A.M. Links: Obamacare Oral Arguments Begin Today, Rick Scott Calls for Due Process in Trayvon Martin Case, Tea Partier Mike Lee Endorses TARP-Supporter Mitt Romney

|

  • The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for and against Obamacare today. The AP has a decent primer; Damon Root has a better one

  • Tea Party Senator Mike Lee endorses "eventual nominee" Mitt Romney. 
  • Florida Gov. Rick Scott says George Zimmerman deserves due process.
  • Microsoft obtained a warrant from a judge and conducted its own raids on botnet servers.  
  • House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) also backs Romney. 
  • Scientists: Popcorn has more anti-oxidants than fruits and vegetables. 

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: "3 Reasons to End Obamacare Before it Begins!"

NEXT: Steve Chapman on Republican Amnesia

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. This is like the worst chat room ever.

    1. wait – arent u dead?
      or was that gay?
      keep getting em confused

      1. I cannot be defeated.
        I can only be contained.

        1. And don’t call him Shirley.

          1. thinking about mary stack this morning

            1. u guys cumming to my wedding?

              1. especially disadvantaged women?

                think about it, girl

                you won’t always be young and pretty

                and you did see how sloopy treats women

                1. Come on! I do it anonymously! The libertarian way!

  2. Tea Party Senator Mike Lee endorses “eventual nominee” Mitt Romney.

    Mike hears his biological clock ticking, settles.

  3. Address:8113 Sun Meadows Ct, Ft. Worth, Texas 76123

    Phone Number: (817) 263-4116

    1. You’re a nasty, vindictive little bitch. Banjos must be very proud insane.

      1. thinking about mary stack this morning

        1. Crap. Now I have this bad feeling about the wedding…visions of Kill Bill Vol. 2 filling my head…an angry rather on the loose, bent on revenge…

          What should we do, Banjos?!

          1. especially disadvantaged women?

            think about it, girl

            you won’t always be young and pretty

            and you did see how sloopy treats women

            1. They find out how greedy autistic retards act.

              Libertarians are the ONLY group that scored higher on systemizing than on empathizing?and they scored a lot higher. The authors go on to suggest that systemizing is “characteristic of the male brain, with very extreme scores indicating AUTISM.”

              The Science of Libertarian Morality
              A new social psychology study explores the moral formation of the libertarian personality.
              Ronald Bailey | November 2, 2010
              reason.com/archives/2010/11/02/the-science-of-libertarian

              1. It’s an obsessive compulsive thingy.

                1. Meet an autistic person, THEN presume you’re using the term correctly.

          2. Um, Banjos is sleeping beside me (and grinding her fucking teeth) right now. I’ll ask her when she wakes up.

            1. what sort of guy says shit like that in public about a woman?

              1. Shit …

              2. Have I mentioned Banjos’ nice rack lately?

                1. (I’m squeezing them right now, while she’s sleeping!)
                  Tee hee hee.

                  1. Haha. I LOLed at that.

    2. Mary, congrats on your appearance on Howard Stern.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo0LO_ctdLI

      1. OK now that jsut does not make any sense at all to me dude, none,

        http://www.Anon-Works.tk

    3. So, at long last, is our blogwide nightmare over?

      Just for reference, is conclusive proof that Ms. Stack is/was rather. I see the “rctlfy” blog is gone.

      I can only hope that we all emerge from this era of Darkness stronger and wiser.

