A.M. Links: Mitch McConnell Says Marijuana Can Kill You, Obama Administration to Fire Diplomat for Criticizing Iraq Boondoggle, Afghan President Tells Western Forces to Leave Afghan Villages

|

  • Mitch McConnell tells constituent that weed is deadly.

  • Afghan President Hamid Karzai tells NATO forces to leave Afghan villages. 
  • Taliban breaks off talks with U.S.  
  • Afghans demand that U.S. soldier who murdered 16 Kandahar villagers be tried in Afghanistan.
  • State Department to fire high-level bureaucrat for criticizing the war effort in Iraq. 
  • Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum continue to complain about the deep pockets of Mitt Romney and his friends (who are corporations). 

Do you want hot links and other Reason goodies delivered to your inbox twice a day? Sign up here for Reason's morning and afternoon news updates. 

New at Reason.tv: "How Sex Offender Registries Fail Us"

Advertisement

NEXT: Mitt Romney is So Money (Ultimate Pic)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Woot! I haz beat the robocains!

    1. Also, Mitch McConnell never fails to prove he’s a moron.

      1. Marijuana, literally less toxic than water.

        1. You know what does kill people? Politicians.

      2. stop talking about weed.

      3. From the McConnell article:

        “He pointed out that the main ingredient in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol, is already available in pill form for the treatment of certain illnesses.”

        I get so fucking angry when I see drug warriors say this. It literally costs about $749 for a month supply of 8mg Marinol, and most insurance companies don’t cover it. In seattle, a 1/4lb of medical weed, about a 4 month supply, costs $700. Twats like McConnel don’t care about the suffering of patients, they just know they need to keep weed illegal so that the drug war doesn’t totally lose all validity in the eyes of the public.

        1. Also, there are way more medicinal compounds in weed than just THC. Studies have revealed that the muscle relaxing and anxiety reliving qualities of but may be more attributed to cannabidol than THC.

    1. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/…..d=14663930

      I’ll raise you Obama issues waivers on child soldier bans in Africa.

      1. So dreamy! My hero!

  2. Chief jail guard resigns after video released of him beating a cuffed prisoner.

    If he had broken some bones or really done serious physical injury to Coffey, there would have been charges filed.

    ‘But I guess the information I received was that the injuries were not that serious.’

    Nothing else happened.

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

    1. Nope, no double standard there. Everyone knows that charges are never brought for assault unless it results in serious injury.

      Although, its England. They have some weird attitudes there about submitting to attacks.

      1. They also have this odd belief that prison guards and police do not have the right to abuse people for kicks. Very strange those people across the pond.

  3. Alaskan government telling people how to dispose of their property after a divorce settlement

  4. “Mitch McConnell tells constituent that weed is deadly”

    This can’t be, because SIV and others here have told us that conservatives are better on drugs and on the breakthrough of advocating legalization.

    I mean, George Shultz has said so!

    1. That would be characterizing McConnell as a conservative.

      1. Yeah, he’s a liberal Democrat, we all know that. Or a liberal Scotsman, eh?

        Sorry, this one’s your baby. Has your eyes and everything.

        1. I would characterize him as a twat, actually.

          1. I was thinking more just a statist.

        2. You suck ass. This is not a Republican blog, dipshit.

    2. Show me one post where anyone ever claimed that both parties were not equally loathsome on drugs? I have never seen it.

      1. You never heard of SIV? I thought you posted here for years?

        1. I know SIV. And I don’t remember him saying anything of the sort. But I don’t score at home like you do.

          1. He said it, and he would back it up with a list of two or three conservatives who had come out for legalization, and ol’ Shultz was always on the list.

            Because as George Shultz goes, so goes conservatism!

            1. Link or it didn’t happen, cunt.

              1. It’s really hard to use the search box on Reason to find SIV + drugs to back up your assertions

      2. Because libertarians are just Republicans who can’t win elections.

        1. White Indian always make us laugh.

    3. Arfarfarfarfarf!

      Throwthestick, John! Throwthestick!

    4. Are their any other congress critters besides the Paul boys who support legalization?

      1. Sort of ….

        1. Oh, and Kucinich.

          1. And half of those just named are retiring or were primaried.

      2. Rohrabacher…if his district was safer.

      3. and Justin Amash probable

      4. Has the younger Paul even said that he supports legalization?

        1. He’ll need to consult the AquaBuddha for guidnace first.

        2. I really like the younger Paul’s politics in that he lies a lot just like the most successful politicians…

          …but he lies in service of sounding like a conventional Republican and so far has voted almost straight libertarian. Fighting back at the GOP with their own game. Tremendous.

          So regardless of what he actually says, I think if it actually came up for a vote he’d be on the legalization side.

  5. Mitch McConnell tells constituent that weed is deadly.

    “To get back to the warning that I received. You may take it with however many grains of salt that you wish. That the Ganja Dwarf that is circulating around us isn’t too good. It is suggested that you stay away from that. Of course it’s your own trip. So be my guest, but please be advised that there is a warning on that one, ok?”

    1. Hey man – you seen my front teeth?

  6. Holder enacts regulation to fine pool owners for not having handicap lifts for their pools.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/03…..overreach/

    1. I would say that is some weapons grade stupid right there. However, Holder has clearly solved all other problems facing Justice so its about time they got to this.

      1. I agree. I really did think about what the last straw’s going to be before I off myself.

        Also, I wonder how the public will take hotels not having pools.

        1. The public is why I generally avoid hotel pools.

    2. Oh for fuck’s sake

    3. The “handicap lifts” can be *humans*, right? It’s the end of unemployment, I tells ya!

      1. We’ll just hire a couple of Mexicans.

    4. I wonder if this will affect my apartment complex.

      If my rent goes up because of this…

    1. OMG its fucking rather! KILL HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  7. “The parents of two Virginia Tech students killed in a 2007 campus massacre worked for years to prove university officials were negligent for waiting to warn students of a gunman on campus, and a jury agreed with them on Wednesday.

    The jury determined that the Prydes and Petersons each deserved $4 million, but the award is likely to be sharply reduced. State law requires it to be capped at $100,000.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    1. This is what f*cked up “tort reform” looks like in action. A jury has found that this government entity’s negligence contributed to these families losing their children and the responsibility fo their wrongful death is capped at 100,000 dollars. After their lawyers take 1/3 of that then these persons were worth 66,000 dollars.

      Yay tort reform!

      1. Tell me, how much was their child’s life worth?

        1. I’d rather let a jury of citizens decide that than have a state legislature “cap” it at 100,000.

          You?

          1. It depends; a jury awarded that woman millions for burning her lap with McDonalds coffee, because it was hot. So I don’t really know.

            I’m positive 4 mil is excessive though. Perhaps compensation for tuition, room & board plus psychiatric treatment for life.

            1. It depends; a jury awarded that woman millions for burning her lap with McDonalds coffee, because it was hot. So I don’t really know.

              Because it caused third-degree burns on her thighs within 7 seconds.

              Witnesses for McDonald’s admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s required temperature, admitted that it did not warn customers of this risk, could offer no explanation as to why it did not, and testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat even though it admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it is too hot.

              Link

              1. And, iirc they had done this repeatedly.

              2. Because it caused third-degree burns on her thighs within 7 seconds.

                Hey, here’s a hint: Coffee is hot.

                1. Hey, here’s a hint: Coffee is hot.

                  It isn’t that it’s “hot”. It’s practically boiling. Seriously, do you know what it takes to cause third-degree burns and how bad they are?

                  1. It isn’t that it’s “hot”. It’s practically boiling. Seriously, do you know what it takes to cause third-degree burns and how bad they are?

                    Do you not understand how coffee is brewed?

              3. memory sketchy here, but McDonalds apparently has their coffee so hot in order to reduce customer complaints about ‘the coffee being too cold’.

              4. In other words, McDonald’s admitted that a very small percentage of people are fucking idiots and that they did not tell them so.

            2. psychiatric treatment for life

              IOW, $4 million.

            3. If you read about the injuries she suffered, you’ll wince. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald‘s_Restaurants

              1. So… 10k in medical bills is worth 2.7 million why?

                1. Pain and suffering?

                  “Two years of medical treatment followed.”

                  Two years of skin grafting because of some f*ck ups negligence?

                  1. Also, much of it was punitive damages, which are meant to deter a practice that could cause others harm in the future. It appears the jury decided that to penalize McD’s a day’s worth of coffee sales profits might have that effect.

                  2. Two years of skin grafting because of some f*ck ups negligence?

                    Like I said, coffee is hot. Those that don’t understand this are idiots.

                    1. Third degree burns occur when flesh is destroyed.

                      If the liquid soaking through your clothes is hot enough to destroy tissue even after being cooled by the clothing, then it is much too hot for consumption.

                      I bet if I fed you food at 99 C at my house you’d be singing a different tune. Actually your tongue being destroyed you’d be garbling, but my point remains.

                    2. If the liquid soaking through your clothes is hot enough to destroy tissue even after being cooled by the clothing, then it is much too hot for consumption.

                      I bet if I fed you food at 99 C at my house you’d be singing a different tune. Actually your tongue being destroyed you’d be garbling, but my point remains.

                      Do you people seriously have NO FUCKING IDEA how food is prepared?

                      Water is boiled to brew coffee. What’s the boiling point of water again? Oh, 100 degrees celsius(ty metric system!). Food is cooked at temps above 99C EVERYWHERE.

                  3. The fuckup being so stupid as to stick a scalding cup of coffee in a flimsy disposable cup between your legs in a moving car? We should really compensate and reward people for their own stupidity?

                    1. “We?” No. McDonald’s was found to be negligent, and THEY compensated her. You and anon go troll HuffPo for a while.

