A.M. Links: Puerto Rico Chooses Romney, Obama Thanks Suckers For Giving Him $45 Million, Brooklyn Man Prepares for the Apocalypse

|

  • Mitt Romney continues to win over America's pet islands

  • Rick Santorum: Evil Mitt-1000 "has no core." 
  • Sen. John McCain calls this GOP presidential campaign the "nastiest." 
  • Raising the Medicare elgibility age is still on the table, says President Obama
  • Also, thanks for the $45 million you gave me in February, he added. 
  • Brooklyn handyman prepares for the end times

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: "Atlas Shrugged: Part II Greenlighted, In Theaters Next Fall"

NEXT: Even Osama bin Laden Couldn't Take Joe Biden Seriously; Plus, al Qaeda's PR Man Nursed Grudge Toward Fox News

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

  1. Fast & Furious!

    1. “Fast and Furious scandal update shows whistleblower risks”

      http://www.examiner.com/conser…..ower-risks

      1. Are you stupid fucks still trying to gin up a scandal out of this?

        You and the airheads at Fox and Friends. Good luck.

        1. You are right shrike, the current administration could kill a busload of babies and the media would be just fine with it.

          1. Shrike would be ok with it as long as Team Blue does it.

            1. especially since it would be killing the babies for teh childrenz

              1. That’s our shrike! What a scamp!

        2. Do you think it shouldn’t be a scandal?

        3. You’re so objective, Shrike. I always turn to you when I’m looking for no-bias commentary on the issues that shape my life.

        4. explain to me how it does not qualify as a scandal

          1. Because the entire deal rests on whether Holder REALLY knew about old gun-walking programs before he sent an e-mail saying he didn’t.

            Holder is a POS on medicinal marijuana but this is just an absurd banality.

            1. also, christfag.

            2. Regardless, the DOJ is responsible for what happens. Responsibility does not end in-between administrations. If Holder is denying his own responsibility for what happened, then he should be putting someone forward that is. Unless, of course, he doesn’t really have a problem with the whole program and the results.

              1. Has anyone at ATF been indicted?

                1. Not that I’m aware of. They’ve been indicting straw purchasers like crazy in Arizona, most likely to try to show some positive results from Gunwalker after the clusterfuck that it turned out to be.

                  1. There you go. The only “crime” I see is the pointless waste of government funds by zealous ATF operatives.

                    I hope someone at ATF was at least fired.

                    1. Wish granted. They fired the whistleblower.

        5. The real scandal is that you all are responding to such an obvious troll. I just laugh and laugh at your stupidity while touching myself.

          1. also, christfag.

        6. The true measure of the public reception is not in terms of media coverage but in the spike in gun purchases.

          http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/d…..31765.html

          Of course, if it is a subject not talked about inside the MSM punditry generated bubble that shrike lives in it can’t be that important.

    2. Glenn Beck is talking about your brainwashing video now.

  2. “Obama admits that he is a Muslim. Obama bowing before a Muslim king. Obama talking about his Muslim family. Obama quoting from the Koran. Obama defending Islam. Obama visiting a Mosque. And many more clips of Obama and his Muslim connections.”

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

    1. Who cares? The only part of this whole “obama is a secret muslim” thing that is fun is that it often baits obama defenders into saying things that imply being muslim is a bad thing. Everything else is a huge waste of time and is enormously counterproductive. Ron Paul is paying repeatedly for being involved in what appeared to be an attempt to appeal to the worst of people’s racist and paranoid mentalities to gain support for a (hopefully) unaffiliated campaign for greater liberty. Why would anyone seek to repeat that?

      1. RoboCain is more at home at Free Republic with John and about 10 others here.

        If his handle is a tribute to Herman Cain we know he is a simpleton dumbass just from that.

        1. also, christfag

    2. Personally don’t care whether or not he is a Muslim. I do care that he’s an economic nitwit and an authoritarian asshole.

      1. I second that emotion

    3. There are so many real things to criticize Obama for. Why do people go to so much trouble in making shit up?

  3. “Amish Are Exempt From Obamacare But Catholics Are Not”

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.co…..s-are-not/

    1. The Amish aren’t United States Citizens. Catholics are, as they have socialist security cards.

      1. Ha ha, where’s your God now, papists?

    2. The Catholics made a fatal error…they should have asked for exemption from ALL of obamacare.

      It was trying to pick and choose that doomed them. See colleges and financial aid for another example.

      1. guess that ole’ social justice came ’round to bite you in the arse…
        imagine, thinking that they could wheel and deal with someone from Chicago…

  4. “Try to imagine a similar ad aimed at Muslims – or attacking atheists – and imagine the reaction of the New York Times – and the liberal disciples of tolerance who are suspiciously quiet in the wake of this obvious expression of hate and intolerance.”

    http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2012/0…..s-hate.php

      1. Excellent — both your link-fu and the story itself.

    1. Sarah Gellar tried to put one in the NYT urging people to quit Islam. Don’t hold your breath waiting to see it.

      1. Wrong Gellar.

        1. I spelled the right one wrong.

  5. “Their butts were being filled with toxic substances like as flat-tire sealant, glue cement and chalk”

    http://www.gadgetreview.com/20…..-case.html

    1. Come for the sun, stay for the pill-mills and sketchy plastic surgery!

  6. “we’re not aliens, we’re atheists!”

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012…..oly-water/

    1. In that part of Florida, it qualifies you as an alien

  7. “Boise Police arrested Cynthia Clinkingbeard, 58, Boise, on Friday after she reportedly walked into a store at Eagle Road and Chinden Boulevard and threatened employees with a gun.

    The website of the Idaho Secretary of State lists Clinkingbeard as a Democratic candidate in the May 15 primary race for the First District congressional seat.”

    http://www.idahostatesman.com/…..idate.html

    1. She probably snapped after years of being bullied about her name.

      1. Yeah, Cynthia is a pretty stupid name.

        1. Type cunt in an android device and auto-correct will give you…

          1. Odd, my phone autocorrects it to “thundertwat.”

            1. You must have an early release of Ice Cream Sandwich. Bastard.

          2. Yes. YES!! Why do you have to keep repeating that?!

          3. HOW DARE YOU!

            1. Spoofers Suck

  8. What? Smoking Is Deadly? What about Russian Roulette? Fort the first inaugural campaign, the Centers for Disease Control will ante up $54 million on the 411

  9. Guns must now require technology that does not exist:

    http://org2.democracyinaction……EY=1198400

    1. Microstamping imprints a unique alpha-numeric code on a shell casing each time a semi-automatic handgun is fired.

      Revolvers deemed illegal in 3, 2, 1, ….

      1. More like all guns, since no one makes a gun that has microstamping.

      2. Sandpaper soon to be declared an illegal substance.

        1. What am I, chopped liver?

      3. As if the unique markings left there already were not enough?

    2. These people are so fucking dumb. Microstamping is putting a unique id on the tip of firing pin so it marks the casing when fired. There’s only about fifty bazillion ways to defeat or game that system. Criminals will never think of any of them.