      1. Not hardly, pilgrim.

        1. You’re gay. Or so I’ve been told.

          1. Not hardly, pilgrim.

            1. That right, you boys. I went tohis house to install one way mirrors, he came to the door in a dress.

      2. The White Idiot is still here.

    4. Timeline of this weekend’s developments:

      reason.com/archives/2012/03/23/libertarianism-does-not-equal-selfishnes#comment_2935870
      reason.com/archives/2012/03/24/4-best-legal-arguments-against-obamacare#comment_2936742
      reason.com/archives/2012/03/24/4-best-legal-arguments-against-obamacare#comment_2936867
      reason.com/archives/2012/03/25/california-assemblyman-wants-to-treat-fo#comment_2937464
      reason.com/archives/2012/03/25/california-assemblyman-wants-to-treat-fo#comment_2937509
      reason.com/archives/2012/03/25/california-assemblyman-wants-to-treat-fo#comment_2937598
      reason.com/blog/2012/03/25/3-reasons-to-kill-obamacare-before-it-be#comment_2937619
      reason.com/blog/2012/03/25/3-reasons-to-kill-obamacare-before-it-be#comment_2937676

      http stripped off to get around two link rule… so, yes, thay are supposed to be dead links…

      1. I think it’s amazing that as soon as she was outed, she deleted everything – rctlfy, sinville, twitter; all of it gone.

        1. It’s amazing given the care she put into not revealing her identity. Really stupid mistake; quite hilarious.

          1. So White Indian’s really Dances With Cableguy. I thought sure she was some guy who lived in his mom’s basement, living off welfare and food stamps, especially after turning down my offer to let her live in the BC wilderness.

      2.  

         

        PS- Get a life.

      3. Interesting. I’ve given up on weekends here pretty much, so it’s nice to have a proper H&R archivist.

      4. thanks for the background SF, much appreciated. It helped me find an archived tweet in which she claims she has a 24% chance of surviving an intense lovemaking session with bigfoot.

        Paging STEVE SMITH!

    5. Holy crap, she lives like 3 miles from me.

      1. Keep an eye on the local news for us.

      2. Maybe we should burn the witch.

      3. Or… is Night Elf rather? Conspiracy!

      4. Explains your missing pets, doesn’t it?

        BTW, you owe the innocent coyotes and chupacabras an apology.

      5. See if you can bang her, dude. She’s clearly crazy and obviously plenty desperate. Do it.

        1. I concur. Fuck the crazy out of her.

          1. Plus, her older daughter is a cutie pie. Bonus points for banging them at the same time.

            1. We’re so proud of you, Warty!

    6. I don’t care how annoying she is, you’ve crossed over a line into really inappropriate behavior.

      1. what else can you expect from greedy autistic retard boys?

        Libertarians are the ONLY group that scored higher on systemizing than on empathizing?and they scored a lot higher. The authors go on to suggest that systemizing is “characteristic of the male brain, with very extreme scores indicating AUTISM.”

        The Science of Libertarian Morality
        A new social psychology study explores the moral formation of the libertarian personality.
        Ronald Bailey | November 2, 2010
        reason.com/archives/2010/11/02/the-science-of-libertarian

        1. Uh oh, 15 minutes to Judge Wapner!

          1. Libertarianism is a personality defect.

            Libertarians are the ONLY group that scored higher on systemizing than on empathizing?and they scored a lot higher.

            1. Well you might as well round us up and shoot us all you murderous piece of excrement.

            2. Empathy is for losers.

            3. And you LOVE it.

              1. The current front-runner for lack of empathy on these threads… isn’t a libertarian.

                1. Yeah.

                  A vicious troll that questions our empathy.

                  A primitivist who spends all her spare time on the internet.

                  She’s all these things and more.

        2. if that’s true, does that mean it’s cool to pick on people with a mental disability? Stay classy, progressive

          1. There are no rules in anarchy.

      2. you’ve crossed over a line into really inappropriate behavior

        It keeps us busy. Shut up!

      3. Nope. This is very similar to the non-aggression principle, which says nothing about not striking back against aggression.

        She came here and stayed with the sole intent of shitting in the sandbox, in order to make it unusable for the usual participants, even go so far as libeling a regular. Anonymity was her greatest asset in those efforts.

        You reap what you sow.

        1. typing words = aggression
          typing words = aggression
          typing words = aggression
          typing words = aggression
          typing words = aggression
          typing words = aggression

          to a libertarian

          Wow!