              2. Did someone at McDonald’s tell her to hold the cup with her knees while she added her cream and sugar?

            4. you get no argument from me on jury awards of damages, which can often bear no resemblance to reality. I linked to that because Liebeck does get an unfair rap both on the facts and the damages. 2.7 million was over the top, but the damages were (i) cut by the jury anyway for her contributory negligence; and (ii) slashed even further to $640,000 by the judge. The joke here of course is that McDonalds could have settled it for 20 grand. I can’t speak to the state tort laws as I’m not American, but I assume the usual problem exists over there too – how do you construct a system that discourages bullshit cases but also encourages sensible settlements w/o costly litigation? Don’t know if anyone’s cracked it yet

              1. I think we should go to a British system where attorneys fees are awarded if you win, but we should also adopt a loser pays rule to deter frivolous suits. And no caps, personal responsibility should not be capped.

                1. Doesn’t Texas now have a quasi loser pays rule?

                  1. Loser pays without allowing attorney fees to winners is crappy. That’s just a lawsuit deterence (both frivolous and justified), and hence personal responsibility deterence, strategy.

                  2. Not really, no. I believe the court has to find that the case was, essentially, frivolous.

                    That’s the same standard for sanctioning the attorney who brought the case, which never happens.

                    Apparently, there’s no such thing as a frivolous case.

                2. Loser-pays isn’t enough by itself. Here in NSW in Australia, costs are usually on a solicitor-solicitor basis, which means you really only get approx 75%. Poor behaviour by the other side can lead to indemnity costs (you get close to everything). The costs are “taxed” (meaning the court can review and say, hey that’s ludicrous). Finally, lawyers can be made personally liable for costs if they’ve pursued a case that had no reasonable prospects of success

                  1. Finally, lawyers can be made personally liable for costs if they’ve pursued a case that had no reasonable prospects of success

                    What if the client insists? IANAL, but why should an lawyer be penalized for a client’s decision if they explained the probable outcomes? I can think of many situations where a lawyer would not want to lose a client by turning down their business and have heard of instances where clients wanted to pursue litigation, even after it was explained that it would cost more than they would win if they even did win, just for the principle of the matter.

                    1. What if the client insists?

                      You fire the client. Or you get them to agree to indemnify you.

                      Lawyers are big boys – if they “don’t want to lose the client”, they can take the risk of being sanctioned, and vice versa.

                    2. Ah, you’re conflating two scenarios. A case might not make financial sense, as in your example, but you’ll be legally successful. The normal costs system tries to dissuade people, but stupid is as stupid does.

                      The NSW Legal Profession Act, s 248, OTOH is directed at claims that just won’t get up – the evidence is shit, the law is really against you, etc. Lawyers are in a better position to understand that, and have a financial incentive to conceal this. What if they do tell the client who still wants to go ahead? Proving it is hard (b/c of privilege) and there’s the policy issue of not wanting the courts to be clogged with crap. So you sheet it home to the lawyer who now has an incentive not to act like the client’s bitch (and lawyers are officers of the court, remember – their first duty is to it, not the client). BTW it’s rarely used

              2. I agree; in hindsight, it was dumb for McDonalds not to settle.

                1. Knowing how it would turn out after the fact is not the same thing as preparing a legal strategy before the case is resolved.

                  And, McDonalds was in the right here — why should they pay because some woman is an idiot, and thus encourage even more such suits against them?

              3. I linked to that because Liebeck does get an unfair rap both on the facts and the damages. 2.7 million was over the top,…how do you construct a system that discourages bullshit cases but also encourages sensible settlements w/o costly litigation?

                The fucked up think in that case was that the overwhelming majority of the award was for punitive damages which is to say a type of jury imposed fine.

                So how about this tort reform. Make punitive damage awards go to a fund that compensates victims instead of be a lottery win for the plantiff. And set hard limits on the amount that lawyers get if they win.

                Those two changes would stop the lottery mentality that infects so many accident victims and their attorneys.

            5. “Perhaps compensation for tuition, room & board”

              Why should they be compensated for that? The killer saved them a ton on those things. (Sorry, couldn’t resist).

          2. Also, further down it’s revealed that they rejected a settlement of 11 mil. So fuck them.

            1. They rejected a share of that settlement.

              And seriously, how does a libertarian say “fuck them” to someone who stood up to their government and demanded accountability?

              1. And seriously, how does a libertarian say “fuck them” to someone who stood up to their government and demanded accountability?

                I’m saying “fuck them” because they appear to be greedy twats that just want to hit big money because their son died. People die every day; most of them don’t receive jack shit in compensation.

                1. They knew it was going to be capped, so they knew they would get LESS money by standing up to their government.

                  Really, people refuse to be bought off stand up and demand accountability of their government officials should be applauded on a libertarian site, right?

                  1. Really, people refuse to be bought off stand up and demand

                    How is a settlement “being bought off?”

                    1. Because the government gets to escape accountability?

                    2. Because the government gets to escape accountability?

                      How is this escaping accountability?

                      Even GIVING you the premise that somehow the school paying out monies is holding them accountable (debateable), how could holding a trial that (by your logic) necessarily results in less money be holding them more accountable?

                    3. The settlement allows them to deny they were liable and wrong, the won lawsuit shoots that in the foot.

                  2. They knew it was going to be capped, so they knew they would get LESS money by standing up to their government.

                    You really believe it wasn’t the lawyer saying “Dude, we can get way more than that.”

                    I don’t.

                    1. Well, it’s hard to argue in conjecture-ville…

                      The lawyers had to know of the cap, not telling their clients would be malpractice.

                      And the parents said throughout the process they knew they would lose money but they wanted to hold the government entity accountable.

                      You should applaud that rather than taking the first train to conjecture-ville to conjure up a suspect motive contrary to all evidence and then condemn them base on that.

                    2. You should applaud that rather than taking the first train to conjecture-ville to conjure up a suspect motive contrary to all evidence and then condemn them base on that.

                      So your logic is the parents were offered some portion of 11 mil, and decided to take 100k instead because somehow this would be “sticking it to the man” more?

                      I don’t follow.

                    3. You better believe that university President is devastated by this verdict. He’s on record as being to blame for having (indirectly) caused the death of two students. The institution and he are not happy today. He would have loved to just got away with a settlement.

                    4. You better believe that university President is devastated by this verdict. He’s on record as being to blame for having (indirectly) caused the death of two students.

                      Really? You believe that?

                      If he’s distraught over -anything-, it’s merely that he might have to find a new overpaid job in a different government school. He has absolutely zero accountability.

                    5. I do, why do you think he tried to avoid the suit and fought it so strongly if mattered so little to him?

                    6. You think he’s going to not have trouble moving on and up to another university job with this on him now? This won’t be a strike against him?

                      You think he’s not going to have more trouble shaking alumni donor’s hands “hi, I’m the guy that just got declared liable for the death of two students, can’t you see towards donating a wing to the library?”

                    7. You think he’s going to not have trouble moving on and up to another university job with this on him now? This won’t be a strike against him?

                      Police brutality is cause for promotion; I see no reason why this would affect him in the least.

                    8. Even with police officers, do you think they go “yay, this is great” when they are officially declared to have engage in it? No, they avoid it strenously, they get union lawyers and lobby for immunity, etc.

                      Is this the perfect deterrent? Of course not. But it’s something. What do you want, nothing?

                    9. I do, why do you think he tried to avoid the suit and fought it so strongly if mattered so little to him?

                      Because the government was paying for his defense anyways?

                    10. And playing the role of John today will be anon.

                    11. And playing the role of John today will be anon.

                      Man! I HATE these matinees!

          3. I’d rather let a jury of citizens decide that than have a state legislature “cap” it at 100,000

            The money’s not going to bring back the dead kids. And since it’s not being taken from the administrators’ salaries or pensions, but from the taxpayers instead, it’s not like anyone is really being punished for their negligence, is it?

            In short, what has actually been accomplished here?

            1. It might deter future malfeasance.

              1. And compensate the victim’s for their loss, however impefectly.

                You’re not against wrongful death suits on the ground of “well, they can’t be brought back by any damages” are you?

              2. It might deter future malfeasance.

                Right, just like large settlements, paid from taxpayer funds to victims of police abuse, deter further police abuse.

                1. In a sane world elected officials would face electoral defeat for such things happening on their watch and would tighten up on their employees.

              3. It might deter future malfeasance.

                How, MNG? The cost is in no way associated with any individual. It’s distributed to the taxpayers. Distributed liability completely negates any impact this will have on the school.

                Also, schools should be found negligent for not allowing students to carry firearms to defend themselves, if anything.

                1. Yes, I’d also like to know how this will deter future “malfeasance”.

                    1. In a sane world elected officials would face electoral defeat for such things happening on their watch and would tighten up on their employees.

                      OT: When has this ever happened?

                      I say “Off-Topic” because school administrators are not elected, and no elected official has any responsibility for incumbent school administrators.

                    2. In a sane world…

                      Ok. Here’s yer problem.

                    3. What is the alternative, to not hold governments accountable via suit when they wrong citizens? That hardly seems like a libertarian answer…

                      And while our world is not always sane, these things can have an effect. That university pres’ career just took a major speed bump. You better believe he, or future officials will remember this verdict as something to avoid happening to them.

                    4. What is the alternative, to not hold governments accountable via suit when they wrong citizens?

                      Er, get government out of education?

                      I’d say that’s a pretty good alternative.

                    5. No, this could have happened at any government agency. What should be done when a government official’s negligence causes harm to a citizen?

                    6. What should be done when a government official’s negligence causes harm to a citizen?

                      You’re still subscribing to the premise that Government should be in the education business.

                    7. Also OT: I love the generic socialist mindset of “If the government doesn’t do it, how will it get done!?”

                    8. WTF are you talking about? We’re talking about people bringing actions against their government. That’s socialist?

                      When a government harms a citizen, what should be done? You seem to be arguing “nothing, because 1. it’s hard to calculate the harm (@ 9:01) and/or 2. it won’t effect government either way (@ 9:19)

                    9. You really have problems with logic, don’t you? Failure to prevent harm = causing harm?!!

        2. How much life insurance did they carry on the kid? That’s usually a good measure of what someone thinks their life is worth.

          1. Or the life insurance they could afford…

            1. If you think you can’t afford something, that often means you don’t think its worth (to you) what is being charged.

              I would guess that life insurance premiums on a college student are dirt cheap.