      1. “I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns.” –Howard Metzenbaum, D-NY

        1. D-OH, excuse me.

          1. Hey, that’s my line!

    3. But hands off abortion.

      1. Perhaps folks would be more amenable to abortion if we required microstamping of the fetuses?

  10. “Tucson schools create race-based system of discipline…Some behavior will be met with strict penalties; some will not. It all depends on the color of the student’s skin.”

    http://www.azcentral.com/arizo…..n0920.html

    1. Ha, ha, I already have a solution, I will declare myself to be an Albino Black who ancestors came from Africa.

    2. Wow. Just…wow.

      Glad I’m only here for college.

    3. All skin is red on the inside.

      There is no effin’ way this will stand up.

    4. And remeber, refusing to subject your kids to this latest bit of public school insanity is inconsistent with progressive values.

    5. Tuscon Unified School District hearts social engineering:

      With the goal of creating a “restorative school culture and climate” that conveys a “sense of belonging to all students,” the board is insisting that its schools reduce its suspensions and/or expulsions of minority students to the point that the data reflect “no ethnic/racial disparities.”

      No surprise that little vermin Tim Wise was at this thing, too.

  11. “In the Democrat mind, sex without sex’s consequences are the only thing that women should think about when they approach a voting booth. Finney and Thompson, et. al., truly cannot comprehend a woman going to vote who is more concerned about the dent in her paycheck caused by $5-per-gallon gasoline than finding free condoms…

    The real issue of gender politics and “women’s health” is neither women nor their health. It is increasing their dependency on statist bureaucrats and increasing control over evermore of the way we live.”

    http://wizbangblog.com/2012/03…..e-economy/

    http://senseofevents.blogspot……exual.html

    1. Yeah,

      Cause it’s women, not men, that want consequence free sex.

    2. Why are these creepy fuckers so obsessed with everybody’s junk?

  12. Cool civil war finds in a field hospital for wounded soldiers

    1. I really, really think this guy needs to be charged and tried to establish limits on the “stand your ground” laws, if for no other reason. But the rush to hang him as a racist is pretty off-putting. He might be, but the part where he’s not being arrested claiming self-defense after dialing 911 from the car before getting out for no reason connected to his own safety or fear for thereof, is unsettling.

      1. The racism part conceivably goes to motive, as opposed to a thoughtcrime angle. But to me, it seems like there is enough evidence to arrest and let claims of self-defense be paid in a courtroom.

    2. The situation is tragic but the commenters on the linked article are complete fucking morons.

    3. I find the silence on H&R over this really interesting, especially since this incident challenges the consensus here re: personal firearms and community self-regulation. Just imagine the outcry if a cop had done this. But when it’s a guy who’s living the creed of ‘an armed society is a polity society’…[crickets]. This case is exactly the sort of thing libertarians need to grapple with to achieve mainstream political legitimacy – the same way people with security state hard-ons have to confront police brutality, etc.

  13. “It should be illegal to purchase helium unless you are 21 or are a licensed doctor or anesthesiologist”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com…..#pagebreak

    1. Helium balloons deemed illegal in 3, 2, 1, ….

    2. This is truly a noble proposal. Sanding inertly by with no reaction to these preventable tragedies is simply not an option.

      1. ^^well played. you are obviously in your element!

        1. Only periodically.

    3. but how will we say things in silly voices without it?

      1. Suffering succotash!

    4. “6 year olds can buy a tank of helium”

      Yeah all those 6 year olds who walk around with money in their pockets are buying helium all the time. What the fuck?

      1. Candy, …. or helium?

      2. Like all those teenage anesthesiologists.

      3. 6 year olds can buy uranium.
        http://www.amazon.com/Images-S…..722&sr=8-1

  14. Bree Olson: Naked for KONY 2012

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

    1. Bree’s been hitting the potato chips

      1. Yeah, she’s getting a little chubby.

        I’d probably still hit it anyways. Just to say I slept with a porn star.

        1. According to the old “you’ve slept with all your sex partner’s sex partners”, once you’ve hit one, you’ve hit ’em all.

          1. Six degrees of penetration.

        2. who would you say it to and why would they be impressed?

    2. Man, I’m convinced now! (writing anti-KONY check)

  15. It’s good to be a rock star.

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

    1. That guy’s not any better looking than me… I know I’ve got a guitar in a closet somewhere.

    2. If it means having to listen to Kate Hudson talk I don’t want any part of it anyway.

    3. Kate is looking a little tubby by your standards. I must finally be getting you to like women.

      1. Don’t flatter yourself Mr Chubby Chaser.

  16. The future of wind power.

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

  17. Bar Refaeli is still hot.

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

    1. Definitely the love of my life. I’d have no reason to leave the house, ever.

    2. She does look ten years older without the makeup.

      1. and still 100% fuckable.

  18. Rose McGowan needs to lay off the plastic surgery.

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

    1. I saw that. She has looked better in other pictures and in a couple of recent movies (neither of them good) than those pictures. Still, she did smash her face in a car accident 🙁

      1. In that light:

        She also took a spin on some bumper cars during her day of fun, tweeting: ‘Bumper cars in Vienna! I love smashing things.’

  19. And finally, Kate Moss is still hot.

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

  20. Obama to defend energy, Keystone policies next week
    http://content.usatoday.com/co…..2XmbfWk3IU

    Under fire from Republicans over high gas prices, President Obama heads west next week to promote and defend his energy policies — including his approach to the Keystone XL pipeline, a major GOP election issue.

    er, why weren’t you “let be clear” more in the beginning, or did I miss something?

    1. MOAR ALGAE!

  21. Robocain has overriden the preset limits!

    What have we done?

    1. Try throwing water on him, then challenge him to hold two contradictory true statements in his circuits.

      1. This… sentence… is… FALSE!

        “Uh, true. I’ll go with with true on that. But, I think I’ve heard that one before, so, kind of cheating.”

        1. “He’s not just a regular moron. He’s the product of the greatest minds of a generation working together with the express purpose of building the dumbest moron who ever lived. And you just put him in charge of the entire facility.”

          1. I was playing that again this weekend.

      2. Dude, I think it would help if you would break down such an advanced scientific concept with a simple metaphor.

        Like they used to do on Star Trek.

        1. IF A & !A THEN *BZZZZT* END IF

          BASIC enough for you?

          1. Dude, you missed my extremely oblique Futurama reference.

            1. Doh! Don’t feel bad, I’ve got an Archer reference twisting in the wind down-thread.

              1. I would reply appropriately, but I just haven’t gotten around to watching the new episode yet. Damn Mass Effect 3!

                1. Stop playing now! The crap endgame, ending, and ultimate pointlessness of all your decisions will lead you to a week long depression, followed by murderous rage.

              2. And yet you callously disregard the fresh periodic table meat above.

                1. I thought it could have been condensed and a bit more fluid, but it was a noble effort.

                  1. I was going for a more subtle tone rather than a glaring halogen lamp.

            2. Hey db/RoboCain, get a lab

              1. Any interest in a ternary mixture, ifh?

            3. well, i’ve heard they have very attractive properties…

  22. Obama’s evolution: Behind the failed ‘grand bargain’ on the debt
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    But interviews with most of the central players in those talks ? some of whom were granted anonymity to speak about the secret negotiations ? as well as a review of meeting notes, e-mails and the negotiating proposals that changed hands, offer a more complicated picture of the collapse. Obama, nervous about how to defend the emerging agreement to his own Democratic base, upped the ante in a way that made it more difficult for Boehner ? already facing long odds ? to sell it to his party. Eventually, the president tried to put the original framework back in play, but by then it was too late. The moment of making history had passed.

