your self-destructing cell phones here!

    3. I keep positing that cop shows are behind the times.

      We’re still treated to the devil-may-care cop going over the line, bending the rules to get the bad guys. Or the two lone plain-clothes serving an arrest warrant on the dangerous thug watching tv at his apartment…

      In the first case, the devil-may-care cop would be absolutely well within the law and the constitution– he’d be “following procedure”, and in the latter, totally unrealistic because there’s no SWAT team shooting the family dog.

      And cops don’t serve warrants without SWAT teams anymore.

      1. They can also trace calls almost instantly.

      2. I keep telling people that “Brazil” is a documentary… and they call me crazy.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeY1dxlC7Sg

        1. Been discussed, but yeah, absolutely. Especially when the Obama administration starts going on about giving Americans more choices in their ducts.

        2. It’s clearly fictional…the SWAT team is actually concerned with the safety of the kids in the house they bust into.

    4. Who cares? Both Omar and String are dead.

      Oh, don’t read that if you haven’t watched the show, by the way.

      1. What the fuck did I do?

      2. I can’t wait to one day spoil the plot to Untitled Michael Bay/Taylor Lautner Project for you.

        1. Zen question: how does one spoil that which is already spoiled?

          Besides, it’s a Michael Bay movie, so I already know the plot.

          1. Yes, but this movie will have a twist. There will be no explosions because it will all take place within the vacuum of Lautner’s mind!

            1. In Lautner’s mind, no one can hear you scream.

  17. WRT cell phones, use encryption? Since with the recent ruling, you can’t be compelled to reveal the password

    1. So they did rule that your password is safe? Or are they still considering it? I hadn’t heard that the ruling was made yet…

  18. A U.S. appeals court says police don’t need a warrant to search a cell phone.

    Wait, what?

    I just read the linked article:

    Police had subpoenaed three months of each cell phone’s call history to gather evidence on one of the defendants in the case, Abel Flores-Lopez.
    […]

    They maintained that any evidence obtained from the phone company thus was the fruit of an illegal search and therefore should be ruled inadmissible.

    Are they searching the phone or requesting records from the phone company?

    1. They are doing both. They want access to any data on the phone AND they want the phone number so they can request the call records.

    2. “It’s not even clear that we need a rule of law specific to cell phones or other computers. If police are entitled to open a pocket diary to copy the owner’s address, they should be entitled to turn on a cell phone to learn its number,” they wrote in the opinion.

      The police used the number they got from looking at the phone to get a search warrant for the call history for that phone number.

      Not exactly searching the cell phone without a warrant. They got the phone number without a warrant.

      I thought from the headline that the courts had approved searching the contents of some smart phone without a warrant.

      1. What good does the phone # do if you’re using skype?

      2. This is what I thought. But the linked article is highly schizophrenic. It discusses an attempt to find the number of the cell phone, the subpeona of the cell phone company records– which resulted in fruit of the poison tree, blah blah.

        This is hardly searching through someone’s cell phone to review text messages, videos or pictures etc.

        Does it pave the way for that? Hopefully our resident legal eagles can weigh in.

        1. No time to look at this, but there’s caselaw allowing for pen registers to be obtained without a warrant.

        2. The article also compares searching a cell phone to reading a diary, which I feel is a fair comparison. If they wouldn’t need a warrant for the diary, why would they need a warrant for the cellphone?

        3. If they can turn the phone on to find out its number, why can’t they read any texts on it?

          On my phone, you have to browse to the screen with the number. It takes the same number of clicks to browse to my texts.

  19. Sloopy’s Instapoll:

    1: Do you believe any of the “birther” claims?
    2: Do you think Obama is eligible to be President according to the Constitution?

    1. 1. No
      2. Yes

      Dude was born to a US citizen who claimed residency. That’s all there is to it.

      1. Awesome “Three Days…” reference. Love that movie.

        And the reference fits…

        1. I think I’d been trying to use that for a blog post for a couple of years. Thanks to Obama and the Birthers for giving me the excuse.

          How things have changed, too. I used to think the media would run some oh-my-god-the-government-did-what? story, but I’m not so sure now. I think that they often have their hand forced now, thanks to the Internet, but that’s not the way it should be.

    2. 1. No, though I admit I gave them a hearing in the beginning. It quickly became clear they had nothing.

