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

Mike Riggs | 3.2.2012 4:56 PM

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.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

NEXT: Brian Doherty on Ron Paul vs. Rick Santorum

Hide Comments (365)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago

White House weighs in on Rush Limbaugh's "slut" remark.

Of course it does.
1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
  
  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. kilroy 13 years ago
    
    She could be the new Lewinsky. I hear tequila makes your clothes fall off.
  2. wylie 13 years ago
    
    an upside-down margarita summit
    
    genuinely curious: what's upside-down about it?
    1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
      
      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. wylie 13 years ago
        
        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)
        
        Pro Libertate 13 years ago
        
        I'm a full service informer.
        
        TrickyVic 13 years ago
        
        With a happy ending.
      2. Ice Nine 13 years ago
        
        Then you gargle to mix the drink.
        
        Pro Libertate 13 years ago
        
        Shaking your head violently is also allowed.
        
        fried wylie 13 years ago
        
        depends if you're in a Violent Rhetoric Zone or not.
  3. JW 13 years ago
    
    What? So he can get her good and liquored up for the Lincoln Bedroom "tour?"
  4. Tom 13 years ago
    
    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. True Libertarian 13 years ago
      
      We have a lot in common with Rush. Except the god thing. And the wealth. And the following. And the influence.
    2. Jose Rodriguez 13 years ago
      
      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. True Libertarian 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        True Libertarian 13 years ago
        
        Not that women are not sluts.
        I don't know why they avoid this place.
        
        Pass? Fist 13 years ago
        
        I don't know why they avoid this place.
        
        Women? Or just sluts?
        
        True Libertarian 13 years ago
        
        Same thing. Not that I don't like tits. Especially links to tits.
        
        True Libertarian 13 years ago
        
        Paging sarcasmic.
        Sarcasmic: Need tits-links! Thx!
    3. Rubicon 13 years ago
      
      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. Jeffersonian 13 years ago
        
        I'm pretty sure Limbaugh isn't a neo-con.
    4. Anonymous Coward 13 years ago
      
      Rawdogging is a Constitutional right.
      1. Pass? Fist 13 years ago
        
        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. Killazontherun 13 years ago
    
    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. Brian D 13 years ago
    
    Body shot summit. Rolls off the tongue much better.
    1. fried wylie 13 years ago
      
      the BSS. (it even makes a good acronym!)
      
      Branding Accepted.
2. Karl Hungus 13 years ago
  
  Don't keep us in suspense - whose side did they take??
  1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
    
    The slut's.
    1. The Tebow/Swift/Bieber 3-Way 13 years ago
      
      Funny. Thanks.
3. shrike 13 years ago
  
  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. fish 13 years ago
    
    When your redneck dumbass leader is drowning throw the POS an anchor.
    
    Oh wait you were talking about Limbaugh....not the president.
  2. John 13 years ago
    
    Shut up, rather. Everybody knows it's you.
    1. Killazontherun 13 years ago
      
      Shrike is Orin. He forgot to change back when answering in a secondary thread a few weeks back.
      1. fish 13 years ago
        
        Killaz,
        
        That's quite impossible! A cool sophisticated classical liberal capitalist like our Shrike could never be aped properly by poor hunyuck Orrin.
        
        Killazontherun 13 years ago
        
        Lol! I love how you say that with a straight face. Hint to shrike, we never bought it!
        
        Zeb 13 years ago
        
        Shrike came first, didn't he?
        
        EDG reppin' LBC 13 years ago
        
        ...poor hunyuck Orrin.
        
        Hahaha! I haven't heard anybody use that word in 20 years!
  3. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
    
    I seriously doubt anyone here calls Limbaugh "leader".
    
    Oh, and... fuck you, shrike. Go back to swabbing Barry's cock.
4. RoboCain 13 years ago
  
  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. wylie the Liberal 13 years ago
    
    WHY THE FUCK CAN'T LIBERALS STOP PRETENDING THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT WORDS MEAN??!!
    
    Huh?
  2. shrike 13 years ago
    
    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. fish 13 years ago
      
      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. Jeffersonian 13 years ago
        
        Or she can just roll on a Trojan for one thin dollar.
    2. RoboCain 13 years ago
      
      The pill is like $9/month at Planned Parenthood, you morally-diseased ass monkey.
    3. Fluffy 13 years ago
      
      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. RoboCain 13 years ago
        
        Because she is a special snowflake?
        