  23. Rick Santorum: Obama administration is soft on pornography

    Rick Santorum on Sunday stood firm on his position that the Justice Department under President Obama “seems to favor pornographers over children and families.”

    “Under the Bush administration, pornographers were prosecuted much more rigorously than they are under existing law, than they under the Obama administration,” Santorum said. “So you draw your conclusion.”

    Santorum added that the Obama administration has “not put a priority on prosecuting these cases. And in doing so they are exposing children to a tremendous amount of harm.”

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

    1. Romney has to be loving this nonsense. Anyone sensible will realize Santorum would be destroyed in the general with rhetoric like that.

      1. And yet Ron Paul is considered unelectable.

        1. I’d love to see him get equal treatment in the general, in a three way race against Robamney.

          1. I see what you did there.

    2. Seriously, if Rick actually goes through with that, he will be the first Republican to lose the male vote in, like, forever.

      Although weird personal story: My next door neighbors had a week of very loud fights in the middle of the goddamn night over what I later learned was the guy’s habit of watching porn, with the chick even going so far to compare it to her fucking other guys. Seriously, I do not blame the dude. The chick is super unattractive and pretty hefty and always wears sweatpants. The guy is grey, but he also seems to give a crap about his appearance. Honestly, I would guess that he’s just in the closet.

      1. Was it gay porn?

        1. I couldn’t tell, but I don’t think so.

          But seriously, if I cared, I would have knocked on the door. It was every damn night for a week.

          1. But, yeah, who needs sleep.

            1. It’s mostly just not wanting to get involved, in any way shape or form.

              1. Just slip a note under his door when the wife unit is away. You’ll sleep moar.

                “Incognito mode”

        2. Grey porn

    3. “Under the Bush administration, pornographers were prosecuted much more rigorously than they are under existing law, than they under the Obama administration,” Santorum said. “So you draw your conclusion.”

      *fap*fap*fap*fap*

    4. And in doing so they are exposing children to a tremendous amount of harm.”

      Nice straw man.

    5. Rick Santorum: Obama administration is soft on pornography

      I honestly don’t know which would be a worse president. Why do these fucking fucks have to have a hand on the dial?

    6. What is funny is that it is not even true. DOJ is out prosecuting the dog fucker. I don’t see any evidence where things have changed one bit under Obama. The laws are there and US Attorneys love to use them because it is easier to prosecute a dog fucker than it is a real criminal.

      Not only is Santorum an idiot, he doesn’t even have a valid criticism of Obama by his own terms.

      1. Yeah, John, but Obama doesn’t talk about the devil weed the evil porn enough.

      2. You wish John since you dont want to acknowledge any possible area where Obama might be better, but Politico (referenced in the article) and Sullum here have noted the change in prosecutions from Bush to Obama.

        1. Give me the link. I think the guy in California would disagree. Show me that statistics.

          And don’t give me the “the case started under Bush”. So what, they can drop the case at any time.

          1. When Bush came in he created a task force which lent federal prosecutors to local DA’s for obscenity prosecution. It was pretty unprecedented. Obama terminated that task force. Dozens of GOPer Congresscritters wrote a letter of protest.

            Face it John, you’re the Party of Prudes.

            1. http://www.politico.com/blogs/…..ml?showall

              “Anti-pornography activists have noted with alarm that, under President Barack Obama, the Justice Department has not filed a single new obscenity case anywhere in the country.”

              “In recent decades, Democratic administrations have tended to focus on child pornography prosecutions while Republicans have sporadically pursued more cases of adult obscenity.”


              1. The catalyst for a renewed fight over pornography is a recent, little-noticed move by Attorney General Eric Holder to shutter the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force, a special Justice Department unit set up during the Bush administration under pressure from conservatives upset about the proliferation of obscene material on the Internet.”

                Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s…..z1pZi5L800

            2. Good for Obama. I guess Holder was too busy shipping guns to Mexico to have time.

              And the feminist left is even more prudish than the SOCONs. I know it pains you to admit that anyone on the Left could be wrong about anything. But I don’t see how the feminist left is any better about pornography.

              And note, none of the Bush cases were stopped.

    7. Yeah, I remember those days of the Bush administration when it was hard for kids to find porn.

      God damn, Sanotorum is an idiot.

  24. John Kerry tied to controversial Bain Capital investment
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ml?hpid=z2

    The New York Times reported today that a fund operated by Bain Capital, the Boston-based private equity firm founded by Mitt Romney, has invested in a Chinese company that provides equipment for government efforts to monitor Chinese citizens at religious institutions, university campuses, and other venues.

    Romney, it turns out, isn’t the only prominent American politician connected with that controversial investment: Former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, reported more money than Romney invested in the same fund on his most recent Senate disclosure form.

  25. Obama Parries Criticism as Fund-Raising Eats Into His Schedule
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03…..l?_r=2&hp;

    How presidents use their time inevitably becomes a target for scrutiny and criticism, particularly when a campaign heats up. The White House insisted this week that Mr. Obama still spends “the vast preponderance of his time on his official duties.” But with his schedule increasingly crowded by fund-raisers and speeches that could easily double as campaign rallies, that case is getting harder and harder to make.

  26. Mitt 1000 is a huge upgrade over Gore 5000, but they were both manufactured in the same facility.

    1. The Duroplast skin is much better than the old rubber synthetic.

      1. The 600 series had rubber skin. We spotted them easy, but these are new. They look human… sweat, bad breath, everything. Very hard to spot.

    2. But is he better than Robocain?

  27. Wanna know what I find interesting?

    There has been extensive coverage in the gay blogosphere (I include Gawker in this, btw) of the Tyler Clementi/Ravi verdict, but there was nary a peep of the lesbian on gay dude hate crime a few weeks back.

    1. Aren’t all crimes that have a victim “hate” crimes?

      1. Nu-uh! It’s worse in this case because all gay people are special little snowflakes.

        Also, privilege.

      2. Nope. It’s strictly business.

    2. (How is Gawker a gay site?)

      Weren’t those black women attacking a white man? In the hierarchy of liberal identity politics, gender trumps race, and race trumps sexual preference.

      1. They have at least two gay editors, a large gay readership, and a sorting category for posts called “The gays”?

        1. Well, you certainly know more about it than I do. NTTIAWWT

          Regardless, I just think of them as a bunch of liberal asshats.

    3. Also, even though I think their response would have been different if Ravi were white, I remember at the time the story broke, Salon and other liberal sites were falling over each other to excuse the asian woman involved. Even arguing that she was practically a child.

  28. Is it a violation of journalistic ethics for a Reason staffer to receive direct cash (or gold/silver, of course) bribes in exchange for implementing a metamoderation system for comments?

    I say no.