              1. This is likely hard for you to envision RC, but sometimes there are people who don’t buy something because it is hard to afford it, whatever the value of it to them.

                1. And a lot of people probably don’t even think about the possibility of buying life insurance for their college student children.

                  1. And a lot of people probably don’t even think about the possibility of buying life insurance for their college student children.

                    Have these people never seen Animal House?

                2. I realize that, MNG. That’s why I said “often”.

                  Like our li’l friend Fluke, generally when people say they can’t afford something, what they mean is that they don’t have enough money left after buying other stuff they want more.

      2. If I were a parent, I’d rather see someone in the school administration go to prison rather than be “rewarded” for the loss of my child. Society would be better served. But hey, that’s just me.

        1. Only individual atomized people making selfish decisions, such as to take Medicare dollars after denouncing anybody who took Medicare dollars as a parasitic moocher.

        2. If I were a parent, I’d rather see someone in the school administration go to prison rather than be “rewarded”

          Perhaps. I don’t know what just compensation would be; I don’t have a child and I won’t have one. That said, I’m sure 4 mil is a bit … excessive.

          Isn’t it the libs always telling us money can’t buy happiness?

          1. The way you’re supposed to calculate wrongful death damages involves estimating the life-time contributions the kid would have made. Take a kid that goes to college and in a parents later years takes care of them for several years, putting them in a home or with inhouse care. That’s worth quite a bit and I could see it approaching millions in a lifetime. of course there are other things the court tries to quantify too.

            1. And of course every dime earned would have gone to the parents???

              1. “estimating the life-time contributions the kid would have made”

                Reading, how does it work?

            2. Take a kid that goes to college and in a parents later years takes care of them for several years, putting them in a home or with inhouse care. That’s worth quite a bit and I could see it approaching millions in a lifetime.

              What percentage of college graduate do you presume will have “millions” to spend on their parents, on top of what they spend on themselves and their children?

        3. I’m sure those parents would like that option Restoras…But civil suits were their only option.

      3. Is that the result of “tort reform” or sovereign immunity? Just a guess here, but the $100,000 limit sounds an awful lot like a state tort claims act.

        As a matter of fact, that is exactly the limit.

        http://www.allenandallen.com/b…..s-act.html

        Sorry MNG. You got pawned by bad WAPO reporting. That wasn’t tort reform that caused that. It wasn’t just any “state law”. It was sovereign immunity, which is as old as the country.

        1. The same soveriegn immunity conservative SCOTUS justices love so much?

          A rose by any other name…

          1. It is not “tort reform”. It is the law and has been the law for over 200 years. And Virginia is free to waive said immunity and raise the limit. They haven’t. This is a case of government abusing people.

            Sorry, you example doesn’t quite prove what you thought it did.

            1. Awards shouldn’t be arbitarily capped by state legislatures in either way. If you believe in personal responsibility you don’t cap personal responsibility.

              1. How is this personal responsibility? Point out for us the person or persons who a) proximately caused the shitty policy and b) will pay the damages. Because without those two things, there’s not really any personal responsibility happening.

                1. So government should never be sued by citizens?

                  Interesting libertarian idea there…

                  1. No way, man.

                    John is totally in the right this time.

                    Libertarians bitch about sovereign immunity all the time.

                    The “limit punitive damages” debate and the “get rid of sovereign immunity” debate are distinct and separate debates.

                    You might be able to argue, “Well, limiting damages for non-sovereign defendants will replicate this injustice in more cases.”

                    The difference is that proposed tort reforms I’ve seen don’t do what sovereign immunity does, namely, say “Fuck you, we’re the state so we don’t owe you a damn thing no matter what the facts are.”

                    1. Actually, no. Here they do the EXACT same thing, for these immunity cases they cap the responsibility of the tortfeasor, that is EXACTLY what the tort reform caps propose.

                    2. If this under immunity what the state is saying is “A jury might find that you’ve been harmed to the tune of 4 million dollars of damages, but we are going to limit or cap that to 100,000.” In tort reform the EXACT same thing is done, but it applies to private harmers too.

                  2. Nice straw man. I asked you to explain how this is personal responsibility, because from where I sit, no real person is being held responsible. What do you come up with? Some bullshit about how we shouldn’t sue the government. Learn to read, you disingenuous twatwaffle.

                    I’d have no problem if they had filed 1983 suits against the campus administrators. That encourages personal responsibility. But suing the school? Okay, VaTech is responsible (for the wrong thing, IMHO). What’s that do to place blame on individuals and make them responsible for the consequences of shitty policy? Individuals take actions, not institutions. Institutions exist, in part, to shield individuals from liability, so suing the institution plays right into that.

          2. And I will let you off on completely misunderstanding the nature of what is going on here.

          3. Same rules apply when you get run over by a school bus.

        2. Sorry MNG. You got pawned by bad WAPO reporting. That wasn’t tort reform that caused that. It wasn’t just any “state law”. It was sovereign immunity, which is as old as the country.

          Look out – goalpost-moving and argument -shifting ahead!

      4. Do you live in that state, Mung? Cut ’em a check for the difference.

      5. Actually, I think you’re looking in the wrong place for the injustice here.

        I don’t even get to the point of considering the justice of the damage award because I am so blown away by the concept that not knowing exactly what to do in an emergency where a psycho is blowing people away constitutes “negligence”.

        “What should we do? Risk creating a panic, or risk people not being able to get away? You have 15 seconds to decide!”

        “Holy shit I don’t know!”

        “NEGLIGENCE! PAY ELEVENTY BILLION DOLLARS!”

        You know what, fuck that.

        1. Two issues:

          Whether this charge of contributory negligence make sense.

          Whether people who are determined to have harmed others should have their responsibility “capped.”

        2. The only negligence I see is not allowing students to carry guns for self-protection.

        3. I think Fluffy makes a good point here. I’m not sure the school administrators not knowing what to do in such an unusual situation really constitutes negligence on their part. I think negligence requires that you should have known to do otherwise, and I just don’t see that here.

      6. This is what f*cked up “tort reform” looks like in action.

        That’s not tort reform, MNG. That’s sovereign immunity, which folks around here tend not to be big fans of.

        The concept of sovereign immunity dates to the English common law notion that the king can do no wrong and cannot be sued. Virginia followed this concept until 1982 when the General Assembly waived the commonwealth’s sovereign immunity for tort claims but capped potential damages in negligence cases at $25,000.00. This cap was raised in 1993 to $100,000.00. See Va. Code Ann.

        http://www.mphelanlaw.com/file…..Raised.doc

        1. It’s wrong to cap or limit the responsibility of those who harm others, whether they be governments or private individuals.

          1. If the basic idea here is holding people accountable for the harm they do, what is the justification for punitive damages?

            Personal responsibility would be imposed by making them cover the economic damages, no? Tort reform generally applies to non-economic damages, due to the history of abuse of non-economic damages in some jurisdictions.

            Non-economic damages are generally used to punish people, not to obtain restitution. Don’t know about you, but to me punishment should be meted out by criminal courts, not civil courts.

    2. But the parents knew they would get less money by pursuing the lawsuit…

      “They were the only eligible families to reject their share of an $11 million dollar settlement in 2008, instead taking the state to court in a wrongful death lawsuit. The move all but guaranteed less money and more of a legal struggle, but the families said that getting answers mattered the most.”

      WTF does this have to do with tort reform?

      1. Nothing. MNG doesn’t know what he is talking about.

        1. …and finally, we have a winner!

    3. They should have sued Virginia Tech for denying students the ability to defend themselves – not this convoluted logic. The school was supposed to react like a hostage rescue team and instantly realize what was happening.

  8. Mitch McConnell tells constituent that weed is deadly.

    It’s true. You could get shot by a SWAT team, die in jail… very deadly.

  9. The Ting Tings have a message for Newcular Gangrene: “Hang It Up”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ra0iBKjK1g

  10. Dick Armey is gunning for Orrin Hatch:

    http://www.npr.org/2012/03/14/148617393/

    “SMARDON: The wild card in this race is the influence of outside groups. There are two superPACs running pro-Hatch ads. And FreedomWorks for America -chaired by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey – has been attacking him. Hatch discounts the group as out-of-state libertarians who are trying to infiltrate the GOP.

    SENATOR ORRIN HATCH: If we let those people come in and take over this state, I mean, my gosh, it’s going to be a doggone mess here. And they’ve told me, frankly, we’re going to take over the Republican Party. And I said, no, you’re not. And one reason I’m running such a strong campaign is to make sure that they don’t. We just can’t let that happen.”

    1. If we let those people come in and take over this state, I mean, my gosh, it’s going to be a doggone mess here.

      George Wallace says, “I know, right??”

    2. Dick Armey is gunning for Orrin Hatch

      Now you’ve done it. It’s on your head if Orrin Hatch ends up dead.

      1. You’re welcome

    3. Orrin Hatch referring to Dick Armey as a libertarian tells me all I need to know about Orrin Hatch. Good riddance.

  11. Afghans demand that U.S. soldier who murdered 16 Kandahar villagers be tried in Afghanistan.

    Shouldn’t that be “allegedly murdered” or have we already found him guilty? I don’t know many details about the case so I really am asking. We should probably try him first, though, as turning him over to the Afghans is certainly a death sentence.

    1. I dont know the UCMJ, but I would be surprised if a death sentence isnt the result here also. Assuming guilty, of course.

      1. Afghans tend to be a little more, er, prompt in carrying out death sentences than the U.S. military court system. They tend to execute suspects before due process, U.S. military death row prisoners die of old age.

      2. Right, but at least he’ll get a real trial, or whatever the military equivalent is, with us. He’s already been convicted in Afghanistan.

        1. You didnt see me disagreeing with that part of the post did you?

      3. Under the UCMJ, death sentences have become purely decorative. They are really life sentences. They haven’t executed anybody, if memory serves, in 40 years.

        1. Loving is probably going to get the needle soon. And they are more than just life. They are a ticket to federal death row, which is living hell.