        Pass? Fist 13 years ago
        
        Because she is a special snowflake?
        
        Meaning any boy can catch her on his tongue?
      2. shrike 13 years ago
        
        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. nicole 13 years ago
        
        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).
        
        Killazontherun 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        nicole 13 years ago
        
        Right, which is why many women who aren't in a monogamous relationship will be using not one but two forms of contraception.
        
        Killazontherun 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        nicole 13 years ago
        
        That's pretty interesting. Wonder why our domestic Big Condom folks aren't also shooting for this improvement.
        
        Zeb 13 years ago
        
        It's the Brazilian latex lobby.
        
        Xenocles 13 years ago
        
        Big Condom is in my pocket... it' the only size that fits me.
        
        (Someone please do better than that.)
        
        Francisco d Anconia 13 years ago
        
        Fuck...I hate Big Condom!
    4. Killazontherun 13 years ago
      
      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. shrike 13 years ago
        
        Fine. Campaign on that.
        
        Loser.
        
        Killazontherun 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Jeffersonian 13 years ago
        
        I wanna fuck a lot, but I can't afford it. So somebody has to pay for it.
        
        Fine. Campaign on that.
        
        joshua corning 13 years ago
        
        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. Maxxx 13 years ago
        
        Have you seen her?
        
        I really doubt contraception is one of her needs.
      3. Maxxx 13 years ago
        
        Have you seen her?
        
        I really doubt contraception is one of her needs.
    5. joshua corning 13 years ago
      
      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. joshua corning 13 years ago
        
        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. sir fucksalot 13 years ago
        
        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. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
      
      She can fuck well buy her OWN pills, shrike.
      
      Oh, and... fuck you, shrike.
      1. Pass? Fist 13 years ago
        
        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. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
    
    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. Sudden 13 years ago
      
      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. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
        
        Jesus, where does she find the time to study?
        
        Extra Sausage 13 years ago
        
        Where the women at?
        
        Tony 13 years ago
        
        I could always read a book while on my back!
        
        Killazontherun 13 years ago
        
        If it doesn't kill the guy's ego, go for it.
        
        sloopyinca 13 years ago
        
        You mean on your stomach, right?
        
        NTTAWWT.
        
        True Libertarian 13 years ago
        
        You're Schmoopy!
    2. The Tebow/Swift/Bieber 3-Way 13 years ago
      
      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. SFC B 13 years ago
      
      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. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
        
        Law school is horrifically expensive. And the practice of law is similar to prostitution in many respects.
      2. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
        
        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?
        
        Zeb 13 years ago
        
        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. nicole 13 years ago
    
    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. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
      
      Again... how the hell does ANY woman pay a grand a year for birth-control pills?
      1. nicole 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        nicole 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
        
        Not taking Limbaugh's side here, nicole, but technically Fluke wants US to pay for her sex life.
        
        nicole 13 years ago
        
        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).
        
        Jeffersonian 13 years ago
        
        And we don't even get to tap that shit.
        
        Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        sir fucksalot 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        sir fucksalot 13 years ago
        
        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. Paul 13 years ago
      
      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. nicole 13 years ago
        
        Hence the rest of my sentence, "or least not flippantly repeating it."
    3. Pass? Fist 13 years ago
      
      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. Eric 13 years ago
        
        See. ^This^ is why libertarians can't have nice things. Including girlfriends...
        
        True Libertarian 13 years ago
        
        Win.
    4. Extra Sausage 13 years ago
      
      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. Enjoy Every Sandwich 13 years ago
      
      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. cynical 13 years ago
    
    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. Extra Sausage 13 years ago
      
      I like how you quote imaginary statements with real quote marks. It imparts authenticity and integrity.
    2. Eric 13 years ago
      
      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. Jennifer 13 years ago
      
      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. Extra Sausage 13 years ago
        
        If you actually read Fluke's testimony...
        
        Hahahaha!
        
        Sorry.
      2. Extra Sausage 13 years ago
        
        misogyny
        
        Noticed a bit of that here, have you?
        I can't figure out why women avoid this place.
5. JW 13 years ago
  
  Beat me to it, Fist.
  1. Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago
    
    These fists are made for beatin' and that's just what they'll do...
    1. JW 13 years ago
      
      You sucky-sucky? Love me long time?
6. The Other Kevin 13 years ago
  
  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. shrike 13 years ago
    
    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. Shorter Shrike 13 years ago
      
      Hey mom come get me I stepped in the toilet again.
    2. Marshall Gill 13 years ago
      
      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. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
        
        DemocraticUnderground is but a click away, shrike.
        