    Dead serious. Just like Popeye, I’ve had all I can stands and I can’t stands no more. Just make it optional to preserve the freewheeling anarchy, and remember that if it turns out worse than the current situation (hyuk hyuk) we can always revert back. I suppose we could also do something boring like a mini-donation drive to pay for the implementation costs. Whatever gets results quicker, the better.

    1. DANGER ZONE!

      1. Would you say we’re heading into a zone that could be dangerous?

        1. perhaps the Highway to said Danger Zone?
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8rZWw9HE7o

        1. Sparky, you are in the isolation booth!

    2. What’s weird is that they are retroactive cleansing the comments. Check out this link from last Thursday. They removed the trolling and left in the anti-troll insults.

      1. “Saving or creating jobs since 2011.”

      2. Finally… I checked Reason this weekend and almost wanted to never come back – too much WI clogging up the threads.

        1. Sort of. All the crap from the weekend is still there. And what’s the point of doing it after the thread has imploded?

        2. I checked Reason this weekend and almost wanted to never come back

          Yeah, I took one look, laughed, and said “hah, fuck that.”

        3. It was full camp retard this weekend. I missed it fortunately. I did notice this morning where someone did get dumb Indian to finally admit that yes ridding the world of the city state will require killing a lot of people. But it was somehow okay because the city state is aggressive or something.

          1. I couldn’t tolerate it long enough to see that bit. Interesting.

            1. The problem is that people won’t voluntarily go primitive. You will have to force them. That means punishing people for doing so much as having a chicken.

        4. Yeah, I pretty much just avoid this site on the weekends.

      3. Yeah, I noticed that catching up on some articles I missed earlier. Glad that they did that but some of the responses left show why I’d still prefer metamoderation–because he urges people to stoop to his level with verbal shitflinging and after-the-fact cleansing just isn’t a solution when it comes to the kind of volume we’re dealing with here.

      4. Trolls get their jollies in real time; I can’t see them quitting over getting dumped down the memory hole.

      5. That is weird. I’m not seeing how deleting the troll after it’s done its trolling helps much.

    3. Registration can’t come soon enough. And if everybody had to sign in by way of facebook or twitter, that would be even better.

      Come out of the cupboard, you boys and girls.

      1. Except for those of us who don’t use either…

        1. +1,000,000,000,000

        2. Get an account.

          It doesn’t cost anything.

          And mostly people will know who you are.

          And that’s the point.

          50% of the problem disappears along with the anonymity. Another 40% disappears when it’s easy to block registered accounts.

          Facebook and twitter make it easy to log in, and it would help direct more traffic to the site from twitter and facebook.

          It’s a Win/Win for everybody but the anonymous cowards and the trolls.

          And as the for the anonymous cowards, surely there are plenty of other places to say things they’re too ashamed to attach their own names to, aren’t there?

          1. The reason for not participating in Facebook and Twitter is not that it’s hard or costs money, it’s that I have no desire to be subjected to stupid shit from people who are only “friends” because I have a page.

          2. Ken

            Forcing people to post under their real name is censorship.

            Anyone in a professional position (doctors, lawyers, businessmen) won’t post for fear of alienating 50% of their customers (ask the Dixie Chicks). Military can’t post…

            Do you know how many of the Founders wrote under an alias?

            Being anonymous allows honest opinions.

            1. Wow, I’m surprised to hear somebody posting under that moniker saying that.

              I don’t want a real name system either, but censorship isn’t what would be going on there.

            2. Government forcing people to post under their real names is censorship.

              Reason is not the government.

              You would be doing this voluntarily.

              And you could make up a fake name to participate. Most people (especially new people) would find it just as easy to sign in with their preexisting facebook or twitter account.

              They want to share what they say with their friends and family. …and that would vastly improve both the quality of comments and the reach of the site.

              If you don’t use your real name in your twitter or facebook account, I don’t suppose Reason would boot you–so long as you weren’t a vile troll.

              1. Ken/SRC

                Technically, you are correct. HOWEVER, Reason doesn’t support censorship. By talking the talk and not walking the walk, they would lose ALL credibility. As would any libertarian.

                1. but censorship isn’t what would be going on there.

                  SRC, it IS censorship. It just happens to be legal censorship. A private company can do whatever it wishes. That said, a media source, that lives and breathes by the First Amendment, choosing to censor its customers, would be the height of hypocrisy.

              2. Private organizations can censor too (as is their right). Just saying.

            3. This is the real reason I try to remain anonymous. I could easily stop the childish and vulgar posts I occasionally make for the sake of humor. However, I would be strongly curtailed from making some substantive posts because of the potential for my employer or colleagues to possibly take offense at my political opinions.

            4. I’m military, and I’d still post if I had to log-in via FB.

              However I’d start posting a lot more things my “friends” did, than stuff I, myself, did.

          3. It’s not exactly hard to get a fake Facebook account either.

          4. They don’t have to use third-party registration. They could easily set-up their own.

      2. And if everybody had to sign in by way of facebook or twitter, that would be even better.

        I lurked for about 7-8 years here and have commented for the last couple. Required Facebook/Twitter logins would probably be enough to get me to stop commenting. Or maybe I’d just set up a fake facebook account, but don’t let that take away from the gravity of my threat.

        1. moi aussi. And blocking would be better than moderation because we could preserve our anonymity. Hell, Reasonable already does a pretty good job at greying out the wankers to make it easy to ignore them (except for me of course, but give it time…)

        2. You can stop.

          You love it.

          You love it, and you can’t stop commenting.

          See my post above. Just becasue you’re required to sign in with a facebook or twitter account doesn’t mean you can’t be anonymous.

          1. Just becasue you’re required to sign in with a facebook or twitter account doesn’t mean you can’t be anonymous.

            IOW, it will accomplish nothing, while requiring extra steps to post.

            Do you work for the TSA, by any chance?

            1. IOW, it will accomplish nothing.

              We will find that new people, especially, who sign in via facebook and twitter, will be more civil.

              A lot of people who already comment here would rather share what they write here on facebook and twitter, too. They will also find themselves behaving more civilly than they used to.

              Let me put the question back to you. If making people sign in through facebook or twitter wouldn’t have any effect on the level of discourse around here, then is there any reason other than not being able to say horrible shit with impunity that makes you oppose making people sign in through facebook or twitter?

              What is the benefit of overwhelming anonymity here other than being free to say horrible shit you would never say otherwise?

              1. What is the benefit of overwhelming anonymity here other than being free to say horrible shit you would never say otherwise?

                Being able to say political shit I would never say otherwise.

                I am “out” as a libertarian to most of my friends and zero of my co-workers. I am “out” as an anarchist to about five people in real life. I am far from anonymous when I post here, but if there was a direct connection to FB or Twitter I would never say another word about reproductive rights, religion…anarchism itself.

                The only thing that really matters for these “civility” issues is the need for a persistent handle, not a real name. And FB accounts created under any other name are against their TOS and subject to deletion anyway.

                And I don’t think it’s a bonus to encourage FB comment integration. Everyone’s idiot relatives and friends coming here could be worse than the trolls.

                1. I can see how you might not talk about your anarchism or whatever so much. There are definitely things I don’t talk about because I’m using my real name.