          Nancy Pelosi told me the same thing!
          Charles E. Schumer told me the same thing!
          Obama told me the same thing!
          Stalin told me the same thing!
          Lenin told me the same thing!

          1. Stalin and Lenin are long-dead, and I doubt Pelosi, Schumer, or Obama would personally tell you anything.

        2. Why is everyone assuming rather is without a doubt mstack. IT could be otherwise. Like two assholes who like shitting here.

          1. Why is everyone assuming rather is without a doubt mstack.

            Again, Comment 2 here is the conclusive proof.

            1. Read like typical lib/rather. But um how does that comment prove rather is mstack?

              1. Nevermind. Noticed the mouseover data (http://sinville-sinville.blogspot.com) on the comment.

                Shrug.

                1. rather accidentally left a Stack email address in one of her rather posts.

                  Go to this post:

                  https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_2935870

                  Hover your cursor over “Prove it”

                  Look at the stack email address at the bottom of your browser…

                  heller is the new King of Reason.

                  It’s good to be the king.

                  1. Incidentally, it’s amazing what people can achieve without resorting to Reason censoring us.

                    It’s an excellent argument against some of the stuff I’ve written here over the past few days.

                    Never underestimate our ability to innovate novel solutions to seemingly intractable problems.

                    All hail heller!

                  2. To be accurate(yes it really matters) someone posted as rather with a link that contained mstack email. We don’t know for sure if it was rather or mstack or someone else who just wanted to piss on mstack. In any case it seems people are giving mstack the treatment only WI deserves.

                    1. Oh, just for the record, I think posting someone’s home address, phone number, mentioning someone’s kids, etc. is all wrong.

                      Even if she did something like that to John.

                      I don’t condone that.

                      But given a preponderance of the evidence, leaving an email address like that–if it were some third party’s address–would be more than a little unusual. The most reasonable explanation is that it was a slip up, right?

                      I mean, even if you rush into a room after hearing a gun shot, and you see someone standing there with a smoking gun, the defendant might have just picked it up after the real shooter jumped out the window, right?

                      But a smoking gun is a smoking gun.

                      Most of what we believe we can’t prove with absolute certainty; only making up our minds when we’re absolutely certain makes us look like the Flat Earth Society.

          2. Rev. Blue Moon |3.26.12 @ 9:17AM|#
            I think it’s amazing that as soon as she was outed, she deleted everything – rctlfy, sinville, twitter; all of it gone.

            1. The burden of proof to convince me of the fact you’re a shitheel, Mary Stack, is much lower than that of a Court of Law. See, for example, OJ Simpson.

          3. It doesn’t matter. She aggressed against us with words. Words! We have a right to defend ourselves against words we don’t like. This is the essence of the libertarian non-aggression principle. Poopyhead.

            1. Words!

              You misspelled “Libel,” Mary.

        3. libeling a regular

          That never happened.

          1. Oh, OK. If you say so.

            1. Yet another reason I’d like to see registration here. Losing the joke handles would be a small price to pay.

              Congratulations, heller, for figuring out the mess. I never would have had the stomach to sift through all of her comments.

              1. Not that it’s not obsessive.

        4. That’s a terrible rationalization. NAP suggests proportionate response. Launching an online defamation campaign against someone for trolling your site is like burning down their garage because they keep letting their dog shit in your front yard.

          1. What else would you have us do, exactly? I’ve e-mailed reason on the subject – no response. We were told that our donations were going to assist in filtering out this sort of thing – nothing happened.

            1. Well, if there’s no other way to get her to stop besides setting fire to her garage, I guess we had no choice.

              Have you been reading what people are posting? They’re defaming teenage daughters and analyzing her fucking home values. How do you even begin to justify that? If it comes down to attacking uninvolved kids or losing the site, let the site go to hell. It’s not worth it.