        Oh, and... fuck you, shrike.
      2. Jennifer 13 years ago
        
        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. Eric 13 years ago
        
        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. Joe M 13 years ago
  
  Give Rush credit for successfully trolling the Obama administration yet again.
  1. Citizen Nothing 13 years ago
    
    Yeah. Now that's trolling. (I'm just surprised shrike, of all people, wouldn't recognize it.)
  2. shrike 13 years ago
    
    You cannot be that ignorant.
    1. Citizen Nothing 13 years ago
      
      Can too!
      1. RoboCain 13 years ago
        
        He is.
8. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
  
  Limbaugh's a dick, but he's right once in a while.
  
  I still don't like him, though.
kilroy 13 years ago

Faust!
1. kilroy 13 years ago
  
  The devil take you FoE!
  1. Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago
    
    And with all those replies to the top comment, you are now waaaaaaaay down the list and therefore look even more foolish.
    1. kilroy 13 years ago
      
      It's likely to ruin my entire weekend.
Karl Hungus 13 years ago

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. Playa Manhattan 13 years ago
  
  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. Karl Hungus 13 years ago
    
    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. Playa Manhattan 13 years ago
      
      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. dunphy 13 years ago
        
        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).
        
        kilroy 13 years ago
        
        You going out tomorrow to vote for Paul in the caucuses?
        
        dunphy 13 years ago
        
        of course.
        
        Karl Hungus 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        dunphy 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Xenocles 13 years ago
        
        Give them an extra one for my wife and me; we're stationed across the country and can't go.
        
        Playa Manhattan 13 years ago
        
        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...
        
        dunphy 13 years ago
        
        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
        
        Pip 13 years ago
        
        Is that where you met your wife - Morgan Fairchild?
        
        dunphy 13 years ago
        
        troll-o-meter: .01
        
        (people with no life find it hard to believe others have one)
        
        Francisco d Anconia 13 years ago
        
        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. JW 13 years ago
  
  The UK is doomed.
  1. RoboCain 13 years ago
    
    Locations vary, but many regulations in the U.S. are no different.
    1. JW 13 years ago
      
      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. Citizen Nothing 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        JW 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        R 13 years ago
        
        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. fish 13 years ago
      
      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. RoboCain 13 years ago
        
        Well, wet teenage girl surrounded by a bunch of men...
        
        fish 13 years ago
        
        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.......
        
        SFC B 13 years ago
        
        I don't think that was OWS. Wasn't that a riot after the Stanley Cup?
        
        fish 13 years ago
        
        Might have been....
        
        Pope Jimbo 13 years ago
        
        And she had just been tugging on a stiffie.
      2. JW 13 years ago
        
        California...UK, no real distinction, just better weather.
        
        Karl Hungus 13 years ago
        
        Better dental care, too. Can't forget that.
3. RoboCain 13 years ago
  
  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. dunphy 13 years ago
    
    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. Joe M 13 years ago
  
  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. Citizen Nothing 13 years ago
    
    "Very Special" Rescue Squad!
    (Do they arrive in a short fire truck?)
  2. The Tebow/Swift/Bieber 3-Way 13 years ago
    
    That would depend on the size of the bucket and what the government standard is for "ankle-deep.
5. Coeus 13 years ago
  
  More idiocy from the UK:
  
  Governments should ban use of underweight models, study reveals
  
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem.....veals.html
6. Killazontherun 13 years ago
  
  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. Maxxx 13 years ago
  
  Clearly the heroes need a larger budget.
rectal 13 years ago

moopsy
1. Rhywun 13 years ago
  
  Moors!
Playa Manhattan 13 years ago

" 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...
Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago

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. Joe M 13 years ago
  
  Yeah, I think it's called everything else.
wylie 13 years ago

President Obama not skeered of starting a war with Iran.

Fuck You. No.
1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
  
  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. wylie 13 years ago
    
    not quite 100%.
    