          1. I don’t see Hussain or that SGT who tossed a grenade into an officer’s tent lasting too long on death row either.

    2. The fucker should be tried here, then handed over the Afghans for whatever they deem necessary to punish him.

      1. Innocent until proven guilty?

        1. Innocent until proven guilty?

          Nope. That’s presumed innocent until proven guilty.

          Not actually innocent until proven guilty.

          And, under the UCMJ, I think* the burden of proof runs the other way. If charges are brought, I believe its presumed guilty until proven innocent.

          *Don’t know, feel free to correct me.

          1. And, under the UCMJ, I think* the burden of proof runs the other way. If charges are brought, I believe its presumed guilty until proven innocent.

            ACK!!! No no but hell no. RC. The burden of proof is exactly the same, beyond a reasonable doubt. The Rules for Courts Martial are nearly identical to the federal rules of criminal procedure.

            1. Now I know. I could have sworn it was the other way around.

      2. Nope. He’s our troop, he’s our problem. We need to try him, and if he’s guilty, we need to execute him. You don’t hand your people over to the barb.

        1. Yeah, so what? He violated Afghani murder laws and should be tried as such. Or do we extradite every murderer who isn’t a citizen to their country of origin for them to try him of murder?

          Nah, this is probably just a typical American double standard.

      3. I notice a distinct difference between the administration’s attitude on this vs. that terrorist Major in Ft. Hood.

        1. The media are treating the two completely differently, also. Months after the Ft. Hood shooting they were still calling the guy “alleged”. Few reports of this have used that word. I have also not seen long lists of “reasons” that the murders in Afghanistan occurred while we were almost instantly informed of the Ft. Hood shooter’s.

          1. Every report I have heard about this has use the word “alleged”.

          2. “Happened overseas. Who cares?”
            – Typical American newsreader

          3. Didn’t he turn himself in and admit to doing it? If so, leaving “alleged” out of the news story is perfectly fine with me.

            1. Admit to doing what? Killing can be charged in numerous ways, from self-defense to manslaughter to first degree murder. Unless he specifically admitted to a particular state of mind, and waived his right to a lawyer and a trial, “alleged” still applies.

    3. On the bright side, he might inadvertently accelerate our exit from that sand pit

  12. I suppose once weed is somewhat more legal, we’ll start hearing reports about how it causes lung cancer at a similar rate as tobacco. But I doubt an old-school politician from a tobacco state will want to talk about that.

    1. They might want to talk about it, if it means more regulatory power and tax revenue.

      1. KY is a larger pot state than tobacco state already.

        1. That was more in response to Drake.

        2. Maybe – but pot growers don’t donate to the Mitch McConnell campaign fund, so they don’t count.

          1. You might be surprised. Bootleggers and Baptists coalition.

            1. Also, the one person I knew who was busted for a grow operation leaned republican. He was from Indiana though.

    2. Weed smoking would never be at the rate of tobacco smoking. Ive never smoked either, so Im speaking out of ignorance and/or observation, but I dont see there being pack-a-day pot smokers.

      1. or, at least, not many. Outliers be outliers.

      2. I once worked with a guy who smoked joints like cigarettes. He was the most useless piece of shit I’ve ever known. Even when he wasn’t stoned (which wasn’t very often).

        1. “worked with” or did he just watch you work while inhaling pot and exhaling a stream of nonsense?

          I bet inhaling any kind of smoke on a regular basis; tobacco, pot, hickory, coal, whatever, will eventually kill you.

          1. It was a restaurant and he always worked expo, and I was usually on saute. So yes. He stood there where the tickets were, barking out incoherent orders, while everyone else did the work.
            The restaurant was literally his first job, and has shut down since. I seriously doubt he has been employed for very long since then, since the owner only kept him on out of pity.

            1. I think I saw you guys on one of chef Ramsey’s shows.

              1. I think I saw you guys on one of chef Ramsey’s shows.

                Him maybe, but not me. I haven’t worked in a kitchen in over a decade.

            2. Who expedites as a first job? Was he a relative or a fuck toy of the owner? (Not that those are mutually exclusive.)

              1. Who expedites as a first job?

                Someone who gets a job as a dishwasher in their teens, and stays at the same shop into their thirties.

                1. Then expediting wasn’t his first job?

                  1. His first employer.

          2. “”I bet inhaling any kind of smoke on a regular basis; tobacco, pot, hickory, coal, whatever, will eventually kill you.””

            It may or may not kill you. But I agree that inhaling any smoke is probably not good for you to some degree. But of course, people should be able to make that choice on their own without government interference.

    3. The Drake,

      As soon as a corporation makes money on it every bit of that will happen, and more.

    4. Interestingly, though it seems like the smoke should be just as bad as tobacco in many ways, there have been a number of studies looking at the health effects of pot smoking and most have found that just pot smoking does not cause cancer. It does damage the lungs, but it seems to have some sort of anti-cancer properties as well.

      1. Are you sure?

        1. You died of melanoma. I’m pretty sure no one has suggested that that is caused by pot. But, no I am not sure. It’s hard to do good research on an illegal substance.

          1. My bad – according to Wikipedia, the Melanoma spread to my lungs and brain.

            1. Melanoma tends to be caused by sun exposure, which is easy to get in Jamaica.

  13. Animal Tales One:

    “It happened more than a quarter century ago, at the start of a Romney family summer vacation. But the tale of Seamus, the Irish setter who got sick while riding 12 hours on the roof of Mitt Romney’s faux-wood-paneled station wagon, is ballooning into a narrative of epic proportions.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    1. that story is only cool if he has a bro-in-law who has been unemployed for 7 years b/c he’s waiting for something managerial.

      1. I’m not sure why this is a news story. Dogs like to stick their heads out of car windows and catch the breeze. Romney gave the dog an extra strong helping of that.

        If this is the worst dirt the op research team can dig up on Romney, they’ve got a mighty weak case …

  14. David Ignatius: How to end the Afghan mission
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    The question for policymakers isn’t the nature of war but how to end it. And here, the gut reactions of this week are likely to be misleading ? in the sense that they could prompt hasty decisions that bring more loss of civilian life. A retreat under fire is dangerous in any case, but especially a pell-mell retreat that abandons previous strategies for withdrawal.

    1. The Pashtuns are good at starting wars, but they also have rituals for stopping them.

      We understand the Americans also have rituals for stopping wars.

      1. +Little Boy and Fat Man

    2. Especially when you have to retreat into Lindsey Graham calling you a war-weary pussy.

    3. A big problems is that if the US leaves it will still have to send billions of dollars to Afghanistan to pay for the security forces that were created. As soon as that money dries up the Afghanistan government will collapse. We created a security force that the Afghan government can’t pay for on their own

      It will be like South Vietnam, as long as the US kept pouring money in after US troops left then the South Vietnamese government held out, once money was cut off then it lost.

      And the Afghan government is even in worse shape then the South Vietnamese government was , its more corrupt and more incompetent and the security forces are weaker

      1. And the power waiting in the wings to take over is actually worse than NV communists.

      2. You cannot create a state out of disparate, illiterate tribes unless you are willing to beat the living shit out of them with no remorse for decades or centuries until they develop a common culture centered around their hatred of you. There hasn’t been an occupying power since the Turks or the Brits that has been able to accomplish this.

    4. It’s really a catch-22. You can’t leave because it will turn the country into a civil war, and you can’t stay because your presence is the primary reason why those people are angry.

      1. You can’t leave because it will turn the country into a civil war

        Oh, let’s leave anyway. We can always go back.

    1. I has a serious sad over this bit:

      Richard and Carolyn Smith wrote ‘We would like to erect a house in one of our top fields. Can I now assume we will be able to do that and sell our present property without gaining permission from the council? Obviously it is a planning ‘free for all’ in Logmore Lane.’

      Seriously people, WTF?

      1. How about this bit:

        You cannot just buy a field and build a house on it.

        1. You cannot just buy a field and build a house on it.

          “Sorry, but the plans have been on display…”

      2. And seriously Britain, what the fuck:

        Certificate of Lawfulness

    2. And he has such awesome neighbors!

      ‘I ride, walk and drive past his land several times a week and it was never apparent he had erected a dwelling in the copse. There has never been any evidence of the family actually living there. You cannot just buy a field and build a house on it.

      Another neighbour, who did not wish to be named, said he was ‘personally disappointed’” with Mr Brown.

      ‘It’s put us in a very difficult situation. We’ve known Dan for a number of years. We’ve always got along well with him. Perhaps we didn’t really know him.’

      1. See, this right here is what Whyte Injun is on about.

        “Officer, am I not free to Gambol on my own property and build a house? No?”

        WHYTE INUUN IS RIIIIIIGHT!!!!1!!

      2. We’ve always got along well with him.

        Those are the worst sort of neighbor, the kind you get along well with. What a bunch of bastards.

  15. He was on his first tour to Afghanistan, but had deployed to Iraq three times. In 2010, he’d suffered a traumatic brain injury in a vehicle accident. But few details have surfaced about motive or why an infantryman would turn his gun on civilians.

    The guy probably was brain damaged, and the Army probably knew that he wasn’t right. But instead of discharging him and having to pay out to him, I can see them keeping him and shifting him around and him making his way to a combat zone because they forgot to keep him away from anything that could do harm. All conjecture on my part, but that’s what they do. A similar thing with Major Hasan.

    1. I don’t know how it is now, but you had to be seriously fucked in the head to get a psych discharge when I was in. It’s always been a way for half-clever joes to try to beat the system and pretend crazy to get out. You had to be literally incapable of functioning in society. Couple this with the fact that some guys don’t want to get discharged, and a guy who is marginal but can keep his shit together most days can hang out and get his 20.

      Plus, let’s face it, certain forms of crazy are not really disqualifiers for the infantry.

      1. So basically, literally Catch 22. Asking for a discharge proves that you are sane enough to serve.

        1. Yup. Asking if you’re crazy means you’re not. You need to game somebody else into thinking you’re crazy and get a command eval.

          And like I said, it’s a pretty fucking high bar for a discharge. The Army has psychologists and you can get your counseling and therapy for free!

