Obama Says War With Iran Not a "Bluff," GM Halts Production of Chevy Volt, White House Weighs In On Rush Limbaugh "Slut" Remark: P.M. Links

|

Murray the King

  • President Obama not skeered of starting a war with Iran
  • GM halts production of Chevy Volt–"temporarily."
  • White House weighs in on Rush Limbaugh's "slut" remark. 
  • Five soldiers were involved in the burning of a pile of books
  • Three New York cops indicted for special favors
  • Happy birthday, Murray Rothbard! 

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: Brian Doherty on Ron Paul vs. Rick Santorum

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. White House weighs in on Rush Limbaugh’s “slut” remark.

    Of course it does.

    1. More beer drinking summits? That should be cool; instead, it’s stupid.

      Now he could get points hosting an upside-down margarita summit, but he sucks too much to do that.

      1. She could be the new Lewinsky. I hear tequila makes your clothes fall off.

      2. an upside-down margarita summit

        genuinely curious: what’s upside-down about it?

        1. Traditionally, you lean your back against the bar, tilt your head back with your mouth open, and the bartender pours the tequila and other ingredients into your mouth, until you shake your head to indicate that it’s time to stop.

          1. thx, but the answer was way more longwinded than necessary.

            Q: what’s upside-down about it

            A: You.

            (my ignorance didn’t deserve so many words)

            1. I’m a full service informer.

              1. With a happy ending.

          2. Then you gargle to mix the drink.

            1. Shaking your head violently is also allowed.

              1. depends if you’re in a Violent Rhetoric Zone or not.

      3. What? So he can get her good and liquored up for the Lincoln Bedroom “tour?”

      4. Limbaugh, on his radio show earlier this week, had called Fluke a “slut” following her comments in favor of mandatory contraceptive coverage.

        Same thing happened here today. I didn’t know Rush was a libertarian.

        1. We have a lot in common with Rush. Except the god thing. And the wealth. And the following. And the influence.

        2. More than you realize. I’ve listened to him for over two decades. He’s not quite as conservative as you’ve been led to believe.

          1. He gets it right once in a while, and then he says something that utterly contradicts his alleged principles. Like most men, he holds mixed premises.

            1. Not that women are not sluts.
              I don’t know why they avoid this place.

              1. I don’t know why they avoid this place.

                Women? Or just sluts?

                1. Same thing. Not that I don’t like tits. Especially links to tits.

                  1. Paging sarcasmic.
                    Sarcasmic: Need tits-links! Thx!

        3. Rush=A Libertarian Band also Rush=A Fat Neo-Con Blowhard. We have a similar confusion in my town due to a critical mass of girls named “Jennifer”.

          1. I’m pretty sure Limbaugh isn’t a neo-con.

        4. Rawdogging is a Constitutional right.

          1. A well regulated rawdogging being necessary to it being real sex, the right of the people to toss a hotdog down a hallway shall not be infringed.

      5. What a punk. It’s a shame the Duke lacrosse case didn’t occur during his presidency. The lulz would last as long as the Republic stood.

      6. Body shot summit. Rolls off the tongue much better.

        1. the BSS. (it even makes a good acronym!)

          Branding Accepted.

    2. Don’t keep us in suspense – whose side did they take??

      1. The slut’s.

        1. Funny. Thanks.

    3. Why not? PigBoy is reviled by independents and women alike. Politics ain’t beanbag. When your redneck dumbass leader is drowning throw the POS an anchor.

      1. When your redneck dumbass leader is drowning throw the POS an anchor.

        Oh wait you were talking about Limbaugh….not the president.

      2. Shut up, rather. Everybody knows it’s you.

        1. Shrike is Orin. He forgot to change back when answering in a secondary thread a few weeks back.

          1. Killaz,

            That’s quite impossible! A cool sophisticated classical liberal capitalist like our Shrike could never be aped properly by poor hunyuck Orrin.

            1. Lol! I love how you say that with a straight face. Hint to shrike, we never bought it!

            2. Shrike came first, didn’t he?

            3. …poor hunyuck Orrin.

              Hahaha! I haven’t heard anybody use that word in 20 years!

      3. I seriously doubt anyone here calls Limbaugh “leader”.

        Oh, and… fuck you, shrike. Go back to swabbing Barry’s cock.

    4. If someone not only uses $1000/year worth of condoms, but decides to tell the world about, then how is “slut” any sort of insult?

      WHY THE FUCK CAN’T LIBERALS STOP PRETENDING THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT WORDS MEAN??!!

      1. WHY THE FUCK CAN’T LIBERALS STOP PRETENDING THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT WORDS MEAN??!!

        Huh?

      2. Look, idiot. If a chick fucks once a year or once an hour the Pill costs the same.

        You are missing the political significance of this. The GOP is getting killed as their true Papist Christo-Fascist colors arise.

        1. Look, idiot. If a chick fucks once a year or once an hour the Pill costs the same.

          If she fucks once a year she can roll the dice and hope she doesn’t get knocked up.

          If she fucks once an hour she’s your mom and they’re a business expense!

          1. Or she can just roll on a Trojan for one thin dollar.

        2. The pill is like $9/month at Planned Parenthood, you morally-diseased ass monkey.

        3. If she’s upset about the price of the pill, she can buy condoms as they are needed and avoid the ongoing fixed expense.

          It’s called the substitution effect.

          I don’t see why it shouldn’t apply to her as much as to anybody else.

          1. Because she is a special snowflake?

            1. Because she is a special snowflake?

              Meaning any boy can catch her on his tongue?

          2. Your logic is impeccable, fluff.

            But as a male I have been there countless times – “please let me hit that thing natural, girl. I really want it”.

            I promise that given the choice the bare tail wins. We all compete at some level.

          3. Condoms are really not an effective substitute for the pill. This is in no way an endorsement of the contraceptive mandate or any part of PPACA, just the reality of failure rates (not to mention the fact that you control one while your partner controls the other).

            1. And the pill is not an effective substitute for a condom in eliminating STD infections. Unfortunately, I was in my late teens during the high water mark of the AIDS scare when the science said AIDS does not discriminate.

              1. Right, which is why many women who aren’t in a monogamous relationship will be using not one but two forms of contraception.

                1. I’ve been told the Japanese have been using condoms that have been designed for a significant reduction in the failure rate but Big Condom uses trade laws to prevent their sale here. Don’t know about the later point, but the first has been told to me by Japanese peers in my industry.

                  1. That’s pretty interesting. Wonder why our domestic Big Condom folks aren’t also shooting for this improvement.

                    1. It’s the Brazilian latex lobby.

                  2. Big Condom is in my pocket… it’ the only size that fits me.

                    (Someone please do better than that.)

                  3. Fuck…I hate Big Condom!

        4. Look, you terminally stupid asswipe, if she can’t afford her own contraception she can’t afford the consequences that can occur when she spreads her legs willingly either.

          1. Fine. Campaign on that.

            Loser.

            1. Funny what that five word response reveals in terms of your pathetic mentality. Not everybody is in permanent campaign mode. Some of us are actually decent human beings, but you would not know anything about that.

            2. I wanna fuck a lot, but I can’t afford it. So somebody has to pay for it.

              Fine. Campaign on that.

            3. Rush is not running for president…

              Obama is running….and he is running on the “Fluke is not a slut” ticket.

              Obama is going to lose terribly come November.

              You do see that right Shrike? You do understand how badly he will lose right? I mean i can understand you not liking it but i do hope you are still living in the real world and understand how come 2013 Obama will be out of the white house.

          2. Have you seen her?

            I really doubt contraception is one of her needs.

          3. Have you seen her?

            I really doubt contraception is one of her needs.

        5. Look, idiot. If a chick fucks once a year or once an hour the Pill costs the same.

          Which is less then 3000$

          So one assumes she is using a different contraceptive and using it a shit load…ie a slut.

          1. Anyway it is obvious that she is lying her ass off in front of congress.

            One would think lying to congress would be worse then being a slut.

            In fact I love sluts. Without them i would never get laid.

            Anyway i really do not see why we need the president to get into this discussion…but it is funny that he pushed himself into it.