                  But that’s the way life is, too. So maybe to get a bigger audience, the site changes in subtle ways. Maybe you don’t feel as comfortable talking about everything you used to…

                  If there 10 times fewer trolls and 10 times more people (especially non-libertarians) visiting the site? I think that would be worth it.

                  Again, I don’t really mind. I’ve been posting under my name here for 8 years, and there are a few things I don’t talk about because I use my real name, but not much.

                  It’s just like real life. There’s some stuff we just don’t say in public. That’s not an imposition. That’s being a part of society.

                  1. I’ll concede that some of the stuff people may want to say anonymously isn’t necessarily horrible shit.

                    I’m still questioning whether people censoring themselves is worse than keeping the site’s appeal to the general public limited. Whether keeping regular commenters free from censoring themselves like they do in public anyway is sufficient justification for leaving the trolls free to say horrible shit.

                    Y’all should check out a general news site sometime that requires a twitter or facebook account to log in and see the level of discourse there–relative to other general news sites.

                    This isn’t theoretical, in other words. It really does solve more than 90% of the problem.

                    1. But what is the point of attempting to appeal to the general public when folks are too afraid to speak their mind about real political issues on a political site? No more talk about guns, no talk about castle doctrine, no talk about police brutality, no talk about abortion, child protective services, the drug war…the list is practically endless. We are political outcasts on just about all of these issues and “scary” outcasts for many.

                      I mean some of it sounds stupid, but I don’t think it is. A lot of people here would probably still be A-OK talking about the guns they own. But if I even admitted I had ever shot one to half the people that know me in real life, the social ostracism would be insane. Let alone that I think anyone should be able to carry one anywhere they like (unless the property owner disagrees)!

                    2. But what is the point of attempting to appeal to the general public when folks are too afraid to speak their mind about real political issues on a political site?

                      You’re talking to somebody that’s been denouncing all sorts of stuff around here for 8 years. Being self-employed may have contributed to some of that, but generally speaking, I’m just not that afraid that people are going to find out what I really think.

                      I think the WoD has been wasteful, unnecessarily violent, has helped violent gangs finance themselves and proliferate, and has been largely ineffective in stopping the recreational use of drugs by kids.

                      …and I don’t want to work for anybody that wouldn’t hire me becasue I think that.

                    3. I can’t speak for you, nicole, and your level of comfort with what you talk about in public. Maybe this really would be an imposition on you and your sense of freedom, but I’d like to point out that it’s just a restriction you’re putting on yourself, really.

                      You impose the same restriction on yourself whenever you talk to strangers face to face in public. When I do it here, it’s just a little more public. But what you see from me here at H&R is what you’d see if we were talking face to face.

                    4. Sure, it’s absolutely a restriction I’m putting on myself. I get it. I just think anonymous fora for discussing politics are super important for getting people (like me, but not just me and many who vehemently disagree with me) to express their true opinions without fear of repercussions.

                      I hide who I am every day on the street in face-to-face conversations, you could say–partly because I wouldn’t go around just announcing to people at random that I’m an anarchist, but also because I’m a pretty nonconfrontational person who has zero willingness to argue about politics with the people I know in real life. I am, for all intents and purposes, an “East Coast media elite” who somehow didn’t end up with the right politics, and I guarantee you that anyone who saw me and chatted me up would assume–often explicitly–that I’m an Obama fan and voter.

                    5. It’s partly a demographic thing. But it could be a big source of conflict if I were a more confrontational type. And I have no doubt I would have been passed over for work-related things if I didn’t smile and laugh at the right jokes, however uncomfortably.

                      I even “hide” this stuff from, say, my blog–meaning, I try just not to get into politics. I have a blog totally unrelated, and all my “blog friends” with similar ones think nothing of dropping in the latest progressive message of the day, because they assume everyone in this little world is the same (specifically, in the lit world, because everyone knows that only Ds are even smart enough to read). It’s super offensive to me, but I would rather avoid impolite topics of conversation than put myself out there as the opposition. Political discussion belongs in political fora, IMO, and those are the most important fora for anonymity.

                    6. I can appreciate your situation.

                      You could still set yourself up a twitter account with a fake name in the scheme I’m proposing. It’s just that a large majority of the people here–over time–would stop being anonymous.

                      There would be a big burst at the beginning, and then as new people came to the site, more and more people would sign in via the pre-existing facebook and twitter accounts their first time here, and the site would become increasingly less anonymous over time.

                      And that would be good for you–even if you want to stay anonymous–and everybody except the trolls.

                      This would be a much less hostile environment and more conducive to spreading the libertarian gospel if it weren’t so anonymous.

                    7. damn girl, you must think that East Germany was a walk in the park…

      3. I think people should still be able to post without registration. I just want the ability to optionally filter posts based on registration status and other criteria.

      4. I’ve basically quit facebook so, say goodby to db in that case.

      5. I don’t DO, face thingy and stuff.

        My local paper did this and the comments were reduced by 90%.

        1. 90% of the comments around here are WI, so that sounds about right.

      6. Yes, because making a fake twitter account before you register is so, like, totally hard and stuff.

        1. Being comfortable operating under aliases boosts your libertarian street cred.

          1. Definitely! None of my online stuff has my real name on it because I have no doubt that all my future employers will go skulking around the web looking for me.

            1. There’s an easy way to handle that.

              Just don’t say stuff you’d be ashamed of.

              It’s not that hard.

              1. Just don’t say stuff you’d be ashamed of.

                Or anything that a potential employment decision-maker might disagree with.

              2. Bullshit!

                I come here do frankly discuss political issues. If I am a man who makes his living selling things to people, I am guaranteed to piss off 1/2 of my customers.

                1. to

                  Proofreading…how does it work?

          2. bingo! Not just your future employers – one of the partners I work for has googled me and been astonished by how few things he could find (and my very unusual name makes me very visible). He sure as fuck wouldn’t respect me if he knew about the libertarianism

        2. I’m sure I COULD figure it out…I just refuse. It’s ridiculous!

      7. The problem with registration is that our troll would just register under a face account and do the same bullshit. Then when Reason banned him, repeat the whole process again. It would leave the Reason staff with the job of constantly policing their boards.

        I understand why they are hesitant to do that. The sad fact is that in this day and age, you almost have to. There are too many people out there who just can’t stand the idea of someone they disagree with having a place to put forth their ideas.

        Reason is actually fortunate in its enemies. If actual real nasty leftists showed up here, rather than retarded Indian, what they would do is post racist shit and then use that as a way to accuse Reason of being a racist site. That has been done numerous times to right wing blogs. And it is why right wing blogs have to be very careful in policing their sites.

        1. No, it wouldn’t leave the Reason staff constantly policing the boards. It’s outsourcing the problem to the commentariat who are quite numerous and then having the ability to view it raw and unfiltered or with various aspects of the metamoderation system on or off–in my ideal implementation, anyways.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M…..ion_system

          1. Interesting. You give comenters the ability to basically vote someone off the island?

            1. Yeah. It doesn’t need to be anywhere nearly as fancy as Slashdot’s system where good comments can be marked with a specific category and such, merely a “spam/toxic” flag and have a “don’t show messages that have been flagged more than X times” setting.