            2. ” We were told that our donations were going to assist in filtering out this sort of thing”

              No we were not. Why do you think that is the case?

          2. That’s funny, we actually had a conversation along those exact lines over a the Agitator on Friday.

        5. Well, I’ve written before about how limited the non-aggression principle is in guiding ethical behavior. One of it’s flaws: It doesn’t speak to what an appropriate level of response to an aggression should be.

          1. The appropriate level is the nominal effort it takes to stop the initial aggression.

            Publishing the personal information of anonymous greifer, may be distasteful, but it isn’t inappropriate. And let’s be clear that this wasn’t someone interested in an honest discussion and posted an unpopular opinion. This was a person whose sole interest was disrupting the normal operation of this blog.

            And, if this fails to stop the undesired activity, then the initial response was insufficient and a greater effort is required.

            1. Hit & Run’s Samson Option. Lovely.

            2. Publishing the personal information of anonymous greifer, may be distasteful, but it isn’t inappropriate.

              So “outing” John is OK too? Huh.
              I guess it all depends on what team you’re on.
              Moral relativism comes in handy sometimes.

            3. That’s your added interpretation. The non-aggression principle doesn’t include any such clause, and I’ve met lots of my fellow libertarians that think any aggression against them is open license to respond way out of proportion to the initial transgression.

            4. You do realize that this blog is Reason’s property, not yours?

              If Neighbor A has an open understanding with people in the neighborhood that they can borrow his lawnmower any time they want, and Neighbor B get pissed because Neighbor C is constantly borrowing it, that doesn’t give B the right to use force against C.

              If A told C he was cut off from lawnmower borrowing and C took it anyway, that would be a different story. But there’s no evidence that happened, and even if there were it would not be B’s place to use force on C.

              1. Oh, Commodore, I knew I could count on a sturdy tut-tutting from you.

                Your analogy would be correct in that when A announced such a thing and then remained silent to all inquiries about the liberty C is taking with his lawnmower, then A is implicitly signalling that all the other letters should work out a solution among themsleves.

              2. A better analogy is that C uses the lawnmower as much as everyone else does, but returns the mower in such poor condition that it can’t be used by anyone else until the blade is sharpened, the tank is refueled, etc.

                B gets sick of this and decides that it will publicize C’s actions to the neighborhood, in an effort to shame him to stop being such a dick or stop using the mower altogether, since previous requests to return the mower in usable condition have done no good.

      4. This whole situation is becoming even more distasteful.

        1. Wait a minute. If we don’t have a right to be thin-skinned, vindictive little pussy-boys, who does?

      5. No kidding. No matter how bad a troll rather has been, this is pretty perverse.

      6. I would have agreed with you, but then right on cue…

        1. Yeah, I know. I stopped responding to WI months ago, when it all became very, very boring.

  4. The Roots of Hardship
    Despite massive amounts of aid, poor countries tend to stay poor. Maybe their institutions are the problem.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..TopOpinion

    It is institutions that determine the fate of nations. Success comes, the authors say, when political and economic institutions are “inclusive” and pluralistic, creating incentives for everyone to invest in the future. Nations fail when institutions are “extractive,” protecting the political and economic power of only a small elite that takes income from everyone else.

    1. And maybe the people who provide that aid, and get high paying jobs that allow them to roll around the world in white Toyota land cruisers have no interest in them ever being anything but poor.

      1. perhaps actually meeting anyone working for an NGO might help john.

        then again, pointless.

        1. Sorry dude. I did two tours in Iraq. I have met and forgotten more people who actually work for the UN and NGOs than you have probably read about. And they are generally there collecting big salaries and doing little of value. If you don’t have a four star hotel and reliable power, and air tight security, forget it, the NGOs ain’t coming.

          1. Sorry dude. I did two tours in Iraq.

            I think this explains a lot about your views towards Iran.