          2. I don’t know what the term “slut” has to do with any of this. If she fucks often, I call that normal. Fucking a lot of different people who don’t know she’s fucking a lot of different people would be slutty. But how is that conclusion reached.

        6. She can fuck well buy her OWN pills, shrike.

          Oh, and… fuck you, shrike.

          1. She can fuck well buy her OWN pills, shrike.

            Just get the guys to toss a few bucks in the hat on their way in the door. By her own words, $2.75/day and she’s turning a profit.

      3. No, shit, is that what she said? $1,000 worth? I suppose those could’ve been used by her boyfriend or spouse (I know no details at all about this), but if she’s single. . .that’s, um, extraordinary.

        Even with one dude, that’s got to be a shitload of condoms. Also, again without knowing the least detail, I imagine Limbaugh’s point is that she’s puffing the numbers. Not that he isn’t an ass, but I’m guessing the girl is the bigger problem here.

        1. Moreover, if she’s single, she should be using condoms to prevent the spread of teh STIz instead of letting a syphilis-riddled phallus penetrate her.

          1. Jesus, where does she find the time to study?

            1. Where the women at?

            2. I could always read a book while on my back!

              1. If it doesn’t kill the guy’s ego, go for it.

              2. You mean on your stomach, right?

                NTTAWWT.

                1. You’re Schmoopy!

        2. Someone should tell Sandra Fluke that birth control isn’t needed if all you’re fucking is sheep.

          Which isn’t meant to imply that Sandra Fluke fucks sheep.

        3. The box o’condoms I most recently bought was like $7 for a dozen. My ex-wife’s BC pills would have cost like $30 a month if she wasn’t on my insurance at the time.

          So, between BC and condom use if she was racking up $1K a year in prophlaytics she is in prostitute territory.

          1. Law school is horrifically expensive. And the practice of law is similar to prostitution in many respects.

          2. I looked it up. She said $3,000 for law school. It might have been a thousand a year. Or maybe she was turning tricks first year, when most law schools don’t let you work.

            Or maybe she just made the shit up.

            The idea that there is a right to free contraception, when did this start?

            1. Yeah. Of all things, why should birth control be treated differently from all other prescriptions. That is the part of this I really don’t get. I mean, I disagree with forcing other people to pay for it too, but I can understand the reasoning.

      4. Sorry guys, I have to get all girly on you and say y’all should really be coming down on Rush for this remark, or least not flippantly repeating it. It was uncalled for, extremely insulting, and there’s no reason to think it’s at all accurate. Call her a moocher, a loser, a horrible person, even a bitch, but calling her a slut because you think her remarks indicate she goes through condoms by the thousand is just dickish and stupid.

        And I think her cited cost was high but not outrageously high depending on circumstances. And this in no way endorses the contraceptive mandate or any part of PPACA.

        1. Again… how the hell does ANY woman pay a grand a year for birth-control pills?

          1. If you have no insurance coverage at all, which has been the case for me, and for whatever reason need a pill for which there is not a generic version (this can be medically necessary), you will be looking at at least $50 per “month” (13 months in the year tho) if you don’t qualify for subsidies at someplace like PP. So that’s $650. Throw in a doctor visit (and as I said on another thread, I don’t know if people in her situation can just get a script for this at a normally covered dr visit, or if they have to pay out of pocket) and that could run you another $250 or so. I think her estimate is high but not insanely high, especially if you add in the cost of secondary methods like condoms (necessary for STD avoidance). I think her estimate is probably extra-high for her personally because she would likely qualify for subsidies, and most people can get a generic pill for less money.

            1. IOW, I have absolutely paid almost a grand a year for birth control pills when I had a job with no benefits (but good pay). And I have been sleeping with exactly one guy for the past eight years, so that’s pretty slutty.

              1. Not taking Limbaugh’s side here, nicole, but technically Fluke wants US to pay for her sex life.

                1. I know, and I think she’s a horrible person for it (and an idiot). I just don’t think we have any evidence to say she is a slut, if slut means “loose woman” and not “prostitute” (which I think is still a very big stretch, since she wants us to subsidize her sex life but not actually pay her to have sex).

                2. And we don’t even get to tap that shit.

                  1. When a politician has to turn down someone paying for his lunch, it’s because even that tiny amount of money is seen as a possible payoff.

                    Technically, if you want to stretch it, paying a woman for birth control is similar.

            2. Nicole, I agree completely. I commented above before scrolling down to see your comments. I think Rush is a bully and fucktard for calling her a slut. Moocher maybe, but ain’t nothin’ wrong about having plenty of sex as long as no deception is involved.

              1. Oh, also, isn’t Rush the same drug warrior lickspittle who got caught with illegally buying prescription drugs? Hypocrite is too good of a word for him.

        2. Sorry guys, I have to get all girly on you and say y’all should really be coming down on Rush for this remark

          I will not, under any circumstances go down on Rush.

          But seriously, why would “we” have to “come down” on Rush. It’s not like he’s some kind of brother-in-arms. Now if Matt Welch had said it?

          1. Hence the rest of my sentence, “or least not flippantly repeating it.”

        3. Call her a moocher, a loser, a horrible person, even a bitch, but calling her a slut because you think her remarks indicate she goes through condoms by the thousand is just dickish and stupid.

          No, “slut” is wrong simply because it refers to an enthusiastic amateur. Because she wants me to pay her $1000 a year to have sex with other men, the correct term is “third-party whore.”

          1. See. ^This^ is why libertarians can’t have nice things. Including girlfriends…

            1. Win.

        4. Excellent remarks, nicole, but I’m wondering why none of the other sausages has called you a griefer troll. Maybe they don’t want to scare away one of three remaining women at this site?

        5. I don’t really care what Limbaugh has to say about this or any other subject, and I don’t know why anybody else cares.

          He’s like any other troll, in that if people had the common sense to ignore his silly ass then only his ridiculous followers would even know what he said.

          Indeed, I have to wonder if the Left isn’t paying him under the table to say shit like this, so that they can magnify it and tar anyone who questions the notion that women have the “right” to free contraceptives.

          If he isn’t an undercover agent of the Democratic Party, then he’s just a huckster, a latter-day Mr Haney selling useless junk off the back of an old truck. In that case his influence is proportional to the attention paid to him. I suspect Democrats know this and their pretend outrage bores me.

      5. Some people have claimed that Limbaugh was engaged in slut-shaming. If that’s true, I definitely think that was a bad idea.

        I mean, someone who goes up in front of Congress and says “I’m having such an obscene amount of sex that you should steal from the church to pay for my birth control” isn’t actually capable of shame.

        1. I like how you quote imaginary statements with real quote marks. It imparts authenticity and integrity.

        2. Again….

          I’m getting the picture that only Libertarians see people who have sex regularly as engaging in “an obscene amount of sex”. Get out of your mother’s basement, take a shower, and join the real world for Christ’s sake.

        3. If you actually read Fluke’s testimony, rather than Rush’s interpretation of it, you’ll see she wasn’t even talking about sex; she was talking about a friend who had ovarian cysts, had to have an ovary surgically removed, and this might not have happened had her friend had access to birth-control pills.

          The theory “opposition to insurance coverage of women’s reproductive systems is motivated more by misogyny than religious or economic principles” … you boys here are doing quite a bit to advance it.

          1. If you actually read Fluke’s testimony…

            Hahahaha!

            Sorry.

          2. misogyny

            Noticed a bit of that here, have you?
            I can’t figure out why women avoid this place.

    5. Beat me to it, Fist.

      1. These fists are made for beatin’ and that’s just what they’ll do…

        1. You sucky-sucky? Love me long time?

    6. I wish he’d have called her a mooch or a leech. That’s more accurate, and might have triggered a discussion of the actual issue.

      1. Ahh! A bright comment. Is this reason.com or have I stepped into a vortex?

        Look at her. She is the model of a student. The GOP fucknuts here don’t get that.

        1. Hey mom come get me I stepped in the toilet again.

        2. She is the model of a student

          You mean so entitled that she doesn’t think she should even have to pay for her own personal sexual choices? Mature enough to fuck but not mature enough to bear the cost? Pathetic.