    The anti-war left would still vote for him.
    1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
      
      Yeah, 'cause war is wrong and stuff.
    2. JW 13 years ago
      
      All 5 of them?
    3. BakedPenguin 13 years ago
      
      As long as it's not blood for oil...
      1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
        
        We don't buy oil from Iran, so everything is cool. Blow the fuckers up! Save the pistachios!
        
        wylie 13 years ago
        
        Save the pistachios!
        
        Also, fried chicken.
        
        Pro Libertate 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        fried wylie 13 years ago
        
        per No Reservations, the saudis have a popular chicken chain.
        
        I'm just going to assume they've got one in iran too.
        
        Pro Libertate 13 years ago
        
        If they don't, perhaps a fried drumstick, extended in peace and friendship, could end this crisis.
        
        BakedPenguin 13 years ago
        
        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".
        
        Bobarian 13 years ago
        
        They have some nice rugs.
2. Juice 13 years ago
  
  Will Obama's next speech on Iran contain the phrase "Bring'em on!"?
3. Mr. President 13 years ago
  
  Nobody has announced a war, young lady
Paul 13 years ago

Chevy Volt: The pinnacle of innovation brought to you by the partnership of a Union, a Corporation and the Federal Government.
1. rac3rx 13 years ago
  
  Except, in this case, the Corporation is only a front operation for the Union and the Government.
Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago

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. JW 13 years ago
  
  Heading toward the 12th century...with a bullet!
  1. Chupacabra 13 years ago
    
    Still better than Detroit, though.
2. ChrisO 13 years ago
  
  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. Chief Muslim Killer Barack 13 years ago
  
  "It's okay now, my apology has calmed the situation."
Paul 13 years ago

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. Paul 13 years ago
  
  "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. The Marketplace 13 years ago
    
    We tried!
  2. Night Elf Mohawk 13 years ago
    
    "We engineered the Volt to be a technological wonder."
    
    And the Vikings and Bills went to the Super Bowl to be world champs.
2. Paul 13 years ago
  
  "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. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
    
    You must be wrong, because the president said it was a brilliant success.
  2. rac3rx 13 years ago
    
    Agreed...
  3. MJ 13 years ago
    
    "This is the car America had to build."
    
    If America had to build it, why are you stopping building it?
    1. T 13 years ago
      
      They didn't say how many America had to build, did they, smart guy?
      1. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
        
        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.
Matrix 13 years ago

been out today. currently trying to dodge tornadoes here in Alabama.
1. Paul 13 years ago
  
  Global warming.
  1. Matrix 13 years ago
    
    fucking Al Gore. He needs to pay for the damages.
    1. fish 13 years ago
      
      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. JW 13 years ago
    
    Global warming. Climate change.
    
    SEE?! It changed again!
  3. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
    
    It's Global Winning.
2. wylie the Liberal 13 years ago
  
  *Dodge Toronado
  
  *checks wikipedia*
  
  *shakes fist at oldsmobile for ruining my joke*
  1. wylie 13 years ago
    
    *shakes fist at self for handle fuck-up*
    1. Joe M 13 years ago
      
      Also, fried chicken.
      1. fried wylie 13 years ago
        
        *shakes fist at self for that omission*
The Other Kevin 13 years ago

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!
Danno 13 years ago

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. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
  
  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.
Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago

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.
Jose Rodriguez 13 years ago

Send the slut from Georgetown Law a case of condoms for crying out loud. If they are that hard up.
1. BakedPenguin 13 years ago
  
  After all this, she might get an endorsement deal.
  1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
    
    Enwhoresement?
    1. Ska 13 years ago
      
      Nicely done sir.
  2. ChrisO 13 years ago
    
    Can the porno version be far off?
    1. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
      
      Good point. It could've been porn work instead of prostitution.
      1. db 13 years ago
        
        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. BakedPenguin 13 years ago
      
      filmed in LA, no doubt.
Matrix 13 years ago

The 'real' Ron Paul by a liberal.
1. Coeus 13 years ago
  
  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. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
    
    Cue Max in 3...2...1...
    1. Max 13 years ago
      
      FUCK RON PUAL!!!ONE!1!!
      