            1. What would those views be? It always amazes me how everyone is so convinced I want to go to war with Iran when I have never said any such thing.

              1. I didn’t mean that in a derogatory way. I just meant that it explains our difference of opinion on Iran getting nukes.

              2. I did two tours in Iraq.

                Citation needed.

                1. Not for me its not. And I went through this with Joe from Lowell who doubted me. Frankly thanks to Mary Stack, my days of ever emailing anyone on this site are over.

                  1. If you say so. And who can disprove a negative?

                    1. You can believe it or not. It is none of my concern. I know the truth and that is all that matters.

        2. perhaps actually meeting anyone working for an NGO might help john.

          I’m one of those, O. I did volunteer work with a large medical NGO in Kosovo during and immediately after the war. As I wrote in my journal, the place looked like a Toyota dealership. I also wrote, “NGOs roam the earth, seeking prey.” Every little NGO in the world showed up. As we all knew and discussed while there, they had to; they had to show the colors as their grants and funding depended on it. The refugees were the healthiest refugees in history. It became farcical after awhile.

          I also stayed with many missionaries and NGO people while traveling around Africa for a year. It was well known among them and conceded that what they were doing there mattered at the moment to individuals and maybe individual villages but did nothing to resolve the big picture issues there.

          1. Some analysis I read somewhere said a major problem in Haiti is that NGOs control more budget and are more powerful than the elected government; in effect, they are a shadow government, elected by no one and not accountable to the local people.

            They crowd out any opportunity Haiti’s citizens might have to engage in self government and create their own local institutions.

            The modern NGO is truly colonialism carrying out the “white man’s burden” in a manner most destructive to formerly self-reliant peoples.

          2. It was well known among them and conceded that what they were doing there mattered at the moment to individuals and maybe individual villages but did nothing to resolve the big picture issues there.

            Obviously long-term solutions are necessary, but there is nothing wrong or hypocritical in relieving immediate suffering.

        3. One of my friends who started and operates an NGO agrees with John that this is the single biggest problem with NGOs: they tend to be more interested in their own propagation than actually fixing anything.

          His goal is that he won’t be needed by his organisation eventually. But one of the challenges is instilling those values in the future managers/heads of said NGO.

          1. that this is the single biggest problem with NGOs: they tend to be more interested in their own propagation than actually fixing anything.

            This is true of every grant, donation, and/or tax funded organization I have ever encountered.

            Actually getting results on the ground is purely incidental to their survival. Keeping the grants, donations, and tax funding coming is critical to their survival. Ergo . . . .

            1. NGO = non-genetic organism?

              1. Non Governmental Organization

                1. I know, but I like my description better.

                  1. Sorry. Humor detector is in the shop.

            2. Most organizations—not just NGO’s or Gov’t orgs—are subject to Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy:

              In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.

              If NGO’s aren’t helping the situation in places like Haiti or the Congo, then what would? Lowering tariff barriers? Rule of law and respect for private property would be a start, but that’s kind of hard to impose on a population from afar.

        4. Friend of mine lived in Kyrgyzstan for two years, working for an NGO that supposedly existed to promote “women journalists in developing countries”. She made US managers’ salary (i.e. 6 figures), had a maid and her husband toodled around the country as a “man of leisure”.

          Yeah, those NGO types sure are in the trenches with the little people. Boy howdy!

          1. They’ve also hired many of the most capable locals, leaving the private and public sectors short of quality personnel.

  5. Florida Gov. Rick Scott said Monday that while his “heart goes out” to the family of Trayvon Martin, the neighborhood watchman who shot and killed the unarmed teenager last month deserves a “true due process.”

    “Your heart goes out to them,” the Republican governor said on “Fox & Friends.” “But you know, the court’s going to figure out once we get all the facts once the investigation happens whether that law applies or not. We’ll find out.”

    He’s not even going to imagine Martin as the son he never had? What a fucking racist.