          By “model” you mean “prepared to do a worthless job for the government in the name of public service” or “taking classes that leave her largely uneducated while propagandizing her”? If so, yep, she is a model student.

          Science, I keep thinking you couldn’t be more stupid and you go and prove me wrong again!

          1. DemocraticUnderground is but a click away, shrike.

            Oh, and… fuck you, shrike.

          2. Mature enough to fuck but not mature enough to bear the cost?

            Did you read her actual testimony? She talked about ovarian cysts more than pregnancy prevention.

          3. Ughh.

            Here’s another way we could look at it:

            By subsidizing her birth control, the insurance pool doesn’t later have to subsidize her materinity care, insurance costs for the child(ren), or medical costs for the child(ren) for the next 23 years. Further, her employer doesn’t have her calling in 10 times per year because she’s home with her sick kid. If you think about it $1,000 per year is a drop in the bucket in comparison. Being a parent myself, I can say that having a kid has cost my insurance pool wayyyyyy more than the subsidy for birth control would have.

    7. Give Rush credit for successfully trolling the Obama administration yet again.

      1. Yeah. Now that’s trolling. (I’m just surprised shrike, of all people, wouldn’t recognize it.)

      2. You cannot be that ignorant.

          1. He is.

    8. Limbaugh’s a dick, but he’s right once in a while.

      I still don’t like him, though.

    1. The devil take you FoE!

      1. And with all those replies to the top comment, you are now waaaaaaaay down the list and therefore look even more foolish.

        1. It’s likely to ruin my entire weekend.

  2. Britain: Man suffers seizure by pond, falls unconscious, floating in *three feet* of water 25 feet from shore. Rescue personnel stand by and watch, as their regulations forbade them from performing a rescue in water over ankle-deep. The man’s lifeless body is retrieved over half an hour later.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..z1nztrHSIZ

    1. From the looks of the picture, they had time to set up a tent hospital while he was still floating in the water. Heroes.

      1. Did you see the pic of the two guys who finally went in, bedecked in full “protective gear” and probing the bottom with a pole for tripping hazards? Priceless.

        1. I missed that the first time around, probably because my attention was towards the sheer number of people standing around and not helping. Fuck, what a bunch of cowards and pussies!
          It’s good to know that they had “Level 2” water rescue specialists on hand, because they are allowed in the water all the way up to their chests!

          1. two officers were “investigated” in my agency for going in the water to help rescue some people .

            they pointed out we don’t HAVE a policy forbidding it, but apparently there is a WISHA code that prohibits us from doing so without “proper protective equipment”.

            ironically, our dept. HAS such flotation equipment we could issue to every officer (they got it free via federal grant) but they refuse to give it out because they fear they would have to pay training costs on how to use it if they did so.

            i’ve gone in the water three times with this agency and gotten grief two of the three times.

            WA state doesn’t even require officers know how to swim (which is ridiculous since there are bodies of water everywhere).

            1. You going out tomorrow to vote for Paul in the caucuses?

              1. of course.

                1. i’ve gone in the water three times with this agency and gotten grief two of the three times.

                  I don’t think I would ever again be able to sleep at night, knowing I’d declined to rescue someone over nothing more substantial than red tape. If it came down to a choice between losing my job or letting someone die who didn’t have to die . . . well, I’d be out looking for work.

                  1. of course. i was a lifeguard long before i was a cop and i’m very comfortable in the water. i moved to hawaii so i could surf for pete’s sake.

                2. Give them an extra one for my wife and me; we’re stationed across the country and can’t go.

            2. I had a summer gig in college working as an ocean lifeguard for LA County (Insert Baywatch joke here). I took a swim test and had exactly one week of training before I was pulling rescues.
              I’ve gone in the water once at my current department, but I had to get permission OTA from the watch commander. A number of my co-workers have also done water rescues over the years (usually by borrowing a boogie board) , but always got permission each time. But we are a beach town and have a lot of drunks jump off of the pier, so it is pretty much understood that if you don’t get the OK to go in, you are going to do it anyway…

              1. i worked as a lifeguard down in laguna one summer. that was awesome. at least when i worked, you needed CPR, first aid and to pass the swim tests, etc. I also had WSI, advanced first aid, and a few other classes, but it’s not rocket science.

                RTRG

                1. Is that where you met your wife – Morgan Fairchild?

                  1. troll-o-meter: .01

                    (people with no life find it hard to believe others have one)

            3. i’ve gone in the water three times with this agency and gotten grief two of the three times.

              Dunphy, is it like in the movies where the loud police chief calls you into his office and screams at you for 10 minutes while you make wise-ass remarks?

    2. The UK is doomed.

      1. Locations vary, but many regulations in the U.S. are no different.

        1. Yes, but the Brits seem to live in fear of the ‘safety officers’. I suspect that any number of US rescuers would tell them to get fucked and go anyway.

          It’s like they’re in final dress rehersal for Gillam’s Brazil.

          1. It’s like they’re in final dress rehersal for Gillam’s Brazil.

            Heh heh. I’m gonna have to get out that DVD tonight.

            1. It’s a terrific film, but looooong. I haven’t been able to watch it all the way through in one sitting since the seeing in the theater the first time.

              1. I watched it most of the way through but couldn’t finish it. I suspect the last third of the movie can only be properly enjoyed while on some mind-altering substance.

        2. The same things happened in Alameda, Ca within the last year. I think a teenaged girl eventually waded in and retrieved the dude.

          I’m pretty sure she asked for somebody to spring for birth control while she was toweling off afterwards.

          1. Well, wet teenage girl surrounded by a bunch of men…

            1. Well I was going to say that nothing would have happened because there were all those news cameras around but after the video of those two nitwits making out in the middle of the street at the OWS get together last fall…….

              1. I don’t think that was OWS. Wasn’t that a riot after the Stanley Cup?

                1. Might have been….

            2. And she had just been tugging on a stiffie.

          2. California…UK, no real distinction, just better weather.

            1. Better dental care, too. Can’t forget that.

    3. I read that. I could see regulations against requiring responders from doing things that aren’t their job, but it shouldn’t forbid them.

      1. a lot of it has to do with turf bullshit. fire dept’s are trying to take over water rescue. in agencies that HAVE marine units, the marine unit officers don’t want line officers going in the water. they think only they are ‘qualified’.

        it’s fucking ridiculous, but what do you expect in a bureaucracy? idiocy

        i got a bunch of shit for going in the water not too long ago even though it DID NOT violate policy. i politely told the officer to #A$(#$ off.

    4. Rescue personnel stand by and watch, as their regulations forbade them from performing a rescue in water over ankle-deep.

      What the fuck rescues can they perform, exactly? Pulling an infant out of a bucket?

      1. “Very Special” Rescue Squad!
        (Do they arrive in a short fire truck?)

      2. That would depend on the size of the bucket and what the government standard is for “ankle-deep.

    5. More idiocy from the UK:

      Governments should ban use of underweight models, study reveals

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..veals.html

    6. From the comments:

      do you know how much trouble they would have got in if they did this though? just saying. you dont know what its like to work for the emergency serives so i think its unfair to judge. i think its awful that they did just stand there but compeltly understand the reasons why they did this. however ‘un-british’ this may seem………

      Wow. Putting your job security first over someone’s life is considered something you should be non judgmental about. It’s that very non judgmental attitude that costs lives. Sure take your time, you don’t need to make a decision now, no pressure.
      Given I’ve lost jobs for doing the right thing, and a few others for doing the wrong things as well, I’ll be as judgmental as I damn well please.

    7. Clearly the heroes need a larger budget.

  3. ” In exchange, the indictment says, the three men received valuable gift cards from the kid’s father, Gary Parker, who just happened to be a former board member of the NCPD Foundation.”

    Gift cards? That is about as close to a straight up cash bribe as you can get…

  4. The kid, a student at John F. Kennedy High School, was accused of breaking into the school at night and stealing $3,000 worth of electronic equipment. The school demanded that he be arrested, but?according to the indictment?Flanagan, Sharpe, and Hunter conspired to make sure he never faced justice. In exchange, the indictment says, the three men received valuable gift cards from the kid’s father, Gary Parker, who just happened to be a former board member of the NCPD Foundation.