              The precise implementation isn’t a huge deal to me as long as it preserves the option of anonymity, so no “gambol lockdown” will be in effect.

              1. I recommend SBNation’s system over Slashdots.

                It requires registration, but that allows things like marking of posts as read and etc.

                edsbs.com (and sbnation site) gets way more comments than we do, has a basically anonymous system (registration, but with whatever name you want), has a great community with lots of the same kind of off-topic stuff as here, and has little spam and virtually no trolling problems.

                The few instances have been beaten into submission. Users have the ability to “flag” a post and then one of the site owners can take care of problems. Posting under multiple accounts is the easiest path to bannination. The few people it has happened to are discussed similarly to joe.

                1. Why not just use DISCUS? Foxnews uses it as well as many other online periodicals. I think it’s all computerized. It censors out any post with “unapproved” words and there is a “Flag” button. I think the censor part could be controlled by the user (Reason), i.e. none, and you set the software such that more than 3 Flags deletes the post.

                  We could rid ourselves of WI very quickly.

          2. No, it wouldn’t leave the Reason staff constantly policing the boards.

            They’ve got this thing called “interns”.

        2. In my experience, left-wing sites censor comments way more than right-wing sites.

          1. They do. But left wing sites are generally not the subject of coordinated attacks. The right wing sites don’t sensor for point of view.

            1. That’s what I meant.

      8. They just need to implement an anonymous registration system that takes 12 – 24 hours to complete. Combine that with Reasonable and WI would get to post about once per registration.

        1. With registration, there would presumably be a “Report Abuse” button (or something similar) next to the comment. When a bunch of people reported WI, for instance, for being abusive, somebody at Reason (maybe an intern) could block that person’s account.

          Very soon people would start reporting each other just because they disagreed with that person, but isn’t that the kind of thing interns are for?

    4. While I agree that since reason owns this site they can do whatever they want, there are other things that you the commenter can do also. People around here seem to have a lot of respect for the market and the way it handles problems on its own. Here are my suggestions to put your feelings into action.

      1. Do not engage in debate with an anonymous commenter that is not interested in debate.
      2. Do not read the comments.
      3. Do not read the articles.
      4. Do not visit reason.com.

      If enough people did this then change could probably be affected in a desired way. Or not if the number of visits to reason.com did not fall sufficiently.

      1. You’re too optimistic about market action. The trolling is a clear example of market failure. What we need is some sort of Government help – say, a register of trolls and penalties for Reason.com. Yep, that’ll fix it

      2. Or you could simply do what I do: scroll by his freakin’s posts, which are easily identifiable at a glance. This is – really – not exactly a prodigious task.

        1. See option 1.

          1. Well, yeah. If you scroll past them it’s pretty unlikely you would reply to them.

        2. This is truly the crux of the issue.
          There will be trolls with us, always.

          1. There will be trolls always
            Pathetically struggling
            Look at the good things you’ve got

          2. And I don’t mind the Trolls provided they are not disruptive. Max and shrike don’t bother me in the least bit and the arguments/debate are fun.

            WI is a completely different matter. He makes the site unusable. So fuck him!

        3. It is troublesome, though, when you’re having a serious debate and he starts posting in the middle of it. Even if you ignore, you still have to sort your way through his caca.

    5. You know who isn’t here and it’s 10:30? Maybe the ban-hammer came down.

      1. Don’t get too hopeful; it’s likely just in its post-trollgasm refractory period.

    6. I made the offer to Nick G a few weeks back…he told me “June”.

  29. Falkland Islands: Britain ‘would lose’ if Argentina decides to invade now
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..e-now.html

    If the Falklands are ever captured by Argentina it will be impossible to win them back, says Woodward. “We could not retake the Falklands. We could not send a task force or even an aircraft carrier. If we had been in this state in 1982, the Falklands would be the Malvinas. We rely on sending reinforcements by air, but that would be impossible if we lost control of the airfield at Mount Pleasant.”

    1. Way to yell out your weaknesses Woodward.

      1. Hsst, Chloe. It’s part of our strategy. Make the enemy overconfident and all that.

        1. I suspect the Brits would likely get ‘logistical’ support from Uncle Sam.

    1. I see what you did there.

  30. and I review a $49 pair of Pioneer speakers.
    http://6streetbridge.blogspot……shelf.html

    1. “Efficiency is an extremely low 84dB”

      Wow.

      How is the bass implemented?

      1. 4″ woofer inside of a 5″ basked, rear port. Not uber-deep, but not bad considering the small driver. Apparently it was a design decision to trade efficiency for lower bass. Not sure how that works – crossover and driver design is all a black art to me.

        1. *basket

        2. OK, I was wondering if maybe they were acoustic suspension (although 84dB would still be low).

    1. I don’t know, but people who put outfits on cats need to be dropped far from civilization and gutshot, so that if they manage not to die, they will never ever bother with something so stupid again.

    2. That’s what SHE said!

  31. I don’t post here much; I just don’t have time. But I know between everyone here there is a vast body of experience.

    I have a 1994 Ford F-150 4×4 witha a 5.0L engine and a 5-speed stick-shift on tthe floor, which for some reason n o longer has a first gear. All of the other gears work fine. but if I try to put it into first, the shifter goes completely to the left. You can lay it down across your feet. It just isn’t there.

    Why is this, and what are the risks of driving it like this? Because it’s not that tough just starting out in second. BTW, the truck only has 63,000 miles on it. Not bad for an 18-year-old truck.

    1. meh, back in the mists of time I had a GF with a VW Rabbit GTI that did not want to get into 1st gear. Bad bushings, er… something like that. She was flat broke so just drove it by starting in second gear. That worked for 6-8mo until she replaced the car.

    2. My last standard transmission truck was a 93 Silverado. 1st gear was way too low and I used 2nd to start out in for 12 years. Put 250K on it with no problems. I only used 1st when I had a heavy load, so to speak.

      I had several people recommend not using 1st to start.

  32. …or the 9-millimeter shell casings he acquired some time ago, melted in a backyard foundry (also made of obtainium) and cast into brass knuckles for a girlfriend.

    With those he can make her listen when he tells her it’s end of days?

    1. Wait, no, I take that back. Damn it. I expect better from The State.

  33. So, this was originally posted as “Public sex is radical sex” until a commenter revolt added “my radical sex”. I first saw it on Jezebel, but Jezebel was no fun (there was a pretty universal agreement that this was an idiot 20 something).

    Meanwhile, on Autostraddle (which is a lesbian sex position I guess?) it’s like feminist debate 101. “Public consent” “Femme invisibilty” “Privelege” “Trans” “Butch”. It’s like retard soup!

    1. My functionally lesbian roommate

      Does that mean she’s not a lesbian, but she’s slept with someone who is?

      1. Yet another reason it is so great! Also, the whole, “When I want sex, I want it right now- when I want, how I want” would sound super rape-y if it was a dude saying it.

    2. “My functionally lesbian roommate is judgmental of my bathroom sex excursions. Since we started living together she has become increasingly radicalized. I’m always in the process of trying to shift her paradigm”

      OFFS! Is using regular English an evil tool of the patriarchy?