    1. That’s no way to run a ‘Bonfire of the Vanaties’ like media/racial lynch mob.
      Get wit the program.

    2. http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/d…..n-03232012
      Somehow, the eyewitness account that corroborates Zimmerman and police has already been forgotten.

      1. It’s still not self defense if you attack someone. This whole incident was initiated by Zimmerman with no provocation and that is something that can’t be ignored. If some weirdo was following me around I might attack him if I felt threatened and thought getting the jump on him was my best option.

        1. Also, that eye witness account only says he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman in a struggle. It does not say he saw who attacked whom or how it started.

          1. Kill all the crackas! AND they babies!

        2. mr simple wrote:
          If some weirdo was following me around I might attack him if I felt threatened and thought getting the jump on him was my best option.

          I’m pretty sure that would make you the aggressor, and would be considered assault and battery.

      2. Something that has been emphasized, over and over again, in my CCW classes (in Texas, mind you, where we are legally authorized to shoot cops if they get out of line):

        When you are carrying, you DO NOT go looking for trouble.

        Zimmerman went looking for trouble. Taking all the evidence we have at face value, he chased and eventually accosted Trayvon. You wanna do that? Leave the fucking gun at home.

        What we don’t know, and probably never will, is who escalated the confrontation that Zimmerman initiated to physical force. Did Zimmerman grab Trayvon? Did Trayvon take a swing at Zimmerman? Don’t know, and probably never will.

        1. And that is called reasonable doubt. And you of course forget another lesson that Martin should have remembered.

          Don’t get in fights with people who have guns.

          1. If Zimmerman was carrying concealed, there was no way Martin could have known he had a gun. If Martin knew he was carrying, that would be because Zimmerman threatened him with a gun, which is illegal.

            If Zimmerman started the altercation, then its hard to blame Martin for “getting into a fight” with Zimmerman.

            I’m pretty sure, here in Texas, that if a DA took the facts as we now know them to a jury (CCW holder went looking for trouble, found it, and shot who he was looking for), that a jury would be unsympathetic.

            1. I am pretty sure you are wrong about that RC. I think you way overrate the actual actions Zimmerman took and way underrate the actions Martin took.

              Who beat up whom here? Sorry but if you get pissed off and start beating the shit out of someone, you are taking the chance that someone might pull out a gun and shoot you. That is why a armed society is a polite society.

              1. Sorry but if you get pissed off and start beating the shit out of someone, you are taking the chance that someone might pull out a gun and shoot you.

                Well, yeah, you’re always taking that chance, but you seem to be arguing that you should never defend yourself against anyone, just in case they have a concealed weapon.

                I’m not willing to go that far, for the same reason that I don’t think anyone who starts a fight can claim self-defense when they start losing.

                I mean, if you pick a fight, you are definitely taking the chance that someone might get pissed off and start beating the shit of you. If they do, I don’t think you should be entitle to gun them down.

                1. I am arguing that you should never throw the first punch. You guys seem to be saying that Zimmerman yelling “stop punk or the cops are coming” justifies him attacking Zimmerman. And that is just not true.

          2. John, are you sure that your support for Zimmerman isn’t from the shitstorm of the usual suspects bloviating their fucking mouths until they bleed? The faux outrage that has been splooged on us by the MSM is pretty fucking intolerable.

            While I understand this reaction, I’ve done it myself and have usually been right when the facts come out, I gotta say that even the most generous reading of the events is that Zimmerman is a fat fuck of a cop-wannabe who grossly overstepped his authority. There is very, very little to suggest that Martin caused his own death, other than a fantasy of speculation of events present nowhere in the record.

            1. I’m tired of burying black boys! From now on, only whiteys!

              1. OK, we’ll cremate the darkies from now on.

            2. JW.

              Chances are he is all of that. But he is also a criminal defendant entitle to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t think even by the worst reading of the facts he is a murderer. I think at most he exceeded his right to self defense is is guilty of depraved indifference manslaughter.