      I'M NEVER POSTING HERE AGAIN!!
2. Francisco d Anconia 13 years ago
  
  Another presumed expert on libertarianism who is obviously clueless about the issue.
3. Lurker 13 years ago
  
  He put his email address at the bottom of the page...
Fluffy 13 years ago

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. rac3rx 13 years ago
  
  Damn...I love me some Saints, but this is just wrong.
2. Red Rocks Rockin 13 years ago
  
  Who dat...Who dat...Who dat say gonna set dem bounties?
3. Anonymous Coward 13 years ago
  
  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.
Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago

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. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
  
  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. Extra Sausage 13 years ago
    
    Rush is a troll, and the Administration is John.
    
    Any questions?
  2. JW 13 years ago
    
    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. Pro Libertate 13 years ago
      
      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. Joe M 13 years ago
        
        But, condoms!
        
        Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
        
        Anal sex NEVER results in a pregnancy.
        
        Tony 13 years ago
        
        Not for lack of trying.
  3. Joe M 13 years ago
    
    HL Mencken is spinning.
  4. Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago
    
    Election year, Prolly. Time to elevate Rush to the same level as the presidency again for some reason.
    1. Joe M 13 years ago
      
      I seem to recall the administration really going after Hannity for a while a couple years ago.
      1. Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago
        
        I think that was Limbaugh then, too.
2. RoboCain 13 years ago
  
  LOL
Solanum 13 years ago

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. Playa Manhattan 13 years ago
  
  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. fried wylie 13 years ago
    
    Call me old fashion....
    
    Some deterrents never go out of style.
2. T 13 years ago
  
  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. fish 13 years ago
  
  The irony.....it BURNS!
4. Night Elf Mohawk 13 years ago
  
  Anyone have Mr. Quander's address and know if he has any nice stuff?
5. Paul 13 years ago
  
  "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. Xenocles 13 years ago
  
  Mr. Quander then argued passionately for funds to buy the MPD a pair of tanks in order ensure officer safety.
7. Anonymous Coward 13 years ago
  
  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. Cyto 13 years ago
    
    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".
RoboCain 13 years ago

Hold up, this thread is useless without tits:

http://www.brobible.com/bronew.....g-supercut
1. fried wylie 13 years ago
  
  that runway-strut bounces em all wrong.
2. Sudden 13 years ago
  
  I love breasts as much as the next man, but really more of an ass guy myself...
  
  NSFW
  
  also NSFW
  1. fried wylie 13 years ago
    
    ok, so there IS a god.
  2. RoboCain 13 years ago
    
    http://hotchickswithdouchebags.....63312.jpeg
  3. Toasted 13 years ago
    
    Jada
3. Scott66 13 years ago
  
  At some point she will go the way of Anna Nicole Smith but it is fun to look at for now.
Mike M. 13 years ago

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. Paul 13 years ago
  
  I would spend $45,000 on a trabant before I'd spent 1/2 that on a Volt.
MJ 13 years ago

""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. Red Rocks Rockin 13 years ago
  
  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. Yeah 13 years ago
    
    Of course, reasonable people could argue the merits instead of throwing feces. Not mentioning any names.
    1. Red Rocks Rockin 13 years ago
      
      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. MJ 13 years ago
    
    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. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
      
      She KNEW going there would not allow for subsidization of her sex life, which makes her whole crusade tainted with planted activism.
2. Anonymous Coward 13 years ago
  
  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. Slut Bunwalla 13 years ago
  
  Last time I checked, Limbaugh is also a private citizen, so what's the big deal?
  1. Libertarian2 13 years ago
    
    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.
dunphy 13 years ago

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. Yeah 13 years ago
  
  Not sensational enough. No dogs shot.
2. Juice 13 years ago
  
  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. dunphy 13 years ago
    
    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. Coeus 13 years ago
      
      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. dunphy 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Juice 13 years ago
        
        Hmmmmmm, maybe some things are legal yet immoral. What should we do about this? STFU and take it I guess.
        
        dunphy 13 years ago
        
        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
        
        Juice 13 years ago
        
        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).
        
        dunphy 13 years ago
        
        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
        
        Coeus 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Coeus 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Coeus 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        dunphy 13 years ago
        
        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
        
        Coeus 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        dunphy 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Coeus 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        dunphy 13 years ago
        
        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
        
        Coeus 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Coeus 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        dunphy 13 years ago
        
        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)
        
        Coeus 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        dunphy 13 years ago
        
        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
        
        Coeus 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        dunphy 13 years ago
        