      1. “shift her paradigm” is probably lesbian code for something or another

        1. It probably means liberating her from the misogynistic PATRIARCHY or some shit.

    3. “It’s like retard soup!”

      So thick, it’s more like a chowder.

      But I’m going to stop reading before I lose the ability to read.

  34. Also, for whatever reason, my basic cable package gets a religion channel (Harvest, if anyone is familiar). Holy shit do they push the gospel of wealth bullshit. In fact, it is kind of weird how disassociated Christians seem from their actual, y’know, holy books, instead looking to their religion as sort of a reward system. It’s like they worship Oprah- “And you get a big house! And YOU get a big house!”

    1. The Gospel of wealth is some really disgusting shit. It is the end result of society and churches both agreeing that the point of religious institutions is to make people feel good about themselves and whatever fucked up decisions they have made. It is self esteem building.

      1. On the other hand, it does shed a lot of light on why Christians will now boo using the golden rule (as per Ron Paul). It is no longer really about scripture- it is about justifying world view.

        Whatever you do, don’t worry- big man got your back.

        1. Among some yes. When you look at it, it is just the flip side to the 1960s “if it feels good do it” ethos. A lot of boomers who didn’t fall into the hippie free love ditch, fell into the “God told me I should be rich” ditch.

          1. I think it’s just cherry picking. “Well, Leviticus is against gays!” “Oh, so you keep kosher?” “NEW COVENANT!”

            1. People have always done that.

            2. Leviticus was probably a closet case

            3. Acts covered food laws (and circumcision) specifically, but there are plenty of references to “sexual immorality” in the NT, so I dont see the contradiction there that you see.

              It is very clear that [gentile] christians are not under jewish law. That doesnt mean there are no restrictions, however.

      2. there’s a strong element of this ‘Wealth = God’s love” in the CRC church – the whole Calvinist predestination thang.

        There’s some BIG money in these little sleepy/conservative communities. At weddings, I’ve seen plain-looking dudes wearing cheap k-mart suits, and driving Dodge Vipers or with $1000 camera rigs. But you would never guess it looking at ’em.

      3. I vastly prefer the Gospel of Dave Ramsey. I don’t agree with him on everything, but you’ll get if not wealthy then at least safely to the point of never needing to borrow $500 to fix your car living his way for five years.

        1. If that sentence was a horse, they would shoot it.

          1. Separating clauses is a discriminatory tool of the partriarchy. And active voice overrated.

          2. I am so stealing this line.

        2. Im a fan of Ramsey too. I think his “rules” are overly strict…but that is the point, to be EXTREME for a few years in order to be in a strong financial position.

    2. One other thing: Now that a work in politics, I am learning that in this area an invocation is standard before any political event, right on down to a monthly meeting. It makes me super uncomfortable, mostly because as a deist I just don’t think God gives a shit.

      Also, the whole Founder’s worship a lot of people do is weird. Hey, I like a lot of their ideas to, but I also acknowledge that these were mortal men who had flaws and weird ideas and so on. Also, it is weird the Founder worship happens from the same hardcore Christians who would not be okay with Jefferson writing a Bible with no miracles in it, or Paine’s hatred of organized religion.

      1. I agree with you about the Founders’ worship. They were great men. And I would trade our current crop of miscreants for them in a minute. But they were not Gods. They did get things wrong.

      2. There is a guy that dresses up as John Adams every year at my parents church & he gives practically the same sermon every year. America was founded by God & ALL the founding fathers believed in theocracy, etc… It’s incredibly creepy and amazing how the congregation totally believes everything this guy says. He always gets a standing ovation at the end.

        1. what if you turned up dressed as Abigail Adams?

          1. I heard she had a great rack.

        2. Well Adams was from Massachusetts, which back in the day was pretty well a theocracy. They didn’t allow Catholics to serve in public office until 1821.

          But that said, it was a totally different world. People forget how horrible the religious wars in Europe were. People were so scared by it, their solution was to just not let the other side live in your community, thus no danger of civil war.

          1. Well, letting Catholics into Massachussetts political life got us the Kennedys, so how do you feel about that now, smart guy?

            1. Well. No one ever said the Puritans were stupid. Perhaps they knew a few things about the Catholics and the Irish in particular that the rest of us have forgotten.

          2. The thing is John Adams was Unitarian, which my parents church would consider a heretical sect. It just amazes me how much this guy gets wrong historically. He does things like quote Thomas Jefferson & Ben Franklin without mentioning they were Deists, not baptists. It’s really revolting to me how this church is using dead people to push their political & religious agenda. I have no problem with them believing whatever they want, but at least try to be honest about how you try to sell it.

            1. The Unitarians were and are whack jobs. You’re parents are right to consider them heretics. They are pretty harmless. But hardly something that guy would agree with.

              There were a lot of big money unitarians in federal Boston. There is a gorgeous Unitarian Church on Newberry Street.

              1. Unitarian is a social club for people who like the idea of church.

                1. *ding* my sister-in-law goes to a Unitarian “church”. I don’t quite understand the point.

              2. Indeed, John. How dare someone not believe Jesus was just a flesh-puppet for God to walk around in.

                1. oddly enough, speaking of invocations, I went to a end of term Banquet a bit ago, and the speaker gave an invocation based on Thomas Moore’s prayer. Non-religious school here. It was Law Journal’s banquet too, not a religious club’s event. I am sure I was not the only one sharing a look across the table about this.
                  On a side note, I love reading reason when there is a religious thread.

                2. HM,

                  Jesus admits no middle ground. If you don’t believe he was God’s incarnation on earth, then you have to believe he was a dangerous nut. Jesus told people things like “love me more than you do your family.” He was generally a pretty terrifying and serious guy. The whole “Jesus was just a peace loving teacher” totally ignores his actual teachings.

                  I have more respect for atheists than I do for Unitarians.

  35. Progressivism and the authoritarian impulse
    …Fish’s single standard, distilled and properly understood, is that liberals are (they’ll claim) morally superior by virtue of their very belief in their own political identities ? which identity is tied to an ideology that, manifested politically, privileges governmental theft, sanctioned inequality as a function of tribal identity, and a giant foundational question beg: namely, that moral superiority comes from being on the left, so therefore being on the left means you can really do no fundamental moral wrong…

  36. The Man With a Plan to Rebuild After the Apocalypse…
    Hackett, as he is uniformly known in the Brooklyn bohemia

    When the Apocalypse comes Hackett better have his ass out of Brooklyn or he ain’t gonna need his jerry-rigged workshop. (And when he ventures back, it ain’t gonna be there.)

    1. Why would I want to do that?

      1. The money is going to get disbursed to political campaigns regardless. If you could help siphon $21M out of Team Red/Team Blue and send it to a Libertarian campaign, why wouldn’t you?

        1. Principle. Probably a stupid one, but still.

          Now, if the libertarian campaign took it, then sent a check for 7 cents to every American (or something), I would be okay with it.

          1. I used to be you. This time I decided to get involved. If my few dollars can get one more person to jump off the Red/Blue wagon I consider it well spent. The opportunity is there.

            1. You spending your few dollars on it is a good thing. Matching funds arent just your dollars though.

              1. As I understand it, those dollars were voluntarily contributed to fund campaigns. If there was a chance they might get sent back to the taxpayers I could see your point but that won’t happen. The best we can hope for is that some of them will fund messages of liberty.