    Isn’t there some middle ground between dressing up as a high schooler to seduce/entrap kids and covering up their actual crimes for monetary gain?

    1. Yeah, I think it’s called everything else.

  5. President Obama not skeered of starting a war with Iran.

    Fuck You. No.

    1. He’d better be fucking scared of not getting reelected. That’s already 90% likely, and starting another war will push it to 100%.

      1. not quite 100%.

        The anti-war left would still vote for him.

        1. Yeah, ’cause war is wrong and stuff.

        2. All 5 of them?

        3. As long as it’s not blood for oil

          1. We don’t buy oil from Iran, so everything is cool. Blow the fuckers up! Save the pistachios!

            1. Save the pistachios!

              Also, fried chicken.

              1. They have fried chicken there?

                I worked with some Iranian expats when I sold computers in high school. Very nice people. Now these are the ones that left after the revolution, so not typical, I’m sure.

                Anyway, at a work party, they had all sorts of vodka and pistachios. The latter being a big export of theirs.

                1. per No Reservations, the saudis have a popular chicken chain.

                  I’m just going to assume they’ve got one in iran too.

                  1. If they don’t, perhaps a fried drumstick, extended in peace and friendship, could end this crisis.

                    1. When I was in London, the sheer number of fried chicken places surprised me. They often had names like “Tennessee (or Georgia, Louisiana, etc.) Fried Chicken”. Even more often than that, they had sign that read “halal”.

              2. They have some nice rugs.

    2. Will Obama’s next speech on Iran contain the phrase “Bring’em on!”?

    3. Nobody has announced a war, young lady

  6. Chevy Volt: The pinnacle of innovation brought to you by the partnership of a Union, a Corporation and the Federal Government.

    1. Except, in this case, the Corporation is only a front operation for the Union and the Government.

  7. Despite an apology from President Barack Obama, the desecration of the Quran at the U.S. Bagram airbase, which is being used by both U.S. and foreign forces under the NATO banner, ignited a wave of anti-Western fury across the country. Muslims consider the Quran the literal word of God and treat each book with deep reverence.

    At least 30 people were killed in the protests.

    Non-muslims, who do not consider the book is the literal word of God, are under no obligation to treat it as anything but an object. Thirty people…

    1. Heading toward the 12th century…with a bullet!

      1. Still better than Detroit, though.

    2. Muslims consider the Quran the literal word of God and treat each book with deep reverence.

      Other than apparently using it to send jailhouse messages to each other. I guess those were “sacred” messages.

      We need to get our troops out of that useless shithole, pronto.

    3. “It’s okay now, my apology has calmed the situation.”

  8. Hill on Friday that production of the Volt would resume April 23.

    “We needed to maintain proper inventory and make sure that we continued to meet market demand,” GM spokesman Chris Lee said in a telephone interview.

    Lee noted that sales of the Volt were higher in February than they were in January, and added that California recently decided to allow the electric car to qualify for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes in the state.

    “We see positive trends, but we needed to make this market adjustment,” he said.

    What the blinding-aura of fuck does that mean?

    Sales are “higher” than expected, so to keep up with demand and make sure inventories are maintained, you’re halting production.

    1. “We did not develop the Chevy Volt to be a political punching bag,” General Motors CEO Daniel Akerson testified before Congress in the same January hearing. “We engineered the Volt to be a technological wonder.”

      And GM engineering has once again showed us the wonder of the Volt.

      God this company is so bad someone should just put it out of its misery.

      1. We tried!

      2. “We engineered the Volt to be a technological wonder.”

        And the Vikings and Bills went to the Super Bowl to be world champs.

    2. “This isn’t just the car we wanted to build,” a narrator says in the commercial over footage of Volts being manufactured in Hamtramck, Mich. “This is the car America had to build.”

      No, it’s the car GM had to build or it wouldn’t get government support, aka taxpayer dollars, aka their hand in my fucking wallet.

      Get the fuck out you blood-sucking parasites. God I hate this company. God fuckity fuckity fucksticks I hate this company.

      1. You must be wrong, because the president said it was a brilliant success.

      2. Agreed…

      3. “This is the car America had to build.”

        If America had to build it, why are you stopping building it?

        1. They didn’t say how many America had to build, did they, smart guy?

          1. What a fuckin’ laugh. GM squanders untold millions developing that POS car, does a recall on every one built, then does THIS… all on our dime.

            Fuck GM.

  9. been out today. currently trying to dodge tornadoes here in Alabama.

      1. fucking Al Gore. He needs to pay for the damages.

        1. He needs to pay for the damages.

          I’m not sure it’s fair to ask him to pay for this and birth control!

      2. Global warming. Climate change.

        SEE?! It changed again!

      3. It’s Global Winning.

    1. *Dodge Toronado

      *checks wikipedia*

      *shakes fist at oldsmobile for ruining my joke*

      1. *shakes fist at self for handle fuck-up*

        1. Also, fried chicken.

          1. *shakes fist at self for that omission*

  10. I think they are just secretly retooling for the next version of the Volt, which will be powered by Solyndra solar panels on its roof. Plus with purposefully high gas prices, consumers will be clamoring for them come May. Win!

  11. I’ve always paid for my own birth control. If I were ever lucky enough to spend $1,000 a year on it, I’d wear the ‘slut’ moniker with pride.

    1. How the hell can it cost a grand a year? Hell, my last GF only paid about thirty bucks a month for birth-control pills, which works out to roughly a third of what that stupid shill chick says she’s paying.

      What the fuck does she buy… gold-plated pills? T’hell with her.

  12. Mr. Obama’s remarks, in a 45-minute interview with The Atlantic magazine this week, were intended to reinforce a sense of solidarity between the United States and Israel without ceding ground on differences between Washington and Jerusalem over the timetable or triggers for potential military action.

    Obama is sensing he might need the Jewish vote come November.

  13. Send the slut from Georgetown Law a case of condoms for crying out loud. If they are that hard up.

    1. After all this, she might get an endorsement deal.

      1. Enwhoresement?

        1. Nicely done sir.

      2. Can the porno version be far off?

        1. Good point. It could’ve been porn work instead of prostitution.

          1. I think condoms count as Personal Protective Equipment, so the employer would be responsible for making them available under OSHA regs. Does OSHA regulate porn sets? Can you imagine a more hilarious situation. “OK so when Jen leans out over the balcony rail over the atrium while Randy is pounding her in the ass, we’re going to need the fall harness and retractable lanyard.”

        2. filmed in LA, no doubt.

    1. His only quibbles are the Family protection act and his personal feelings against abortion. Both of which only a braind-dead or dishonest person would think conflict with libertatarian ideals. Fact is, minor’s rights and abortion are two areas where even doctrinaire libertarians have disagreements.

      1. Cue Max in 3…2…1…

        1. FUCK RON PUAL!!!ONE!1!!

          I’M NEVER POSTING HERE AGAIN!!

    2. Another presumed expert on libertarianism who is obviously clueless about the issue.

    3. He put his email address at the bottom of the page…

  14. http://content.usatoday.com/co…..1FGeYcgfXo

    New Orleans Saints players participated in a scheme to pay players cash bonuses for injuring an opponent.

    Frankly, anybody who participated in this rates a lifetime ban from the sport and arrest for conspiracy to commit assault.

    1. Damn…I love me some Saints, but this is just wrong.

    2. Who dat…Who dat…Who dat say gonna set dem bounties?

    3. New Orleans Saints players participated in a scheme to pay players cash bonuses for injuring an opponent.

      Hate to burst your bubble, but pay-for-pain bonuses are nothing new in the NFL, or football in general for that matter. Even in high school football, some players are told that if an opportunity to blindside certain players presents itself, they should take it.

  15. President Obama injected himself Friday into the controversy over Rush Limbaugh’s comments about a Georgetown University student who spoke to lawmakers about birth control, calling the 30-year-old woman to thank her for “exercising her right as a citizen to speak out.”

    Obama then called Rush Limbaugh to thank him for exercising his right as a citizen to speak out.