      2. Shit, there was a guy from Toledo, OH that was in Korea for 13 years dressed up as a woman, and he couldn’t get a psych discharge.

  16. Understanding The New Price Of Oil
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..-price-oil

    We can therefore say that in our post-credit bubble collapse era, and with global oil supply now flat, that quantitative easing causes higher oil prices (through Granger causality). It keeps economies from collapsing (for now) and thus brings demand up against very tight supply. As we can see from the chart above, the USD Index has for 3 years now been bouncing off the bottom it first reached in 2008. In a way, this is helpful because it brings to light the new dominant factor in global oil prices: supply.

    1. That’s interesting, but he dismisses the effects of inflation too quickly and out of hand. When the price of oil is cheap in gold terms but expensive in dollar terms, you cannot overlook the weak, overprinted dollar as a cause.

  17. http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..ormon.html

    Chris Matthews calls Mormons and Catholics cultists as he talks to the REVEREND Al Sharpton.

    1. Wait, didn’t you say Mormons are “not Christians” a little while back?

      1. They’re so far removed from other sects of Christianity I’d tend to agree.

        1. Paul did it Greek style.

          I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, [literally: his ass is useful] whom I have begotten in my bonds: Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me [wink, wink, Greek]

          ~Philemon 1:10-11

          Anyway, every Christian sect, except the Catholics pederasty club, is far removed from that, except for all the Protestant preachers fucking deacons’ wives and daughters.

      2. They’re apostates.

        1. White Indian need to gambol more, read Free Republic less.

      3. They are not Christians. Neither are Hindus. But I wouldn’t call either a cult. And moreover, I am not a news host on a major network. I would think doing that kind of thing, as well as making a racist slur about calling India to get your computer fixed, would be frowned upon.

        1. And I can prove it.

        2. Religions are just cults with more members.

          1. Libertarianism is an other CULT-ural belief system, trying to fix the horrors of raping Mother Earth and her children with pedantic economics (much like the Marxists) and a belief in Holy Spirit. Or “The Invisible Hand.” Whatever.

            1. Unless one worships great spirit and gambols in a tribe. That is not a cult.

              1. John, you are such a stupid dumbass.

                Hunter/gatherers are the opposite of farmers (agriCULTural CULTivators.)

                “Although surrounded by cultivators, they have until recently refused to take up agriculture themselves, “mainly on the grounds that this would involve too much hard work”. In this they are like the Bushmen, who respond to the neolithic question with another: ‘Why should we plant, when there are so many mongomongo nuts m the world?'”

                ~ Marshall Sahlins
                The Original Affluent Society
                http://www.primitivism.com/original-affluent.htm

                1. mainly on the grounds that this would involve too much hard work

                  We know. You are fat lazy and stupid.

                  1. Fat, lazy and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

                  2. But hey, Freeper John, thanks for parrotting neo-con bullshit like a boss.

                    The Idle Theory of evolution, human life, technology, trade, money, ethics, law, and religion, proposes that life does the least work it can.
                    http://idletheory.info/

                    I mean the Bear Necessities
                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ogQ0uge06o

                    1. LOL. You are always funny White Indian.

        3. I think Mormons are just as upset about the “not Christians” meme as the “cult” meme, they often come together.

        4. They are not Christians?
          They accept Christ as divine. So how are they not, by definition, Christians?

          1. Talk to John, he said it. I think they are Christians.

            1. Hey, does anybody think of asking ME?!

              1. A careful comparison, word by word, sentence by sentence, shows that the Christian Gospels are Pirate-copies of the Buddhist Gospels (combined, of course, with words from the OT). God’s word, therefore, is originally Buddha’s word.

                http://www.jesusisbuddha.com

                1. That joke is like chimps in suits. It is never not funny.

              2. Jesus: Hey, does anybody think of asking ME?!

                Pipe down, this doesn’t concern you.

            2. I was asking John. (See how I’m not indented below you, MNG? But I get confused by this stupid threading, too.)

              1. If a Hindu believes that Jesus is an avatar of Vishnu, does this make him a Christian?

                I can see a theological argument for Mormons not being Christian in a strict sense of the term. I don’t agree with it, but it’s not exactly something out of left field; the line has to be drawn somewhere.

              2. What KDN says CN. They call themselves Christians. But I would say no. They believe they can become divine themselves and some day rule over their own universe as “Latter Day Saints”. Nothing against Mormons. But that is not Christianity.

              3. I think a Christian is anyone who thinks Jesus was the Christ and “follows” him.

                By that reasoning Mormons are Christians. Do they believe different things than some other Christians? Yeah, but welcome to the club.

                Are Jehovah Witnesses Christians? Christian Scientists?

                People keep mentioning Hindus. I don’t think they identify as Christians.

                1. I think a Christian is anyone who thinks Jesus was the Christ and “follows” him.

                  By that reasoning Mormons are Christians. Do they believe different things than some other Christians? Yeah, but welcome to the club.

                  I agree.

                  People keep mentioning Hindus. I don’t think they identify as Christians.

                  They likely don’t, and that’s kind of the point; “accepting Christ as divine” probably isn’t the best way to separate Christians from non-Christians. But it does illustrate that a line exists somewhere and people that care more about this stuff than I do are going to spend the next few millenia arguing about it.

            3. I think that anyone who wants to call himself a Christian is a Christian.

        5. How do you define cult? I can come up with reasonable definitions of “cult” that woudl include Mormonism and Catholicism. Who says a cult is necessarily a bad thing anyway?

        6. “”They are not Christians.””

          Mormons are christians. “Chruch of Jesus Christ” is the first part of the name of their church. They believe in everything required to be considered christian.

      4. Despite what you or the Mormons think, MNG, there are a lot of other Christians who don’t think Mormons are. It’s not an uncommon view by any stretch of the imagination.

        1. No shit, I said it was a meme. But it’s one that upsets Mormons as much as the cult charge, also a popular one among many Christians.

          1. Given that I’ve been hearing it my entire life, I would think they’d have gotten used to it by now. And if they really do think they have the One True Faith, why does it matter what the heathens think? You don’t see the Catholics worrying about what Baptists think of them.

            1. Yeah, Catholics don’t care about what’s said about them…

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_League_(U.S.)

      1. Not enough Rush

      2. H&R is practically thick with Freepers. Our opposition to the Drug War and Overseas Occupations proves it.

        1. I love it when people call me a Freeper. My views on drugs and blue laws would get me banned in about an hour over there.

          1. I love it when people call me a Freeper. My views on drugs and blue laws would get me banned in about an hour over there.

            Libertarians are just Freepers who want to smoke pot and make sunday beerruns.

            1. No you are a fat primiativist wanna be moron who shits in trash cans.

                1. You forgot to use that hip cool term “bro” with that. No one is mad at you. We think you are funny and pathetic and generally like having you around mostly because we feel sorry for you.

                    1. Why don’t accept everyone’s love? Do you hate yourself because you are fat?

        2. Actually, the sabre-rattling on some of the Iran threads here would certainly confuse one.

          But I guess a frequent CPACer such as yourself might not find it odd.

          1. Who saber rattles for Iran? You think I do. But you never bother to read or pay attention to what I actually say. And I am as close as it gets.

              1. White need to gambol more talk and eat less.

            1. Indeed you do, but others are even more blatant about it. We’ve had several recent threads where many regulars posted to the effect “WTF, is Free Republic traffic beind re-directed here today?”

              1. Show me those threads. You are the only one I have ever seen making that charge.

                1. If I show you the threads, what? Offer me something. I show you posts and threads showing you wrong pretty much weekly and you plow ahead…

                  People here are aware of such threads, and you too likely.

                  1. If you show me the threads I will admit you are right. But you are the only person I have ever seen make that charge.

                    You made the claim MNG. I am not asking you to prove a negative. Give me a link to where someone besides you, one of the regulars whoever they are, made this claim.

                    If you can’t do that, then my conclusion is that no such links exist. And you are just making the whole thing up.

                2. John, you have done well here.

                  We need you to infiltrate Huffpo next.

                  1. This site has become nothing but utilitarian lefties, cause, you know, MNG and Neu Mejican. CRAWLING with ’em, I tells ya. I remember, back in Postrel’s day, when this was a libertarian site. But, man, for a mag called Reason there’s a lot of , uh, unreasonableness, or something, uh, going on.
                    Anyhoo — Cancel my subscription!

                    1. Is that three or four drinks? I lost track…

                      Shit, I can’t be hammered this early, I have a meeting later today.

                    2. Hey, the tourney starts in two hours. Got to get ready!

                    3. …if you don’t go to the meetings.

        3. Our opposition to the Drug War and Overseas Occupations proves it.

          Libertarians are just Freepers who want to smoke pot and make sunday beerruns. And they’re usually pussies who can’t fight.

          1. And liberals are just Freepers who want single-payer health care.
            Yeah. It’s all starting to become clear to me now…

            1. parroting christfag talking points every day

              1. “As it is written in the Book of Deuteronomy 10:19; ‘Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.’
                To me, that verse is a call to show empathy to our brothers and our sisters; to try and recognize ourselves in one another.

    2. So, Catholics are cultists, but Protestants aren’t? I seriously don’t understand that. Seems like it would both or neither.

      1. Of course, it could be that he’s just Ignoring? Ron Paul.

      2. I happen to think that “cult” is just a word for religions you don’t like. But I think that the argument for the Catholic church being more cultish would be that they are centrally organized and led by a powerful single leader. Mormonism is similar in that way.

    3. I agree with Chris on 1 of the 2, but I have the good sense to not say it out loud in a public foru….oh crap.

      1. See Joe M above. It is not so much that he called them cultist. It is that he didn’t while talking to a Christian minister.

  18. Medved: Can GOP win if economy improves?
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/o…..53515546/1

    Rather than trying to talk down the business climate and challenging the instinctive optimism of Americans, the GOP should focus on one aspect of the Obama record that even the administration’s most ardent apologists can’t dispute: the relentless growth of government since the president took command of the Oval Office.