                If there was *any* chance that the matching funds wouldn’t get spent I could see your point. As it is, I don’t.

  37. http://libertylawsite.org/post…..nd-decree/

    Remaking man by degree. Sinister and retarded are two words that come to mind.

  38. No one tell Tom Friedman

    “Without successful political structural reform, it is impossible for us to fully institute economic structural reform and the gains we have made in this area may be lost,” he said on Wednesday morning in Beijing. “The new problems that have cropped up in China’s society will not be fundamentally resolved, and such historical tragedies as the Cultural Revolution may happen again.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/go…..-to-china/

    1. I think ol’ Mustache Tom was in favor of the Cultural Revolution. Imagining being able to send all the nekulturny, less well connected intellectuals who dare to disagree with him to be worked to death in the fields probably excites him so much he pets the fur off his cat.

      1. “pets the fur off his cat”

        Euphemism?

        1. For a dude? Nah. I was just trying to work in all the tropes associated with Friedman on this site.

        2. If so that’s a new one. I’ve heard of choking the chicken, spanking the monkey, flogging the dolphin, waxing the morning wood, wresting with cyclops/ the one-eyed purple headed monster, but petting the fur off the cat sounds more like a reference to female masturbation.

          Which may still be applicable to Tom Friedman. Afterall he is a pussy, and may very well have one.

          1. Shaking hands with the bishop always amuses me.

  39. Paging dunphy- any comment on cop getting pled down to extortion on a rape and getting off with probation and deferred adjudication (i.e. if able to keep clean for 5 years, the extortion conviction disappears)? Pretty sweet deal if you can get it. I guess anyone would get that kind of deal, given the circumstances, right?

    1. Rape requires an element of force. It doesn’t have to be much. But it has to be there. It is an interesting legal question if the threat of arrest constitutes force. My guess is they didn’t want to give the appellate court a chance to rule on it, so they played it safe.

      I don’t have a problem with the plea. But the sentence is appalling.

      1. It is an interesting legal question if the threat of arrest constitutes force.

        Try falsely arresting someone and see if the local prosecutor thinks you used force.

        They’d probably go for a kidnapping charge.

        1. That is what I wonder. It wasn’t clear from the article if he had a legal right to arrest her. If he did and said “I will let you off in return for sex” then maybe it is extortion rather than rape.

          1. Seems like extortion AND rape to me.

      2. Threat of false arrest (i.e. kidnapping by armed individual) does not count as an “element of force”? Any non-consensual contact from law enforcement is accompanied by a threat of force.

        1. Unlawful force. If he had a right to arrest her, it wasn’t unlawful.

          1. If a teacher can’t fuck a student due to the teacher’s position of authority, than this should be no different.

            1. I am not saying it is not a crime. I am saying it may not be rape. And teachers get nailed because their students are underage.

          2. Well I guess MS is as bass-ackward as everyone says, because the specific felony (up to 5yrs in prison) of sexual contact by a law enforcement officer on a detainee only applies to those in a correctional facility.

            Fucking an arrestee (whether legal or illegal) could be conceivably be consensual, but it’s highly unlikely. I would argue that a person in custody or under threat of arrest is unable to properly form consent, and that any sexual penetration, however slight, in that situation is de facto rape.

  40. Eric Holder: We need to “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

    Yeah, by giving guns to violent criminals and let them be used to murder Mexican citizens and our own agents.

    1. Worst cabinet member ever.

    2. One of the things he says, that “carrying guns should be unacceptable” is really telling. O My Jesus.

    3. You beat me to it Matrix…just came to post that very story.

      Yeah John, Holder is the most over-the-top shithead in the history of US AGs.
      Wow.

      What is breathtaking to me is how shameless they are about their radicalism. This tells me that they actually do believe the shit they peddle and do not see it as moonbattery.

  41. Or you could simply do what I do: scroll by his freakin’s posts, which are easily identifiable at a glance. This is – really – not exactly a prodigious task.

    No kidding.

  42. This is fucked up.

    “TOULOUSE ? A motorcycle gunman opened fire Monday in front of a Jewish school in the French city of Toulouse, killing a rabbi, his two small sons and one other child, the prosecutor’s office said.

    It was at least the third deadly motorcycle shooting in France in a week, shocking the country and prompting strong emotions and high-level discussions in Israel. French prosecutors were studying possible terrorist links, but the motive for Monday’s attack was unclear.

    Concerns about a serial killer emerged, as investigators examined whether Monday’s shooting was linked to two deadly shooting attacks in the Toulouse region last week that killed three French paratroopers and left another seriously injured. French media reported those paratroopers were of Arab origin.”

    1. Seriously. The worst case for France might be tit-for-tat ethnic killings escalating into wider unrest. Also, the level of this kind of violence (or at least its recent publicity) seems to be increasing in Europe of late. This is, I may remid you, the continent on which two of the three largest recorded genocides in history have occurred.

      1. MAybe. But right now they are just killing Jews, who the non Jewish French hate just as much as the Muslims do and other Muslims. If they start killing respectable Frenchman, then I think you are right. But I am not sure even the Muslims are that stupid.

        1. Time\Warner has a station that runs 24 hour local news, one of the weather babes is a redhead with the most womanly woman figure and face you can imagine. Almost mythical.

          I’ve searched for a pic, their website http://triad.news14.com doesn’t have one.

          1. The weather channel used to be synonymous for homely women. They have really upped their game. Stephanie Abrams and Jenn Carfagno are both pretty damned cute.

            1. Wow. Your standard have really dropped.

              http://www.sabrams.com/onAir/c…..na_021.jpg

              1. Steph is cute. She has huge boobs and a nice ass and very thin legs.

        2. John, you really need to get off this “all Frenchies are anti-semites” kick.

          There’s absolutely no evidence that antisemitism is any more prevalent in France than it is here in the good old USA.

          For the most part anti-semitic activity in both countries is limited to vandalism of cemeteries and synagogues. This bunch of shootings is disturbing but there’s no reason at this point to believe it’s anything but a lone nut doing it.

          Of course, I suppose if you think that believing that the Palestinian Arabs might have legitimate grievances against the Jewish State is anti-semitic you’ll find anti-semitisn under every bed.

        3. I read that the soldiers who were killed in the (now verified) related prior killings were of “Arab descent,” not Jews.

  43. Hiring weatherbabes is discriminatory against ugly men.

    “An experienced TV weatherman has sued CBS broadcasting for sex and age discrimination claiming his job applications were ignored purely because he isn’t a 20-somthing and female.”

    1. Sorry dude. But it is not like reading the weather is hard. I am taking Stephanie Abrams and her giant boobs and geeky charm over you any day.

    1. I’ll be in my bunk.

    2. Julia Dietze wow.

  44. At least 4 killed in shooting at French Jewish school

    This can’t happen. Guns are banned in France arent they?

  45. 100 year old Mr. Universe 1952 still packs pretty good guns.

  46. Looks like Santorum doesn’t have a good memory. I spotted this one on Youtube
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1KRP6-f7OY

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.