        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
        
        Coeus 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Coeus 13 years ago
        
        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. Joe M 13 years ago
  
  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. dunphy 13 years ago
    
    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. Juice 13 years ago
      
      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. dunphy 13 years ago
        
        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
        
        Juice 13 years ago
        
        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!
        
        dunphy 13 years ago
        
        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
        
        Juice 13 years ago
        
        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!
        
        dunphy 13 years ago
        
        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
        
        Coeus 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        dunphy 13 years ago
        
        lol. talk about projection. you are like fucking imax on steroids
        
        Coeus 13 years ago
        
        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. Pip 13 years ago
      
      TF/DR
      
      Too Falacious / Didn't Read
    3. Joe M 13 years ago
      
      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. dunphy 13 years ago
        
        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. Ted S. 13 years ago
  
  The sleeping person mistook the cop for a gun and had to defend himself, lest he get shot first.
LInda Lou 13 years ago

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

http://www.Went-Anon.tk
Francois 13 years ago

MSNBC is on full attack mode on Limbaugh.
When does reason post a dfense of him?
1. Never 13 years ago
  
  Rush despises libertarians. I think the feeling (amongst the editors) is mutual.
2. Killazontherun 13 years ago
  
  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. Killazontherun 13 years ago
    
    Damn commas can be so slippery. Get back over there! Five spaces to the right. Wait 'too', et tu?
    1. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
      
      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. Killazontherun 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Maxxx 13 years ago
        
        Rush does better with team blue in office. So his shtick hurting team red pols works to his advantage.
3. Juice 13 years ago
  
  I hope Reason doesn't defend him. What he said was retarded in the first place.
  1. The Happy Pessimist 13 years ago
    
    His comments were tame compared to what was said about her here.
    1. boomshanka 13 years ago
      
      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. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        boomshanka 13 years ago
        
        lol
        
        Shorter Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
        
        It's OK when we do it.
        
        boomshanka 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        + 13 years ago
        
        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!
        
        boomshanka 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        + 13 years ago
        
        You might even say...this is like the worst comment thread ever.
        
        + 13 years ago
        
        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. + 13 years ago
        
        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. Jeffersonian 13 years ago
  
  Whipping both their viewers into a frenzy, are they?
dunphy 13 years ago

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. nicole 13 years ago
  
  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. dunphy 13 years ago
    
    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. nicole 13 years ago
      
      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. dunphy 13 years ago
        
        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. Coeus 13 years ago
  
  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. dunphy 13 years ago
    
    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. Coeus 13 years ago
      
      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. dunphy 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Coeus 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        dunphy 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Coeus 13 years ago
        
        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. Juice 13 years ago
  
  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. dunphy 13 years ago
    
    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. Juice 13 years ago
      
      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.
      1. dunphy 13 years ago
        
        yawn
Underzog 13 years ago

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. Shorter Underzog 13 years ago
  
  Fucking slut, Jew-bitch!
  1. Underzog 13 years ago
    
    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. Eduard van Haalen 13 years ago
      
      Underzog, you are obviously an anti-Semite.
Brian from Texas 13 years ago

My only real criticism of Rush Limbaugh here is that he says slut and prostitute like those are bad things.
Real American 13 years ago

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. Beevis 13 years ago
  
  Like, uhhh... he said staff. Cool.
anarch 13 years ago

dunphy, have you a comment on this?

http://www.theagitator.com/201.....aint-form/
Eduard van Haalen 13 years ago

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. Eduard van Haalen 13 years ago
  
  The link, again:
  
  http://abcn.ws/yLqXDR
Peter 13 years ago

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. RoboCain 13 years ago
  
  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. Kreel Sarloo 13 years ago
    
    It's also not like there's any actual evidence that that redstaters have even read Ayn Rand let alone are "worshipers".
    1. Kreel Sarloo 13 years ago
      
      Also, it would be interesting to actually see which party the congressmen who actually voted for this redistribution belong to.

Please log in to post comments

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

Latest

The Senate Just Passed Rand Paul's Bill To Block Trump's Tariffs on Canada

Joe Rogan Is Right: It Is 'Kind of Crazy' To Deport Innocent People Mistakenly Identified As Gang Members

Javier Milei's Free Market Reforms Are Starting To Pay Off

Americans Are Deeply Skeptical of Trump's 'Liberation Day' Tariffs

Can Trump Broker a TikTok Sale Before the April 5 Deadline?

Recommended

Login Form