              That being said, him not being a good guy doesn’t change his right to a fair trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because I don’t think he is a murderer doesn’t mean I think he is a good guy.

              And Martin doesn’t strike me as much of a saint either. My guess is that he was mouthy little shit who finally fucked with the wrong guy. I can’t say much positive about either of them.

    3. Wouldn’t due process involve being charged for killing someone you admit to killing?

      1. Well, it would, except that the FL statute says you can’t unless you have evidence beyond their story. Essentially, the police have to accept his story until they turn up contradictory evidence according to the statute.

        1. Only politicians could come up with something this stupid.

          1. I won’t be a politician for much longer.

          2. Im not sure how that is stupid. Burden of proof is on the state.

            1. They can prove he killed him.

              1. But they have to prove it was murder/manslaughter. Which means they have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that is wasnt self defense.

                1. That’s what the trial is for.

                  1. It wont get past the grand jury without some evidence.

                  2. So, everyone that kills someone should be arrested, and tried. Even if someone breaks into your house, or attacks you on the street. Now that is stupid.

      2. So you think people should be charged with wrongful killing without reason to believe that the killing was wrongful?

        1. That’s why grand juries exist.

          1. *ding*

        2. The 911 tapes give reason to believe it was wrongful.

          1. And that is the evidence I was mentioning above…but without that, no reason to attempt to prosecute.

            That said, the cops not investigating from the beginning was just insane.

          2. Oh, I agree with you. I just blame a piss poor investigation and not the change in the SYG law.

    4. Florida is a bastion for the KKK. Governor Rick Scott? More like Grand Imperial Kleagle of Wizardry Rick Scott.

      Florida lynched that youngster just like he was Emmit Till.

      1. I know, right?!

        1. Racism is wrong! Unless it’s against crackas!

  6. Anti-war movement stirs in Israel
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0…..ab49a.html

    “I don’t think we should attack Iran,” said Dalia Kraid, a protester. “If we strike, instead of preventing a nuclear war we might start one,” she added. Ifat Zvirin, another demonstrator, said: “We are afraid, like most of the people in the country who are against a war with Iran. We want all the Middle East to become a nuclear weapon-free zone, and that includes Israel.”

    The Tel Aviv demonstration was small even by the standards of Israel’s much-diminished peace movement. However, as several protesters were quick to point out, the marchers appeared to be echoing widely-held concerns.

    1. I think Iran is in the right on the IAEA dispute, but even I think these people are dopes.

      Israel’s nuclear arsenal is the best guarantee out there that even if Iran develops a nuclear weapon it will never be used.

      A “nuclear free Middle East” is not an attainable goal and trying to attain it will make everyone less safe.

      1. You are right.

      2. You are assuming that mutual assured destruction will deter a theocratic Iran. I don’t think Israel agrees that it will. That’s the problem. If Iran can be deterred by Israel’s nuclear arsenal then why would Iran bother developing the weapon in the first place? Surely they know that any nuclear exchange they initiate will end in their utter destruction. They’re (apparently) developing nukes anyway.

        1. If Iran can be deterred by Israel’s nuclear arsenal then why would Iran bother developing the weapon in the first place?

          Perhaps to deter Israel?

          1. It’s not to deter Israel. Israel hasn’t been invading or bombing the MidEast for the last 20 years. (Well, other than Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza. Maybe amend the statement to “they haven’t been bombing their non-neighbors”?) It’s to deter the U.S.

            Israel can’t invade Iran and topple its government. The U.S. can. Think Khamenei didn’t watch the footage of Saddam Hussein’s execution and visualize his head in the noose?

        2. The bomb for them is an insurance policy from getting invaded. Once they have it, the bar for war will be relatively high, giving them the ability to be generally belligerent and mess with the other countries in the region through “covert” actions, like funding terrorist groups.