    In fact, Obama seems positively proud of the dramatic expansion of federal power under his leadership and promises more costly activism if he’s re-elected. Washington’s spending as a percentage of GDP has soared from a 60-year average of 19.7% to projections of more than 24% in this election year ? with 40% of the crushing cost of those new initiatives borrowed on the backs of future generations.

    1. Medved: Can GOP win if economy improves?

      No.

      1. Fuck Medved. He hates libertarians.

  19. Animal Tales Two:

    This sucks, both for the horses and because I wante to watch this show. Deadwood ruled and if this was half as good…

    “HBO has canceled its racetrack drama “Luck” after a third horse died during production of the show.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..l?hpid=z14

    1. “No animals were harmed in…wait….what? SHIT!”

      1. “No animals were intentionally harmed in the prod….hmmmm, think Legal will go along with it?”

    2. Neither of the first two horses that died during “Luck’s” production “should have been anywhere near a racetrack,” Kathy Guillermo, vice president of PETA, told the TV Column. The organization had claimed that one of the horses was so arthritic that it hadn’t raced in years, and that the other horse was “so sore, he was given a potent cocktail of muscle relaxant and anti-inflammatory and painkilling drugs, including Butorphanol, a painkiller so strong that it’s often used as an analgesic for horses undergoing some kinds of surgery.”

      So it got to party, hang with other horses and Nick Nolte, and die while very very high. Problem?

      1. It’s messed up, this was going to be a decent show I’d bet. Why couldn’t they have just had better animal management on the set?

        1. I know little about the show but my bet: they were keeping costs down by using older horses already broken down from a lifetime of racing and veterinary care designed to keep them racing.

          1. Couldn’t they have fired Dustin Hoffman instead?

            1. “Of course, I’m an excellent horse rider. I ride the horse up and down the driveway. I’m an excellent horse rider. Charlie Babbitt rides a horse…”

      2. Neither of the first two horses that died during “Luck’s” production “should have been anywhere near a racetrack,” Kathy Guillermo, vice president of PETA…

        I guess the horse being dead in a dumpster out behind the PETA headquarters would be more in keeping with PETA policy.

  20. I had a dream the other night, and STEVE SMITH was in it. Do you hear me??!!! HE’S GOTTEN INTO MY DREAMS!!!!!!!

    SAVE ME!!!!!!

    1. Nightmare on Rape Street

    2. Was he making sweet rape to you?

    3. “Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout “Save us!”… and I’ll look down and whisper ‘No.'”

      1. Thanks, SF. I now have my new Match.com profile text.

        1. Does this make STEVE SMITH into Doctor Manhattan, w/ the same giant blue dong?

        2. Be careful…

          In Online Dating, Orientation May Be Secondary

          In a press release, UK dating site FlirtFinder reports that 8% of its male users who list themselves as straight have messaged gay men on the site. And 7.6% of straight-identified female users have messaged lesbians.

          1. That is not surprising, especially from the female end.

          2. I first read that as “massaged”. Make of that what you will.

          3. So we can say that 8% of people who claim to be straight may not be? That kind of agrees with my anecdotal experience.

      2. But enough about your vision for America, SugarFree – good morning!

        1. “Don’t you know me? I’m your favorite son.”

          1. favorite son

            So Kim Jong Un is SugarFree – I KNEW it!

            1. Pudgy, bad haircut, father was a great golfer… OH SHIT! I am Kim Jong Un!

              1. But as long as we’re here, you’ll never be ronrey.

              2. Sure you are not the Dali Lama? Big hitter the Lama.

                1. Bono hates my guts. I can’t, therefore, be the Dali Lama.

    4. I iz in ur dreamz rapin ur ass lol!

      1. He didn’t actually appear in the dream. I was going to find out some secret about his identity, but woke up before it was revealed.

        1. rather can tell you the true identity of STEVE SMITH. But she’s not sayin’.

          1. STEVE SMITH AM WHAT STEVE SMITH AM!

    5. STEVE SMITH is the Nightman?

  21. I was wrong. I do care a little: my alma mater made it into the tournament (even though they had to play an extra game after winning the “guaranteed bid” tournament).

    1. The games yesterday (and Tuesday) are part of the tournament. So no need for the quotes.

      1. Nope. Quotes needed. Those aren’t part of the tournament. The tournament is 64 teams until they add an actual other round.

  22. China’s Zero-Growth Economy
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/go…..h-economy/

    Trade figures also point to a decline. Headlines in the last couple days focused on the February deficit, the worst since 1989, due largely to faltering demand from Europe, but the real news is that domestic demand is not driving imports. Imports were up only 7.7% for the two-month period, and that was only because of continued stockpiling of commodities. Purchases of foreign oil exceeded records, and copper imports were high as well.

    Once you strip out commodity purchases, consumer consumption appears as if it has flatlined in the last two months, something evident from the tumble in the Consumer Price Index. February’s inflation came in at a stunningly low 3.2%, down from January’s 4.5%.

    1. ruh roh

    2. Wow. Things are about to get ugly.

    3. More proof that even the largest slave kingdom in the history of the world cannot beat the market in the long run. Does this even count as “long run?”

  23. In his 24 years as a diplomat, Van Buren was posted around the world. He speaks four languages. He calls the termination notice he received Friday the coup de grace in a series of blows he received since his book, “We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People,” was published last fall.

    With his book, based on the year he spent in the Iraqi desert in 2009-2010, and an unauthorized blog (wemeantwell.com) he started in 2011 that frequently skewers American foreign policy, Van Buren has tested the First Amendment almost daily.

    The U.S. State Department strongly disputes the book and blog titles.

    1. Maybe Van Buren meant well…

  24. An EPA Power Grab
    The bureaucracy and the fuel-economy standards
    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..arlo-lewis

    Experts will likely debate the economic impact of the new standard for years to come, as data become available regarding vehicle costs, fuel prices, and auto-industry profits and employment. The biggest cost, however, is one most experts are not talking about: the damage the administration’s fuel-economy agenda does to our constitutional system of separated powers and democratic accountability.

    1. You know who has been talking about agency rule-making and Constitutional powers w/r/t this kind of stuff…

  25. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon…..ive-rants/

    Is it just me or does Stewart seem a bit defensive and off his game here?

    1. Aren’t we supposed to be bitching about the government? You’re getting too bogged down in the Team Red/Team Blue meta-arguments.

      1. “You’re getting too bogged down in the Team Red/Team Blue meta-arguments.”

        Who, John?

    2. Self-interest. You think he doesn’t have some skeletons in his standup closet?

    1. effects

      Drugs that create racism – what will they think of next?

        1. Just taking you at your word. 🙂

          1. Grammar is a tool of the patriarchy.

        2. That’s word choice, not grammar, damnit.

          1. your pedantry is also a tool of the patriachy. Stop shoving your phallocracy down our throats!

      1. Here’s the interesting part (from another article): Thirty-six white people were used in the study,

        It occurs to me that whoever designed this study that showed that propanolol reduces racism should have taken some large doses of propanolol before doing so.

        1. In what universe is 36 considered a statistically significant sample size?

          Rhetorical question, I already know the answer: when the study in question is bullshit to begin with.

          1. That too. The gross racist sampling bias was my point.

  26. Hugo, The Semi-Impotent Lesbian Obsessed Concern Troll is at it again.

    “Cohen ? and many of my students in the Navigating Pornography class I’m teaching this semester ? told me story after story of how young men relentlessly urge young women to send them photos or striptease videos. (My students point out that the moves in these videos are invariably derivative and identical, just as are the pouts and poses in the still photographs.) Though research shows that the number of young people who actually send naked photos or videos may be surprisingly small, Cohen and others suggest that a far higher number of girls are pressured to do so.”

    Navigating Pornography, Lewis and Clark style, bitches!

    1. Why couldn’t we have had sexting when I was growing up?

      Damned lack of cell phones! And PC’s! And digital phones! And central plumbing! And…

    2. “That coercion, whether it’s successfully resisted or not, is more of the problem than the sexy images themselves.”

      That word doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    3. “Back in the day,” one student of mine said, “a guy could only bug you to do something with him if you were physically together. Now he can nag you into doing something sexual that you’ll regret ? while he’s on the other side of town and you’re alone in your bedroom.”

      “Aww, go ahead, Baby. Just pull that plug.”

      1. Most phones have an off switch.

        1. Most girls have volition, too.

          But apparently not at Jezebel or Feministing or…

    4. free will, how does it work?

      1. in the absence of personal responsibility, not too well.

    5. Derivative, schmerivative. How the hell can you possibly get it up if she doesn’t pout?!

    6. I agree with you and Yoana and must reiterate the fact that I’m a 25-year-old professional woman with fairly advanced feminist world views, and yet I still feel extremely pressured to keep myself well-groomed and feminine-looking. I completely acknowledge that I would not be adhering to these pressures sans patriarchy.

      God bless the patriarchy.

  27. State Department to fire high-level bureaucrat for criticizing the war effort in Iraq.
    You mean the one Obama won all by his self the day he took office? Sounds about 3 years late to be relevant.

    1. I blame Bush

      1. Let the Great Obama Purges begin.
        I predict, once they are done cleaning out any independent thought from bureacracy, the Germans will attack Pearl Harbor.

  28. “The detrimental effects of drugs have been well documented: short-term memory loss, loss of core motor functions, heightened risk of lung disease, short-term memory loss, and even death,” McConnell wrote.

    I didn’t realize all drugs caused lung disease.

    1. Drugs are bad, mm’kay? All drugs can hurt your lungs. Cause drugs are bad, mmmm’kay?

      1. Old age does all those things two, ya know. Maybe we should outlaw old fucks like McConnell.

        1. Second!

          1. He’s the worst. Right up there with cousin-fucking on the list of things that make Kentucky a laughingstock.

            1. I was on assignment in your land last week, SF, for some underground ziplining and for distillery tours.
              Grueling work, sure. But I work hard ’til the people know.

              1. And man-oh-man — the best Manhattans of my life at the Brown Hotel bar — of course, at $14 a pop, they’d better be good. I think they were using Russell’s Reserve Six-year-old rye.
                Grueling, I tell ya.