    1. What I find odd about this is that the administration is formally getting involved in something between a law student and some talk radio guy. WTF? Maybe if the RNC had said it, but some radio personality?

      It’s like total amateur hour up there.

      1. Rush is a troll, and the Administration is John.

        Any questions?

      2. Let’s keep in mind that she’s a total plant, sent up by one of the more nefarious lefty .orgs, or by the administration itself.

        1. No doubt, but it’s still dumb. They can try to make this all about the culture war, but I think that strategy will prove utterly useless in the general. Because, see, there’s this economic problem.

          1. But, condoms!

            1. Anal sex NEVER results in a pregnancy.

              1. Not for lack of trying.

      3. HL Mencken is spinning.

      4. Election year, Prolly. Time to elevate Rush to the same level as the presidency again for some reason.

        1. I seem to recall the administration really going after Hannity for a while a couple years ago.

          1. I think that was Limbaugh then, too.

  16. DC City official insists residents shouldn’t defend themselves

    Mr. Quander thinks victimhood is preferable to self-defense. “The problem is, if you are armed, it escalates the situation,” Mr. Quander told residents. “It is much better, in my opinion, to be scared, to be frightened, and even if you have to be, to be injured, but to walk away and survive. You’ll heal, and you can replace whatever was taken away.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com…..-a-victim/

    1. Call me old fashion, but I think a robbery should still carry the risk of the attacker being killed in the act. It is a far better deterrent than probation…

      1. Call me old fashion….

        Some deterrents never go out of style.

    2. Really? Come on down, Mr. Quander. I’ve actually been shot, and I’ll gladly share the experience with you for a nominal fee. You’re on your own for the subsequent surgeries and other fun, though. That’s not included, but it is a vital part of the experience. Maybe you’ll heal up fine, maybe you won’t. Get back with me afterwards and we’ll see if your opinion changes.

      Useless fucking waste of perfectly good oxygen.

    3. The irony…..it BURNS!

    4. Anyone have Mr. Quander’s address and know if he has any nice stuff?

    5. “It is much better, in my opinion, to be scared, to be frightened, and even if you have to be, to be injured, but to walk away and survive. You’ll heal, and you can replace whatever was taken away.”

      Holeeeeee shit.

      Remember airline passengers, when a guy with a boxcutter takes over your airplane, don’t escalate.

      You’ll be scared, you’ll be frightened, and you might even be injured, but you’ll walk away and survive. And you can replace whatever was taken.

    6. Mr. Quander then argued passionately for funds to buy the MPD a pair of tanks in order ensure officer safety.

    7. problem is, if you are armed, it escalates the situation

      False. If you are armed, it is more likely to end the situation before it begins, especially if they know you are armed.

      Ounce of prevention = pound of cure.

      1. Replace “armed” with “capable of defending yourself”. He’s making the assumption that carrying a gun does not render you capable of defending yourself – rather it renders you capable of getting shot, your gun taken away, etc.

        We’re assuming that having a gun in your holster renders you capable of self defense. Perhaps not always true. Still, I’d take armed over not armed. Also, I’d take “in shape” over “infirm”, “black belt in hopkido” over “scared of a slapfight” and “fast and sure” over “slow and timid”.

  17. Hold up, this thread is useless without tits:

    http://www.brobible.com/bronew…..g-supercut

    1. that runway-strut bounces em all wrong.

    2. I love breasts as much as the next man, but really more of an ass guy myself…

      NSFW

      also NSFW

      1. ok, so there IS a god.

    3. At some point she will go the way of Anna Nicole Smith but it is fun to look at for now.

  18. Wooooow, it turned out that normal Americans weren’t interested in a $45,000 “economy car” with a battery that explodes on a minor impact? What a shock that is, huh?

    That piece of shit government-built car is going to be to Block Yomomma what the sweater was to Jimmy Carter.

    1. I would spend $45,000 on a trabant before I’d spent 1/2 that on a Volt.

  19. “”The fact that our political discourse has become debased in many ways is bad enough. It is worse when it’s directed at a private citizen who was simply expressing her views on a matter of public policy,” Carney said.”

    I am sure Obama felt similarly bad when Joe the Plumber got put under the media microscope for questioning The One.

    1. And the thing is, Sandra Fluke knowingly threw herself into the debate over a major public policy question. Joe the Plumber wouldn’t even have become an issue if Obama had simply stayed off his lawn and gone to another house.

      I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who knowingly throw themselves into the cesspit of political theater. If you’re prepared for the people on your side to treat you as an Unimpeachable Moral Authority, then you better be prepared for the other side to similarly treat you like dogshit and tear your arguments to pieces.

      1. Of course, reasonable people could argue the merits instead of throwing feces. Not mentioning any names.

        1. Reasonable people could–but that’s not the point. Fluke allowed herself to be used as a prop in some stupid culture-war bullshit because she wanted the attention that came with testifying before Congress. Just because Limbaugh’s successfully trolling the situation now doesn’t mean that Fluke’s arguments are any more valid, as the $3000 claim has been ripped to shreds ad nauseum. Even if the pills are used strictly for health-related reasons, that doesn’t excuse Fluke’s hyperbole about costs, nor does it address the real issue of whether or not every woman in the country should cost-shift that expense onto everyone else.

      2. Unfortunately, what Limbaugh said was a logical reach (i.e. the prostitute remark) which made it more about what he said than what Fluke said. She played out more than enough rope marking herself as an entitled git who apparently was shocked that a Catholic run institution she attends by her own choice is serious about being Catholic.

        1. She KNEW going there would not allow for subsidization of her sex life, which makes her whole crusade tainted with planted activism.

    2. And when you express your views publically, they become subject to public scrutiny.

      Or, if you say stupid shit, someone might call you on it.

    3. Last time I checked, Limbaugh is also a private citizen, so what’s the big deal?

      1. Exactly. A pet peeve of mine is when an elected official speaks out against a mere private individual. I’m keeping Jay Carney’s comment on my desk top forever, so that I can bring it up the next time a pol does exactly what he says is wrong. I give them 24 hours, max.

  20. a typical cop story you will not read in reason… (similar to my incident a few months ago except i managed not to get stabbed…)
    http://www.komonews.com/news/l…..09853.html
    SEATTLE – A King County Metro sergeant was stabbed Thursday morning at a bus stop in the Wallingford neighborhood, police said.

    Seattle police officials said the sergeant had come to the bus stop near the intersection of 45th Street and Burke Avenue North to confront and wake up a person who was sleeping there and would not leave.

    The suspect responded by stabbing the officer in the shoulder and on the hand, but the sergeant was able to hold down the suspect until more officers arrived.

    The sergeant was transported to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries. The suspect was placed under arrest.

    1. Not sensational enough. No dogs shot.

    2. Don’t worry. There’ll be an internal investigation of the stabber that’ll find that all proper procedures were followed.

      (In case you don’t see the point, public outrage over brutal and abusive cops is due to their impunity and sense of superiority.)

      1. public “outrage” over brutal cops are often outrage over NONbrutal cops based on media sensationalism and skewing of the issues

        REAL brutality is bad. what is often assumed to be brutality is in fact proper reasonable procedure

        1. Proper procedure maybe, but just because you write it down doesn’t make it reasonable. You seem to have trouble distinguishing that. Not to say that this case in particular has anything improper about it.

          1. no, you seem to have trouble distinguishing proper use of force as to the constitution and case law etc.

            proper use of force often looks brutal and “bad”. that’s tangential to whether it’s JUSTIFIED.

            in many cases, what seems “brutality” or “excessive” is not. that’s my point.

            cops are required (as is everybody else) to use force consistent with case law, etc. whether or not it “looks brutal”.

            force is like comedy. it is not pretty.

            you see a cop hitting a guy with a baton, it’s ALWAYS going to look brutal and excessive unless he is in the process of shooting at people or something

            that’s completely tangential to the facts as to whether its LEGALLY justified.