      2. Yes, that’s quite clear. The closest plausible counter-claim is the “Obama inherited UK citizenship through his father.” This is wrong on its face since US law governs here and it dictates citizenship regardless of parental nationality. I just like it because it raises the point that Obama is, by the strict meaning of the word, a bastard. Obama Sr. was already married when he “married” Ann Dunham, rendering the marriage void. At the time, only legitimate children of male British citizens could inherit citizenship in the situation birthers are claiming happened.

    3. Obama has been certified as President by every electoral authority in this country. If it turns out he isn’t a natural born citizen of the United States, it would warrant a review of the certification process, but not necessarily impeachment.

      This Birfer shit is a waste of time and energy that could be better spent opposing Obama’s actual policies.

      1. This Birfer shit is a waste of time and energy

        Yeah, but what about troofer shit?

        1. Now that you mention it, both the troofer and the birfer nonsense do serve a social function of clearly identifying people that you can ignore because they are retarded.

          1. I thought that’s what partisanship was for. Also, deep dish enthusiasts.

            1. Partisans aren’t uniformly retarded, though they generally are deluded.

            2. Yeah, well, why don’t you go make some nice cauliflower chili, you fucking catamite?

              1. Maybe I will, asshole! With half and half and some sage!

            3. I saw the oddest thing on the Internet last night. A Reuben pizza. It had all of the Reuben stuff–Swiss cheese, corned beef, kraut, special mystery sauce–and was on some odd crust. Maybe sweet potato? Not sure why it wasn’t rye.

              Now I love Reubens, which are the King of Sandwiches, and I love pizza. But together? Maybe it’s actually great, but the word abomination comes to mind.

              1. special mystery sauce

                Or as those who have reached the highest degree in the secret society of sandwiches know it as 1000-Island dressing.

                1. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. Only German delis know for sure.

              2. Now I love Reubens, which are the King of Sandwiches, and I love pizza. But together? Maybe it’s actually great, but the word abomination comes to mind.

                So there are depths even you won’t plumb? I mean, you’ve already debased yourself with deep dish; why stop there?

                1. I did a search to find the site I ran across last night. It turns out that this is a popular thing, with recipes for it all over the Internet. I’m rather astounded by this turn of events.

              3. I would try it.

              4. special mystery sauce-

                ah, the mysterious, mysterious *russian dressing*… who could possibly comprehend it?

                http://www.globalgourmet.com/f…..z1nyInVwMS

            4. Getting hungry programming up there, big guy? Here you go.

              1. Should’ve included a site with pictures. Maybe Lou’s or Gino’s?

              2. Luckily, I got a burger with chili and a fried egg on it for lunch, so I’m good.

                1. Was that the one that woman liked from Carl’s Jr.? Because she really liked it.

          2. Or like putting Jazz selections on the Applebees juke box?

            1. There is something to be said for playing the Coltraine version of My Favorite Things at shitholes if they have it.

              1. Revolution No. 9 if they’re dumb enough to put the White Album on the jukebox.

                1. I’ve done that. People always seem surprised.

    4. 1. No

      2. Yes.

      Romney’s dad ran for president against Nixon in 1968 and no one made a fuss that he was born in Meh-hee-co.

      1. Didn’t he drop out before the first primary? Arguably nobody even had time to raise an objection.

        1. While he did drop out before anyone made into an issue (what sunk him was his change of position on the Vietnam War), the consensus from what I’ve read is that most people thought he was a natural born US citizen since his parents never renounced their US citizenship when they fled to the polygamist Mormon colony in Mexico.

          There was even a law passed by the Congress in 1790 saying that the children of US citizens born overseas are considered natural-born.

          1. What is it with all of this Mormon stuff lately? Rubio is a secret Mormon. Romney is a Morman. Huntsman is a Mormon. It’s like Mormageddon.

    5. 1. Yes: viz and viz.

      2. What is this “Constitution” of which you speak?

    6. 1) No
      2) Yes

    7. 1. That’s my boy!

      2. Sheeeit Nigguh, he’s as American as cherry pie.

    8. I have said it before and I will say it again: I believe all politicians should be forced to prove the constitutionality of every little thing they do.

      1. The Constitution doesn’t explicitly empower the President to move his bowels.

        1. Exactly! And yet we receive the product of that on a regular basis.

        2. It does say something about being free from seizure.

          1. Soooooo, no epileptics?

      2. We could expand the power of the Censor, where he follows the president around, and the president has to say, “Censor, may I?” before everything he does. If the Censor nods his head, okay.