              2. Did you go to Buffalo Trace?

                Buffalo Trace: You Can Really Taste The Buffalo

                1. Not this trip. I’ve been to BT twice before, though. It’s actually quite a good tour.
                  This time I made the journey down to Bardstown — Maker’s Mark and Heaven Hill. Plus, a couple of old friends joined me one day so I had to take them up to Woodford Reserve — the best tour of the lot, in my opinion.

                  1. Did you get a Hot Brown at the hotel? They were invented there, after all.

                    1. No. That woulda taken up room needed to store the rye.

                    2. “Hot Brown on Rye” *wink*

              3. Hmm. Maybe I need to visit Kentucky. I really can’t think of anything that sounds better than underground ziplines and whiskey distilleries right now.

        2. I have to wonder – did he put “short-term memory loss” on there twice on purpose?

    2. Brownies cause lung disease? Shit, somebody get me a lawyer. I’m gonna sue the crap out of Ghirardelli.

      1. And, think of the effect of second-hand crumbs!

        1. second hand crumbs attract pests, which becomes a public health hazard.

          Put the brownie down, slowly, so we can shoot you and your dog safely.

    3. The detrimental effects of drugs have been well documented: short-term memory loss, loss of core motor functions, heightened risk of lung disease, short-term memory loss, and even death,

      Snort-term memory loss, you say?

    4. The detrimental effects of drugs have been well documented

      In that case why not legalize them and allow adults to make their own informed decisions about whether or not to partake and how much/ how often to partake? My guess is that most people who want to use drugs already do anyway.

      I hate how these assclowns think the WOD is the only thing standing between a civilized society and a nation of strung out druggies and stoners.

  29. Rachel Weisz is still hot:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..-York.html

    1. MAN she’s still gorgeous, mmm’kay?

    2. She cleans up nice, but some of the pics I’ve seen of her lately caught by paparazzi were less than flattering.

      1. That is every woman. Even the Victoria secret models have points where they don’t look perfect.

        1. No fucking shit. Next you’re going to tell me that water is wet, right?

          1. Then what was the point of your post? She doesn’t always look perfect. So what?

            1. I forgot I was dealing with “I’ll fuck anything that walks on two legs and has a vagina” John.

              Sorry.

              Go back to your bunk.

              1. Rachel is hot.

              2. And you say that like it is a bad thing sarcasmic.

              3. STEVE SMITH FUCK ANYTHING WITH TWO LEGS! VAGINA OPTIONAL!

    1. Mother Jones thinks about 95% of people are idiots

      1. I wonder if the irony burns so hot their office might catch fire?

      2. I concur, just not the same 95%.

        1. That magazine is a Gaia-send.

    2. “As many as 20 million eagles, condors, swans and other birds die each year due to lead poisoning after consuming what’s left behind.”

      That’s just bullshit.

      1. “Can you prove it didn’t happen?”

        1. Actually yes, the Feds keep track of raptor populations. I don’t know about swans, but they’re just geese with self-image problems.

          1. We’ve actually seen quite the little increase in swan population in our neck of the woods.

            Anecdotal, of course, but interesting. All the sudden more and more on the lake we boat on, esp. the last two years.

            They’re so pretty, I have to remind myself that they’re just white geese with even bigger turds they leave all over.

            Fucking rats of the sky…

      2. “As many as 20 million eagles, condors, swans and other birds die each year due to lead poisoning after consuming what’s left behind.”

        I don’t know, shouldn’t creatures that must fly to survive and then go and eat lead be sort of Darwin’d out anyway?

        1. Birds eat little rocks. Shot is a lot liek little rocks. I’m sure birds do eat shot sometimes. It has been enough of a problem for Loons that lead shot has been banned for waterfoul hunting in a lot of places. But a general ban woudl be just insane. I don’t think that a lot of birds are coming to ranges to eat up shot. And obviously the expense of alternate materials would be absurd.

          1. chist Zeb, 1min.

        2. don’t they eat rocks, for their gullet grinding action?

    3. Yes, the lead ammo is teh BAD because it can leech into the water supply, just like lead ammo did in the US after the Civil War, and in Europe after WWI and WWII and all those earlier wars, and…

      Oh, wait…

      I actually learned that the raw lead “encapsulates” itself very shortly after it hits the ground (which I did not know), kind of like aluminum does, which is why it DOESN’T leech.

      Which is why lead ammo has NEVER been an issue….unless you get shot with it, in which case, that’s bad, mmm’kay.

      Interesting. Also, fuck Mother Jones. Again.

      1. Not even with your dick, matey

      2. Putting aside that lead itself is rather inert, most lead bullets are swaged with other metals that make them even less chemically reactive.

      3. random thought: I wonder if the Somme or Verdun has higher lead toxicity rates? Almost 100 years later, and they’re still digging up shells.

    4. Pencil lead is the real hazard.

      1. YOU’LL PUT YOUR EYE OUT!!!

        AND STOP EATING THE PASTE!!!

  30. John Derbyshire on Fluke:

    When I was a kid, the social injustices we heard about were serious stuff. Down in the slums there were rats and head lice and outdoor toilets. Men doing physical work, which was most men, got disabled & couldn’t get compensation. Women were shut out of professions. There was real discrimination, some of it legalized: against Catholics in Northern Ireland, against Protestants in Southern Ireland, against blacks in the U.S.A. The oldest generation of people I grew up amongst could remember much worse: child labor, poor people dying because they couldn’t afford medical treatment, malnutrition and vitamin deficiency in kids, coal miners locked out when they asked for better wages, helpless old people freezing to death in parish work-houses. Well within living memory, Western society has been seriously unjust.

    1. Incredibly, it seems to me, Ms Fluke’s entitled whining, so easily exposed as the fatuous gibberish it was, was taken seriously, by no less a person than the President of the United States. The POTUS actually phoned the woman and they wept together about the cruelty and injustice of trainee elites having to pay for their own sexual precautions.

      I can’t connect with this at all. Sandra Fluke seems to me to be some kind of space alien. It is astounding to me that anyone ? much less the President of the United States! ? regards her as having made some kind of contribution to the national conversation. Watching Ms Fluke’s testimony, I just wanted to yell at the screen: “Shut up, you pampered brat! Get back to the library and do some studying!”

      1. She tells us that Obama, in his phone call to her, told her her parents should be proud of her. Am I the only American who thinks that her parents should be dragged through the streets in chains behind wagons and pelted with rotten fruit? Probably.

        Am I really this old? When did this strange race of creaky-voiced self-important whingeing, emoting creeps take over the nation’s attention? Why on earth should anyone be expected to pay for another person’s carnal pleasures? Especially when the other person is training to enter the high elite? I feel disoriented. This is America? This?

      2. “The POTUS actually phoned the woman and they wept together about the cruelty and injustice of trainee elites having to pay for their own sexual precautions.”

        I think he only phoned her after she was publicly attacked in the right wing media.

        1. Its the presidents job to console people who are called nasty names.

          1. Pussy spoofer, the right leaning folks really have little actual arguments, eh?

            1. The president is going to give me call any second now, I have been called bad words.

            2. Aw, did the spoofer hurt your feelings? Would you like your chocolate sugar daddy to give you a call to make it better?

              1. Pointing out how desperate and pussified it is to spoof people on a chat board is not necessarily an indicator of hurt feelings my right wing friend.

                1. My endless outbursts on this matter are all in good jest, I really like people using my name after all.

                  1. When I sue to get the IP of these people who are spoofing me I will help you out too MNG spoofing is wrong. I never spoof anyone or post under a different handle

                    1. You just have a stalker who only posts on threads you are on as white indian and the liberal greifer. Got it rather. You are a victim.

                    2. John, you’re so stupid; that was not me A G A I N

        2. That’s retarded.

        3. So you are so sexist you think that a 30 year old woman is incapable of taking a harsh word from someone she hates anyway?

          1. Yes, and also microaggressive. You probably othered her too, you bastard

        4. Bill Clinton would’ve known how to handle her needs.

          1. this made me laugh

          2. I doubt Bill Clinton knows much about handleing a woman’s needs, but he does seem to be very adept at getting women to “handle his needs”, if you know what I mean.

        5. I think he only phoned her after she was publicly attacked in the right wing media.

          Uh yes. How would it have possibly had any publicity value for him otherwise?

          1. I’m sure there are hundreds — HUNDREDS — of private citizens he has called to console or to offer words of encouragement, only we never hear about those.

        6. I’d like a call from the Head Guy What’s In Charge, apologizing for being in charge of such a fucked-up administration… but that ain’t gonna happen.

          1. He might have five minutes to call you for some soft ‘n’ sexy chat, though

            1. Ew. Ewwwwwww.

    2. Derbyshire is great. He is by far and away the best writer National Review has.

      1. You Johns all stick together.

        1. It’s a cult. Like Mormonism and George Will.

          1. You are on to us SF.

            1. I KNEW IT!

              1. John is George Will, and George Will is MORMON?!!!

                This is a day of much new information at Reason.

                1. your mind = TEH BLOWN!

      2. Good work, John.

        The GOP is always right.

      3. Derb apparently has cancer
        http://takimag.com/article/lif…..qus_thread

        1. That is horrible. I trade emails with him occasionally. He is a wonderfully thoughtful and interesting guy. He is by far the smartest and most interesting atheist I know of. Guess that is why I haven’t heard from him for a while.

          1. I don’t agree with Derb on everything, but I admit I’m a sucker for his oh, so British wit.

            1. He has that. And he is also a wicked smart mathematician. He manages to be an atheist without being a bigoted prick. I would take his thoughts on religion, God and morality over a mediocrity like Hitchens any day. He should be much more well known and admired than he is.

          2. He’s probably spending a lot of his time these days contemplating that atheist deal.

            1. I was shot and almost bled to death. There was no one in the foxhole except me.

              1. There are lots of atheists in fox holes. And when people do change and accept God, it is never, in my experience, a near death experience that causes it.

                1. Nope. You just have to hit absolute, rock fucking bottom in your life. And that’s where you’ll always find Teh Jebus waiting for you.