            1. Hmmmmmm, maybe some things are legal yet immoral. What should we do about this? STFU and take it I guess.

              1. cops, or anybody else, are not required to conform to what you think is moral

                we have laws that limit behaviors and define those limits

                people are responsible for adhering to same or accepting consequences

                people are not responsible for adhering to every individual’s view of what is or isn’t moral.

                imo, UOF guidelines in the US *are* quite reasonable and moral, but that’s tangential; to the issue that we require people to comply with penal codes and case law not your version of morality

                1. Hmm. Maybe I should type this slowly so you’ll get it.

                  Laws change. How do laws change? It starts when people speak up and when the media alerts others to what’s going on. That’s why you have stories about stupid meathead cops using excessive or completely unnecessary force on innocent people and suffering no consequences for it.

                  When people are fucked over, have their lives ruined (or ended) and are powerless to do anything about it because cops have an “I’m going to kick your ass and get away with it” mentality, they’re not just going to shut up and take it. They’re going to tell the media, or be the media, and the stories will be told. And the laws will change (as if that mattered).

                  1. so what? again, some of the laws on police force may be too strict and others too lenient. but i hold officers to the legal standard.

                    of course your crap about cops having a “I’m going to kick your ass and get away with it” and the other stuff is just so much bigoted rubbish. sure, some cops do. just like some people do. most don’t

                    we have a pretty good system here in the US. cops are, as i have shown extensively, very restrained in general in UOF, and especially deadly force and officer safety science/tactics is also quite advanced

            2. Here’s an example:

              http://www.policeone.com/use-o…..ion-making

              The undercover cop was witnessing a drug buy and lost sight of the suspect. He ran into a nearby convenience store and immediatly kicked the first black guy he saw in the head (wrong guy by the way). This was listed as proper precedure, despite the fact that it’s obviously wrong.

              1. Here are the facts:

                The entire encounter takes place very quickly. From the moment the suspect begins to raise his hands until the officer’s kick makes impact 2.7 seconds pass. Here is the gross timeline: The suspect begins to raise his hands at the 0.0-second mark (it is apparent the suspect knows that he is the subject of the officer’s attention even before the officer enters the store).

                At 0.4 seconds, the suspect’s hands are up (time passage: 0.4 seconds). Approximately 0.9 seconds later (at the 1.3 seconds mark), the officer is moving through the threshold of the store’s doorway. Approximately 0.9 seconds later (at the 2.2 seconds mark), the officer initiates the kick.

                1. Finally, approximately 0.05 seconds later (the 2.7 seconds mark), the kick strikes the suspect’s leg.

                  An OODA Loop Analysis
                  First, from the officer’s human performance standpoint, if we apply a reasonable 0.25 seconds to make the decision to kick, then he (consciously or unconsciously) decided to execute the kick at approximately 1.95 seconds of the timeline (2.2 kick-initiation mark minus 0.25 seconds).

                  And the UOF expert changed his testimony to justified after viewing this video. You cited this as an example of people judging cops too harshly. Hence, you obviosly have trouble seeing that what is procedurely justified can also be straight up assault on an innocent. This was apparently both.

                  1. and again, for the 100th times, the issue is NOT whether he was innocent. the issue were the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time

                    it could so happen that he was 100% guilty but that’s ENTIRELY irrelevant to the force analysis, since what is , and should matter, is facts and circ’s known to the officer (same as when a noncop uses force), NOT actual guilt or innocence

                    this is similar to the matt paul tackling incident. that was tragic as fuck with much worse consequences (a coma), but paul did nothing wrong in the tackle, but it’s still profoundly sad

                    1. Figures you’d make excuses for that dickbag.

                      Apparently Paul has been involved in more than six times as many violent incidents as the average deputy. His tendency to use force has been noticed by his superiors on several occasions, and King County Sheriff Sue Rahr says her office is “working on it.”

                      http://blogs.seattleweekly.com…..y_that.php

                      less than a year after he was “devastated emotionally” for what he’d done, he tackled a guy for flipping him off and broke his nose. The guy was charged with obstruction.

                      So where do you draw the line? If rape with a toliet plunger becomes police procedure somewhere, would you still make excuses for the officers who performed it as long as it was ruled justified?

                      If you can’t see that legally justified and wrong can apply to the same incident, then you’re truely a lost cause.

                    2. this is your lying again.

                      he tackled the guy because he refused to stop, AS EVEN HE ADMITTED pursuant to a lawful reason

                      this is yet another example of you not being able to intelligently discuss UOF. if a cop says stop, and you don’t, you very well may be tackled from behind. i’ve done exactly that, on several occasions.

                      whther or not the guy flipped me off is irrelevant

                      he admitted he purposefully decided not to stop and REASONABLE force was used on him

                      which is of course entirely tangential to the tackling incident, which was also justified.

                    3. He told him to stop for taking pictures in public. That was not justified in the slightest. If he can’t walk away from an officer who is breaking the law, then the law is also wrong.

                    4. no. he told him to stop for JAYWALKING. the fact that he was taking pictures was incidental

                      cops in seattle (paul is a deputy but he works downtown metro) do make stops and write tickets for jaywalking.

                      the guy ADMITTED he was jaywalking and admitted he made the decision not to stop because he didn’t want to

                      fuck him. he got tackled. justified.

                      cop says stop. you STOP

                    5. no. he told him to stop for JAYWALKING. the fact that he was taking pictures was incidental

                      Cite that. He wasn’t charged with it.

                    6. and again, for the 100th times, the issue is NOT whether he was innocent. the issue were the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time

                      As clearly noted, the suspect did not have time to comply before the officer decided to kick the shit out of him. Yet this was ruled justified. It is also clearly wrong.

                      Just because some guidelines somewhere say something’s justified, doesn’t mean it’s not wrong. Proving adherence to guidelines does not prove that the cop wasn’t in the wrong.

                    7. yawn. yet again, with the histrionic lies.

                      “kicking the shit out of him”.

                      do your lies NEVER stop?

                      tell me. what were the extent of the suspect injuries? do they in ANY way support your claim that he got the “shit kicked out of him?”

                      no.

                      this is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty

                      was he kicked?absolutely

                      was your assessment in any way a fair assessment “shit kicked out of him”?

                      no. it’s SO fucking typical.

                      intellectual dishonesty from the moment you start.

                      so provide me with the list of injuries suffered that justifies you saying he got the shit kicked out of him (hint: you won’t. and you won’t admit you are full of shit either)

                    8. so provide me with the list of injuries suffered that justifies you saying he got the shit kicked out of him (hint: you won’t. and you won’t admit you are full of shit either)

                      If we’re being literal, then all it requires is him having defecated upon injury. I thought a line like “getting the shit kicked out of you” was obviously not literal and equally obviously subjective. Unless there’s a dictionary or law book somewhere with that listing that I’m unaware of, it would be impossible to prove that “he got the shit kicked out of him”. Unless you thought I was being literal? Are you that stupid? It looked to me from the video that he got the shit kicked out of him. It’s a subjective assesment which is completely justified. Deal with it.

                    9. oh jesus christ. you really are a fucking liar

                      he suffered no serious injuries whatsoever

                      rodney king got the shit beat out of him.

                      this guy didn’t

                      yet, you used that term to color the argument, to make it look like the incident was worse than it was

                      i realize that’s par for the course with you.

                      he did NOT get teh shit kicked out of him.

                      you are a liar, but worse, one who will never admit you lied or were wrong.

                      typical

                    10. rodney king got the shit beat out of him.

                      this guy didn’t
                      yet, you used that term to color the argument, to make it look like the incident was worse than it was

                      Yes, obviously we have different criteria for applying a colloquilism. I already stated that. And yes, I did use that term to color an argument, because that it is how I saw it. That’s kind of the point of non-specific descriptive language.

                      you are a liar, but worse, one who will never admit you lied or were wrong.

                      Incorrect. I admit when I’m wrong all the time. But just because you want me to be, doesn’t mean I am.