        1. We’ll call the bill “Censor Says.”

          1. Better yet, “Simon Says,” granting the censor the title of ‘Simon.’

    9. 1: No
      2: Yes

  20. alt-text:

    In China they call this move “Monkey steals a peach.”

    1. “Remember me in It’s Alive?”

    2. “My happy place is holding the beating heart of some random brown person!”

    1. Yglesias simply noted that inflation is not 8%.

      Any brain-dead moron should know that – Rick Santelli excepted.

      (Santelli screams like an idiot as a bond trader because he wants high interest rates – I am too harsh on him.)

      1. We’ll all be dead, anyway.

        1. I’ll listen to Santelli before I listen to a cunt like you, shrike.

  21. I think now that Andrew Brietbart has gone to glory, we should make him a gay morman.

    1. You misspelled Moarmon.

    2. Speaking of Mormonism, how do I sign up for some of this postmortem baptism shit? I don’t want to deal with any of the God/Jesus/Allah/magic-underwear hassle while I’m alive but once my ashes are scattered in the backyard, why not? Anyone got a link to an online signup form?

      1. Count me in. Somebody has to fuck Marie Osmond in Mormon heaven.

        1. You won’t see her there unless you marry her first. You’ll be on your very own planet!

          1. Dibs on Arrakis.

            1. What the hell. Why I’ll playing make-believe, also dibs on Julie Cox.

      2. The Mormons really dont understand Pascal’s wager.

        1. Correct me if I’m wrong (like there’s any chance you won’t) but Pascal’s wager states that if you live your life like you believe in God and it turns out there is no God, you’ve lost nothing. I see a lot of opportunity cost there that he didn’t account for.

          1. Pascal’s wager has lots of holes. But the Mormons go the other way: “Hey, dont worry about it, we will handle it after you are dead.”

            Applying the (faulty) logic of Pascal’s Wager, why bother?

            1. Ahh. Now I take your meaning.

          2. Re: opportunity cost, I think the idea is that not burning in hellfire for eternity is worth whatever the opportunity cost would be.

            1. I’m sure if you’re a believer or maybe even agnostic you’d see it that way.

            2. Nope. That requires an additional belief: the belief in hell. A belief in God does not necessarily imply a belief in hell.

            3. Let’s stipulate that you’re right. Which god do you pay the tribute to? If you pick wrong, you could just be setting yourself up for an even worse hell.

  22. “GOP fails to reverse contraception mandate.”

    better phrasing: “Senate rejects health-care conscience rights.”

  23. Why the fuck does Olympia Snowe Exist at all?!?!

    1. Global warming?

  24. My two favorite Mickey Andrews moments:

    One

    Two

    WTF is that formation? Stupid is what it is.

    1. From the same game:

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

      I was sitting on the goalline, camera-side.

  25. I’ve discovered that burningkoran.us and burningquran.us are currently available for registration. When is the next draw Muhammad day?

  26. I’d like to say that surfing this site with an Android phone is a pain in the dick. That is all.

    1. I tried it with a PS3 last night. Also unpleasant.

    2. Your a dick

    3. I call BS. If Android phones gave you herpes, Apple’s marketing department would be all over it.

    4. Solution: use your fingers.

    5. HOW do you comment on Android? everytime I make a comment, it goes to the shitty mobile version
      /using firefox on android

      1. You can install the Dolphin browser and set it for desktop mode. Problem solved.

        1. Dolphin likes to store your data on their servers.

          1. What data do you need to use this site?

      2. On my droid phone I can go into the settings and disable the switch to mobile. For some sites it works well. But for a mobile site called “Reason”…

        1. The reason app goes to the desktop version, but as soon as I hit submit on a comment it goes to the mobile version.

          1. I’m not surprised. Mobile tech has a ways to go yet…

  27. This thread is devoid of any specific, incontroverible facts offered to refute any of the allegations made by Sheriff Joe’s investigation as set forth in the linked article.

    1. You’re right! It’s also devoid of proof that no unicorns exist!

  28. Sad news – the “Spreading Santorum” site will no longer be on page 1 of Google search results:

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ti…..15107.html

    1. Once all the news articles like the one you linked get indexed back to http://spreadingsantorum.com/ it will float back up. I have to wonder if that’s the purpose of the whole article. I hope so.