      4. While I enjoy Derbyshire, I think that Mark Steyn is, by far, the best over at NR.

        1. I don’t like Steyn. I get tired of his whinning and crying. Every post is basically some kind of rewrite of “we are not having enough children and are doomed.”.

  31. When people say that America is not acting like an empire, I will use that soldier who killed all those people and is safe from Afghan jurisdiction.

  32. Libertarians are just Freepers who want to smoke pot and make sunday beerruns.

    Yep, pretty much. SO SUE ME!

    1. Why are you so mad Amanian? You are not supposed to laugh at the griefer. It has gotten so bad, he can’t even post primitivist bullshit anymore.

    2. Language is changing so rapidly, what is a freeper supposed to be ?

      1. No one really knows. It is just our fat gamboler’s way of saying “I am too retarded to respond but I don’t like you”.

      2. Free Republic – website where RWers post links and comment on them… oh, wait.

        1. What can I call a person who posts on Reason ?

          1. I vote “REApers”

            1. Don’t fear us.

          2. Reasonites?

          3. What can I call a person who posts on Reason ?

            Master.

          4. ‘libertarian asshole’ seems to be the consensus choice of those who don’t post here.

      3. I don’t even know, but if it involves smoking more pot, I’m for it.

    3. The best part of the Rush Fluke meltdown was not what the media pushed. On the same day he went on this rant about how, by providing condoms and birth control to people the Democrat party was trying to buy the votes of “people who want to stay at home and have sex all day.”

      I laughed thinking, Rush has unwittingly gave the Democrats an ad campaign 🙂

      1. Well I won’t be staying at home all the time, I do vacation in places like Spain, these things cost money so I do need some help with my birth control pills.

        1. So many Latin lovers, so little time…

  33. lol that makes no sense at all dude.

    http://www.World-Anon.tk

    1. Anonbot is getting sort of confrontational now…

  34. Let’s hear it for our stuck-in-the-stone-age fellow humans on the other side of the world.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2…..s-outrage/

    1. That is so fucking enraging. I want to punch a Moroccan judge repeatedly in the throat

    2. At least people in Morocco are protesting this shit. In Afghanistan I’m pretty sure forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist just means it’s Thursday and they’re out of acid to throw in schoolgirl’s faces.

  35. Am I the only American who thinks that her parents should be dragged through the streets in chains behind wagons and pelted with rotten fruit?

    No.

    1. Fluke’s parents?

    2. I don’t want them dragged through the the street. Maybe a stiff fine for raising a member of the professionally outraged class.

      1. As a parent, I must object. Although my kids appear well on their way to being good little independent thinkers, that independence can lead to “oh shit, that’s not my kid…” behavior.

        I think of the Union Chairman at my first mfg plant – a child of wealthy upbringing whose revolt against daddy was to become a tradesman (he was a good Tool and Die man), become active in the Union, and become the biggest pain in the ass Chairman I’ve ever dealt with. EXTREMELY smart guy, but rebelling against daddy to this day – he’s in his 60’s, for fuck’s sake.

        So – yeah, Vagina Monologue Fluke of Nature’s family may just be typical left wing fucksticks. But until I know that fer sher…I’ll just hope that my kids continue to laugh at people like her and not become her.

        1. Someone should be held responsible for her. Someone let her get a hold of an Utne Reader at a young age. Someone let her major in Aggrieved Studies. Someone paid for her to go to Georgetown.

          Let the parents make their own case that they are not responsible.

          1. Cardinal Fang! READ the charges!

          2. Would you let a 10 year old play with a chainsaw unsupervised? I didn’t think so. Then why would you let a child get a hold of a Utne Reader unsupervised? Both objects can do life long and irreversible damage.

            1. I used to read Utne Reader and survived. It can happen. But yeah, I am sure all the folks I used to hang with in college are all further off the left edge of the deep end than they were before.

          3. Oh, PS – “someone should be responsible for her” – I vote for “she should be responsible for herself”.

            1. I am aim for a chilling effect.

              1. FUCKING GERUNDS!

            2. Well, Almanian, she obviously doesn’t think she should be responsible for herself, so I vote we take her at her word.

              Somebody should start guardianship proceedings on her, poor thing.

          4. For all we know, they did the best they could but she took youthful rebellion too far – sneaking off behind the shed to read the naughty magazine, stealing money from her mother’s purse to fund the neighbourhood underground puppeteer, trying to get the local government to shut down the local supermarket for selling racist vegetables etc

            1. What is the most racist vegetable? Ghost pumpkins? KKKale?

              1. I don’t know if it’s racist, but artichoke-a-bitch is a real prick.

              2. What is the most racist vegetable?

                Black-eyed peas (in addition to being the shittiest band in the history of pop “music”). They should be called African American-eyed peas.

          5. Someone should be held responsible for her.

            I blame Bush.

  36. This is America? This?

    Before I pat you on your weary wondering little head and say, “There, there, John”, tell me what you think about the TSA. And flashbang grenades in children’s bedrooms.

    1. Derbyshire hates the TSA. And he doesn’t write much about the drug war. I can’t believe he would have much good to say about his excesses.

      1. The editorial line at NR was anti-drug war for a long time. Not sure if it still is, though; I only stick my head in there for a couple of specific authors nowadays.

        1. It is all over the map. Goldberg is pro legalized pot. I am not sure where Debryshire stands. NRO has run several editorials that were very critical of the drug war. They are much better than they used to be.

    2. My enduring memory of the St. Elian Gonzales fiasco was the still pic of the SWATzi dude wielding the AR in full military gear, grabbing the kid from the guy’s arms who’s hiding in the closet.

      That was – what – a decade or so ago? So, yeah…it’s only gotten worse since then.

      Fuck tha poe lease. And fuck the TSA.

      1. I will never forget my liberal friends defending the use of the SWAT team. It was very educational. It really made it clear they didn’t give a flying fuck about civil liberties or curbing government power.

        1. It really made it clear they didn’t give a flying fuck about civil liberties or curbing government power.

          For me I realized liberals didn’t care about those things when I had an aging hippie douche college professor try to rationalize Stalin’s muderous behavior. The said part is that I went to a fairly conservative engineering university. I’d hate to think what kind of shit I would have had to listen to if I’d gone to a state run liberal arts college.

  37. Man shot by tactical officers thought there was an intruder on his property

    The man shot by Washington County tactical officers in New Columbia Tuesday night had grabbed a gun because he thought intruders were on his property after his wife had checked on their barking dog in their backyard and saw a stranger in dark clothing.

    Alberto Flores-Haro, according to relatives and witnesses, did not know that the men surrounding his home and neighborhood Tuesday night were authorities approaching to raid a residence just a few doors down from his home in the 9500 block of North Woolsey Avenue.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/port…..ounty.html

    1. Who other than a cop would be dumb enough to think it is a good idea to dress in dark clothes and run around in people’s yards in the middle of the night.

      That is just pathetic planning.

      1. “”That is just pathetic planning.””

        Considering their plan allowed a situation where the target of the raid would be tipped off by gun fire a couple of doors down, and that incident would pull the SWAT team away from the intended target to deal with the mess, yeah.

    2. Let’s hope they sue.

      1. He would get a settlement of taxpayer money at best. It’s hard to beat the calm that the officer fired in self-defense when the guy is pointing a gun at the officer. Sure the guy could make the same claim. But which side would the jury take?

        Just sayin, and I would love to be wrong.

    3. Neighbor Juan Soto Martinez… said he heard Flores at his front door yelling with a man, who seemed to be outside, on the side of his house. Then, he heard multiple gunshots
      Ibarra said his family had no idea that the men surrounding their home in tactical uniforms of army green were from the Washington County Sheriff’s Office’s Tactical Negotiation Team

      Wow, that’s some top notch negotiating there.

    4. AND ___________ HAPPENED

    5. “Thought” there was an intruder on his property? There were intruders on his property.

  38. A college level class on Navigating Pornography?

    I suppose the prerequisite list includes such intellectual adventures as “Eating Soup- fork or spoon?”

    1. Always choose C: Spork.

    2. It’s Pasadena City College. They probably have a whole course of study in dog park design.

      Of course, aren’t you glad Hugo only has access to some of the least impressive intellects in the country?

      1. No. His students are the kind of idiots that go on to become mid-level bureaucratic functionaries.

        1. I said that they we some of the least impressive intellects in the country, didn’t I? Who, prey tell, do you think end up being mid-level bureaucratic functionaries?

          And Ezra Klein went to UC Santa Cruz… GO BANANA SLUGS!

          1. UCSC’s motto is Fiat lux . Ezra was bitterly disappointed to find that he would not receive an Italian car up graduation.

            That’s when he transferred to UCLA, where he applied to write for that bastion of journalistic excellence, The Daily Bruin, and was rejected.

    3. Only in CA would this be a full semester course. Everywhere else, you’re expected to learn it in a 30 minute discussion with a geek at a party.

  39. Well fuckity, fuck, fuck, fuck!

  40. It’s Pasadena City College. They probably have a whole course of study in dog park design.

    I’m sure Krugabe approves.

    1. Yes…that’s right…concentrate the dogs together in one easy to isolate group..yeeeeess.

      1. are you any relation to Paul Krugman’s pussy?

  41. His students are the kind of idiots that go on to become mid-level bureaucratic functionaries.

    You have no idea how intellectually rigorous those supervisory positions at the DMV are. There are white copies and yellow copies and PINK COPIES!

    1. Looking through policy manuals to find out what decision to make is hard work.

  42. The detrimental effects of drugs have been well documented: short-term memory loss, loss of core motor functions, heightened risk of lung disease, and even death

    The detrimental effects of drugs life have has been well documented: short-term memory loss, loss of core motor functions, heightened risk of lung disease, and even death.

  43. bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbboooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooobbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

  44. bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbboooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooobbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

  45. bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbboooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooobbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

  46. bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbboooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooobbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

  47. bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbboooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooobbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

  48. bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbboooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooobbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.