                    11. also, whether or not the cop was IN THE WRONG is a seperate question from whether the actions rose to the level of ASSAULT IV

                      there are a metric assload of incidents i deal with involving noncops that don’t rise to criminal but MAY rise to civil. same holds true with cops

                      the analysis you linked to did NOT say that the cop did a great job or that he did nothing wrong. it said that what he did did not meet the criteria for 9a.36.041 Assault IV

                    12. also, whether or not the cop was IN THE WRONG is a seperate question from whether the actions rose to the level of ASSAULT IV

                      When we use the phrase “criminal” to describe a cops actions, you argue the legal justifications. That would be correct. But you also do it when we say non legal terms, like “thug” and “violent killer”. That would be incorrect.

                    13. the analysis you linked to did NOT say that the cop did a great job or that he did nothing wrong. it said that what he did did not meet the criteria for 9a.36.041 Assault IV

                      No, the court ruling was that it was justified. The analysis I linked to says nothing about Assault IV. You’re lying (again).

                      there are a metric assload of incidents i deal with involving noncops that don’t rise to criminal but MAY rise to civil. same holds true with cops

                      And can you honestly tell me that kicking an innocent person repeatedly, to and while on the ground isn’t one of those things that would rise to criminal with a noncop?

                      And what is this civil shit? Could the guy sue the cop? When did that happen? That would be awsome.

    3. Wait wait wait. I seriously doubt it’s “typical” to try to wake someone up and get stabbed. I can understand how things like this make you cautious, but I’m pretty sure most of the bitching we do here relates to SWAT raids and the like, or cops whaling on obviously helpless/harmless people.

      1. it’s typical to have a fucking skell try to assault/stab us. i had it happen just a few months ago. i was NOT stabbed, since i was able to deflect. of COURSE there was no media report.

        this creates a skewed perception of how often we deal with such people and DON’T use force, since unless, there’s a bleeding cop or a shot suspect… it never MAKES THE NEWS

        my continual point about selection bias.

        i had to take a guy off a bus once and as i approached he started reaching for his waistband. i tackled him. turns out he had a loaded handgun where he was reaching, it was stolen and he was a convicted felon.

        that DID NOT MAKE THE NEWS. again, this gives pawns of the media skewed perception since they don’t read about the MAJORITY of incidents where we defuse very dangerous suspects with little/no force. they only read aobut when we DO use force, or where we are seriously injured.

        1. It doesn’t make the news because that’s how things are supposed to go. You expect the media to call because you did your job, the job you willingly took, and didn’t beat or kill an innocent person or SWAT raid the wrong house or kill a pet dog on a whim or illegally intimidate someone with a video camera?

          1. it’s not how things are “supposed to go”. it’s how things go when we get lucky and/or exceptionally skilled and./or etc.

            when people try to hurt us, and we prevent that, and often w/o any use of force, that’s an EXCEPTIONAL result.

            if somebody is trying to stab me and i shoot him, that’s ALSO how things are “expected” to go, but the reality is we very often prevent that from happening

            1. If no one is trying to stab you or shoot you or threaten you and you taze them or beat them or shoot them or their kid or their dog, that shit will be in the news. Deal with it.

              And something tells me that you’re looking for some kind of praise beyond the paycheck, generous benefits, and pension that the state provides you.

              *pats you on the head* Good boy! Who’s a good boy? You are!

              1. again, completely evading the point

                the point is that the cops are remarkably restrained in UOF and very often do NOT use the force they are justified in doing, which of course does NOT make the papers

                and you become another fawning sycophant of the media, since you don’t read about it, it never happened

                i’m not looking for anything beyond what i get – which is a public that (per polling data) overwhelmingly respects us, excellent pay and benefits, a medal of valor, and the gratitude of dozens of people i have helped

                1. You’re definitely missing the point on purpose.

                  You’re asking “What about all the times that cops DON’T act like above-the-law asshats? Why aren’t those things in the news?”

                  In case you didn’t notice, the news routinely felates the cops, or at least shows some politician giving them a rimjob.

                  And that last paragraph proved my suspicion. You want glory. You want people to kiss your ass and tell you how fucking awesome you are. And when stories come out about some meathead cops acting like they’re above the law and then proving that they are when they get away with it, you feel personally affronted. Why, the public should be kissing their asses, not condemning their actions! They deserve medals, goddammit!

                  1. no, you are still missing the point

                    my point is that cops frequently use much less force than is legally justified and very often use good tactics, skills etc. to go out of their way to help suspects AVOID injuries, death etc.

                    tackling a person with a knife is not “expected”

                    are you really this dense?

                    my point is that WHEN cops do this, which they VERY frequently do it will not even make the paper

                    you WILL read about cop shoots man with knife

                    you willNOT read about cop disarms man with knife trying to assault officer (the vast majority of the time)

                    this gives you a false perception. cops do their job VERY well and go WAY beyond what they are required to do

                  2. You’re definitely missing the point on purpose.

                    Of course he is. It’s how he preserves his self image in arguments when he’s clearly wrong. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve rephrased something to get it past that thick skull. But if you keep trying, at least everyone else can see what he’s doing. Small comfort, I know.

                    1. lol. talk about projection. you are like fucking imax on steroids

                    2. When you purposely miss the point and make another, and I don’t follow the tangent, it doesn’t mean I’m doing the same thing. It means I’m not allowing you to do it. I realize that can be frustrating, but at least you haven’t lost your sense of humor (being serious here, I love that imax line, and will probably use it in the future).

        2. TF/DR

          Too Falacious / Didn’t Read

        3. i had to take a guy off a bus once and as i approached he started reaching for his waistband. i tackled him. turns out he had a loaded handgun where he was reaching, it was stolen and he was a convicted felon.

          That first part indicates there was already a problem which led to the confrontation. Again, not the same as using SWAT teams for drug raids.

          1. i’m not sure what this SWAT crap is about. i’m totally against the drug war, and imo no raids for drugs SWAT or no SWAT should be happening.

            that aside, there ARE drug raids where SWAT is warranted, and ones where SWAT is not

            what is important is that agencies have good policies that offer proper balancing in this regards. my agency does, and as i have explained i worked to CHANGE our policy to make it better

    4. The sleeping person mistook the cop for a gun and had to defend himself, lest he get shot first.

  21. Dude is like totally rocking it, I mean like wow.

    http://www.Went-Anon.tk

  22. MSNBC is on full attack mode on Limbaugh.
    When does reason post a dfense of him?

    1. Rush despises libertarians. I think the feeling (amongst the editors) is mutual.

    2. He is a big boy and he knew the flack he was going to get. Laughing all the way to the bank, too as the controversy boost his ratings, too.

      1. Damn commas can be so slippery. Get back over there! Five spaces to the right. Wait ‘too’, et tu?

        1. He thinks he’s clever, but Rush played right into the Team Blue trap – they set that chick up to be the fall girl, after all.

          Technically, though, he’s right… poor choice of terminology, but she DOES want to be paid for sex-related expenses.

          How she can’t cough up thirty bucks or so a month for BC pills, though… that’s a tough one.

          1. Thing about guys like Rush, as he demonstrated when he got too clever by half by getting involved in the 2010 Democratic primary in Pennsylvania is that he doesn’t care if he plays into Team Blue’s hands. If it causes the nation to be that much deeper in the crapper, no blood in his shit. He still has the good life no matter who is in office. I don’t even blame him for feeling that way. Wished I was immune from the whims of the electorate.

            1. Rush does better with team blue in office. So his shtick hurting team red pols works to his advantage.

    3. I hope Reason doesn’t defend him. What he said was retarded in the first place.

      1. His comments were tame compared to what was said about her here.

        1. funny, i remember a commenter getting banned here for calling michelle malkin a slut or a whore a few years ago. if reason applied the same standard today they’d be all out of readers.

          1. Why should she not receive derision? She knew full well she was a pawn of Team Blue, and she’s shilling herself rather proudly in the process.

              1. It’s OK when we do it.

                1. looked up the malkin comment, and of course it was Balko who banned the commenter. among other things, i guess this rag lost its class when he left.

                  and holy shit that was 5 years ago already.

                  1. Radley Balko|5.19.07 @ 9:50AM

                    “Interasian Porn’s” vile comments about Michelle Malkin have been deleted, and his IP address has been banned.

                    Anyone who makes similarly personal comments or attacks on Malkin will get the same treatment.

                    Damn! It’s like it’s from Bizarro H&R, where civility and reason is the norm!