    2. This is, indeed, troubling news.

      1. You’re schmoopy!

        1. Get a room.

  29. “A U.S. appeals court says police don’t need a warrant to search a cell phone. ”

    disingenuous at best. a lie at worst

    what the appeals court said was that no warrant is needed merely to use the phone to go to the settings and find out the PHONE # of the phone, so that warrant/subpeonas FOR the call records could be applied for

    it did NOT say that they could search the phone iow get a list of calls made, or read the text messages etc. wtihout a warrant

    it only referred to looking in the phone to get it’s PHONE # for identification purposes

    that’s a BIG DIFFERENCE

    we are talking identifying data, NOT personal messages, lists of phone calls, etc.

    1. disingenuous at best. a lie at worst

      Right, because as long as that distinction is clearly drawn in the ruling, the police will ONLY use the phone to look up its number in order to subpoena the phone records. They’re just going to go in, retrieve the phone number, then shut it off again – that’s it, swear to God.

      1. entirely irrelevant. the point is that the title is a bit dishonest.

        and yes, i’ve heard this argument ad nauseum. any police power is bad because it can be abused.

        similarly, defense attorneys should not be allowed to present witnesses. after all, what’s to keep them from coaching the witnesses into perjuring themselves for the benefit of the defense?

        because after all, defense attorneys will ONLY use witnesses to testify truthfully. they are just going to do that.

        swear to god

        reasonoid logicz 101

        1. similarly, defense attorneys should not be allowed to present witnesses. after all, what’s to keep them from coaching the witnesses into perjuring themselves for the benefit of the defense?

          The fact that we don’t grant them immunity like we do cops?

          reasoniod logicz 101 is apparently still superior to cop apologist logic.

    2. How the fuck is going to the settings not a search?

      If I take the numbers off the outside of my house and move them inside, you dont get the fucking right to break down my door to figure out my address.

      If the phone # is written on the outside of the phone, Im cool with you getting the # that way.

      1. It was a search incident to arrest, which doesn’t require a warrant anyway.

        As the court noted, if the arrested person had a diary in his pocket, under established case law no warrant would be needed for the police to read it…so a cell phone isn’t any different if it’s not password protected.

        1. Im not sure I agree with established case law. What the fuck good is being “secure in your papers” if the fucking papers you are carrying arent secure?

  30. The Birthers are all retards. Don’t you think that the Bush-era FBI, CIA, and every other government agaency didn’t secretly look into Obama’s background and if they found anything disqualifying they wouldn’t have used it to make sure Obama didn’t become President in the first place? Now I’m as anti-Obama as any American with a shred of common sense but at least I don’t express my anti-Obama-ism in a manner that makes me look like an idiot!

    1. Your post is a general statement unsupported by specific, articuable facts.

      Did you read the linked article regarding the investigation undertaken by Sheriff Joe?

      What specific, incontrovertible facts do you have to offer to gainsay the allegations made by the investigation?

      1. Joe Arpaio is just another bitter old white man with a chip on his shoulder.

      2. Dude, I want to thank you for wearing the tinfoil hat so you can warn us of these dangers. I will prepare accordingly.

      3. Libertymike|3.1.12 @ 8:18PM|#
        “Did you read the linked article regarding the investigation undertaken by Sheriff Joe?”

        Nope.
        I also don’t bother reading the articles WI links.
        Only so much time; no use wasting it on garbage.

  31. “We have never had a conscience clause for insurance companies,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. Insurers, she said, don’t need an invitation to deny coverage for medical treatment. “A lot of them don’t have any consciences. They’ll take it.”

    The administration justified the mandate partly on the basis that paying for contraceptives will result is savings down the road. So Boxer believes these insurance companies, absent a moral objection, are going to forego such profits just because?

  32. “Majority Democrats said the legislation would have allowed employers and insurers to avoid virtually any medical treatment with the mere mention of a moral or religious objection.”

    I rather doubt that this would have enabled companies to avoid paying for treatments they had freely contracted to cover. Nice subtle fearmongering there, Democrats.

  33. “This proposal isn’t limited to contraception, nor is it limited to any preventive service. Any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to,” said Secretary of Health and Human Resources Kathleen Sebelius.”

    Your employer not offering coverage for a specific treatment is NOT restricting access to that treatment. That being said, why shouldn’t be free to offer whatever level of coverage that makes sense to them, be the rationale moral, economic or otherwise?

  34. You’re Schmoopy!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.