                    1. yeah, i don’t visit here very often now and don’t know if it’s the norm, but this really is a youtube-level comment thread.

                    2. You might even say…this is like the worst comment thread ever.

                    3. The funny (or sad, depending on your point of view) thing about the devolution of this place, regarding the quality of the commentary, is that those on the inside–the lifers–don’t even notice the change. To them, morality is a fluid thing, determined not by man’s nature as a volitional creature–who must choose to think and act–but by the whims of whatever collective they belong to. Ironically, most of the “libertarians” here, the presumed “individualists,” are collectivists at heart. Observe the conformity, the dreary sameness of the commentary, for instance.

          2. If reason applied the same standard today they’d be all out of readers.

            Yup. There was a brain drain here a few years ago. All the decent, thoughtful commentators fled. Look what’s left. And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously.

    4. Whipping both their viewers into a frenzy, are they?

  23. speaking of candyass pussy bitch rescuer policies, when i was a firefighter on the east coast, we would kick in doors if necessary

    out here in the NW?

    fire called us recently because they were responding to a 70 yr old woman reporting chest pain etc (iow possible heart attack and they’d had past incidents of that sort with her) and when they got to the house, there was no answer, so they CALLED US TO KICK THE DOOR IN!

    they had like 5 firefighters on scene, axes, the whole nine yards, but they couldn’t kick a door in to a 70 yr old woman’s house who was possibly lying on the floor dying/dead?

    apparently, their “policy’ forbid it

    jesus fucking christ. WA is such a passive aggressive wimpy state

    1. dunphy, since you’re here, I’m wondering what your opinion is on whether people should call the police to do a “wellness check” (or whatever) if they think someone is a potential suicide. Do you think this helps more than it hurts (assuming that preventing suicide is the goal)?

      1. there is ZERO doubt in my mind it helps.

        we deal with such issues CONSTANTLY (especially in the winter).

        i invol’d a teenage girl just last week after she tried to hang herself in the garage and then locked herself in the bathroom to try to cut her wrists.

        if people REALLY want to commit suicide they are going to be able to do it without intervention but most of these are parasuicidal cries for help and with intervention we can often help them out of their situation , stabilize their meds (if needed), offer them resources etc.

        i probably on average end up going on 4 or 5 such checks a week a maybe end up doing 1 or 2 invols a week.

        of course we need substantial evidnece of the person being an imminent threat to themselves before we can invol. if they are just depressed etc. we offer what resources we can.

        1. Yeah I figured this would (sadly) be a fairly common thing for you. I am pretty down on involuntary commitment unless someone is a danger to others but that’s certainly a minority view, so I was more wondering if the actual visit process tends to go well or escalates things into something worse. Sounds like not as bad as I’d feared.

          1. i’ve never had anybody commit suicide WHILE i was at one of these calls. (i did have a guy blow his head off but it wasn’t a welfare check call).

            it’s difficult to KNOW if you definitely prevented a death, since so many attempts ARE unsuccessful, but i probably have prevented some.

            again, the pragmatic reality is that if they REALLY want to do it, they will do it. USUALLY, when they text their gf first and make a big drama thing out of it they are looking for help, a way out. they don’t have the courage to approach the resources themself so they try to force the issue

            some WILL try the suicide by cop thing and i’m happy that i’ve had some TRY to do that with me (like the one who tried to stab me) and i managed to deflect their attacks without lethal force.

            and again, that will never make the paper of course. we can save dozens but it’s the one we shoot that makes the paper

    2. The issue is somewhat clouded. I can see the need for the policy, though it’s application in the case you cited is rediculous since she called them. I had some firemen break in through a window in my apartment due to a fire across the sidewalk (they were right to, it had melted my door and I slept through the banging and yelling of them identifying themselves) and I almost shot them.

      My first memory of the night was crouching in the hallway naked with a .45 and peering around the corner to identify targets. I shudder to think what might have happened if my brain hadn’t engaged in time.

      Somewhat off topic:
      It’s also why I’m extremly sympathetic to people who shoot at the black clad and masked swat teams who break in for non-violent offenders.

      The dress and manner of the firemen is what allowed me to identify them. Agressive cops dressed like ninjas provide no such visual cues.

      1. and of course we both agree that those on raids should not be dressed like ninjas, but as CLEARLY identifiable cops and also have (as the recent incident discussed here did) flashing lights etc. with marked patrol cars upon entry

        1. So you agree that Michael Stewart just made a mistake and should get paid leave for awhile, just like a cop would who made an honest mistake would, right? Since they woke him up from a dead sleep without sirens or lights.

          1. yawn, you keep bringing up fallacies, like the “paid leave” thing.

            seriously, when you are ready to discuss issues like an adult, get back to me. it’s evasions, etc.

            1. So if a cop shoots a guy mistakenly, yet is shown to have legitimately feard for his life, he doesn’t get paid leave while it’s sorted out? That’s news to me. Nice way to avoid answering the question and proving yourself a hypocrite, though.

              1. no, the point isn’t whether he shot the person “mistakenly”.

                if he LEGIMATELY feared for his life, the shooting IS justified, JUST like when a noncop does so

                the point is that if he did something wrong, he will get punished, but paid leave is not punishment, it is a contractual agreement so that officers are not PENALIZED by loss of pay for doing the RIGHT thing.

                1. the point is that if he did something wrong, he will get punished,

                  He shot a cop. He will get punished regardless of whether he did something wrong or not, and you damn well know it. You read Balko as much as I do. They’re already fucking with his legal defense fund. The question was, do you think he made an honest mistake and shouldn’t be punished? Because I’ve seen you argue the same for a police officer before a trial. Will you make the leap for a “citizen”?

    3. rescuers, or anybody else, are not required to conform to what you think is correct

      they have policies that limit behaviors and define those limits

      1. as far as the law is concerned, abslutely correct. the reason bigorati can complain every time they see force that looks yucky, but it’s just so much spittin’ in the wind

        1. This just looks yucky.

          Ew. So gross and icky.

          I’m so grossed out by this yuckiness.
          ( www . sfgate .com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/22/BAA11NAT4H.DTL )

          Can’t post too many multiple links but there could be so many more.

          Well, I’ve got shit to do anyway. Toodles.

  24. MahaRushie is correct. This Susan Fluke is a slut and wants us to subsidize it.

    Susan Fluke’s demand represents a new evolution in Marxism: from each according to his ability to each according to her sluttiness.

    1. Fucking slut, Jew-bitch!

      1. I don’t know what her religion is and frankly I don’t care!

        If she is Jewish and she made those demands before Nancy Pelosi, then she is what would be called a shanda on the Jewish people.

        When did I ever say Jews are immune from criticism?

        1. Underzog, you are obviously an anti-Semite.

  25. My only real criticism of Rush Limbaugh here is that he says slut and prostitute like those are bad things.

  26. I read that President Obama called Fluke to show his support for her.

    Also, former President Clinton called her to offer her a position on his staff.

    1. Like, uhhh… he said staff. Cool.

  27. dunphy, have you a comment on this?

    http://www.theagitator.com/201…..aint-form/

  28. Fluke’s testimony:

    http://abcnews.go.com/images/P…..erhead-2nd hearing.pdf

    She claims a friend and fellow-student was denied birth control for a serious medical condition (not avoiding pregnancy). A wrenching story, although technically not a situation covered by the HHS mandate.

    Nothing about her own sexual history – she is on a “reproductive rights” group at the school. Such a position could well involve more talking about sex than actually having it.

    1. The link, again:

      http://abcn.ws/yLqXDR

  29. Ayn Rand worshipers in red states are the real parasites. Blue staters are the producers. Calls for a blue state strike until the red states apologize and admit they’re wrong:

    http://www.alternet.org/vision….._parasites

    1. It’s like the author didn’t even bother to look at that map.

      Also, if you don’t factor population, or the laws in each state, the whole exercise is totally pointless.

      1. It’s also not like there’s any actual evidence that that redstaters have even read Ayn Rand let alone are “worshipers”.

        1. Also, it would be interesting to actually see which party the congressmen who actually voted for this redistribution belong to.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.