          1. Of course I’m sure they reached that conclusion based on observation. We invaded Iraq out of suspicion that they had/ were developing WMDs. N. Korea, on the other hand, has tested 2 devices, test launches missiles capable of threatening their neighbors/ our allies (S. Korea and Japan) and continues to behave in a beligerent manner; but not even the slightest threat from us of invading them. What lesson should Iran draw from this?

            1. Don’t be muslim?

    2. no no no
      the on-going RW meme is that a jesus coalition controls the knessett so no dissent can be imagined

      1. The Tel Aviv demonstration was small even by the standards of Israel’s much-diminished peace movement.

        Perhaps they’re right.

        1. what?

          1. One peacenik in a government full of saber-rattlers. You’re proving my point.

            Hey, I wish I was wrong and there was a bigger peace movement in the Knesset. I just don’t see it from where I’m sitting.

  7. The Democrat Who Took on the Unions
    Rhode Island’s treasurer Gina Raimondo talks about how she persuaded the voting public, labor rank-and-file and a liberal legislature to pass the most far-reaching pension reform in decades.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..on_LEADTop

    1. It’s almost as if Rhode Island wants to be solvent.

  8. George Zimmerman suffered a broken nose, and had an injury to the back of his head, he was attacked by Trayvon Martin on that evening

    Those injuries either exist or they don’t. It should be pretty easy to establish which. I can’t imagine the attorney saying that if they don’t though. I’m getting more and more of that Duke Lacrosse feeling that I started getting last week.

    1. It doesn’t matter if they exist.

    2. I had the misfortune of traveling this weekend and being subjected to CNN at every airport and hotel.

      1. I now know more about Zimmerman’s childhood and past than I knew about Obama when he was elected President. Good thing the media has its priorities straight.

      2. In all of that wall to wall coverage, the fact that Zimmerman had a broken nose and a witness says the kid attacked him never got mentioned. None of my liberal friends who are raving about this on facebook had any idea this was true. They were reduced to screaming about how the story was written by a Fox station in Tampa and we all know Fox lies.

      1. Zimmer is white and the kid is black.

        What else does a liberal need to know?

        1. If you’re a poor unknown piece of white trash we don’t give a crap about you, the world is better off without you, and you probably deserved to be beaten to death anyway.

          1. The truth is they don’t give a shit when a poo black kills another poo black or when cops kill anybody, even in their own home.

            Nope, the only killing that matters is a ‘white hispanic’ killing a 200lb black child.

            What’s that meme about man bite dog?

            1. The truth is they don’t give a shit when a poor black kills another poor black.

              You’re absolutely right. If Trayvon Martin had been executed in a drive by shooting by other African-Americans, CNN probably wouldn’t have given him ten seconds of their time.

        2. what else to know?
          the unarmed part
          the pursuit part

          1. what else to know?
            the unarmed part
            the pursuit part

            Worst. Haiku. Evar!

        3. Except Zimmerman isn’t white.

      2. Come on, we’ve discussed this already ad infinitum.

        If Zimmerman left his car to attempt to detain or restrain Martin, Martin was entitled to resist him with force.

        1. This incident and potential trial has the makings of a Casey Anthony/OJ surprise ending.

          1. We can’t wait to riot!

            1. Same here, Mob!

        2. Sure. But only if he attempted to detain him with force. Telling him to stop doesn’t give Martin the right to use force.

          We don’t know what happened. Maybe Zimmerman ran up and tackled him. That is possible. Or maybe Zimmerman told him to stop and Martin told him to fuck off and an argument ensued. And maybe Martin then attacked Zimmerman. It could be either way.

          But whatever it is, it is hardly the narrative of a white guy out hunting black men that the media is trying to portray it as.

        3. “If” is the key word there. Here’s another one for you: Martin was entitled to resist him with force if he laid a hand on Martin.

          1. Martin was also entitled to employ force if Zimmerman attempted to restrain him by threat.

            1. No he wasn’t. That is fucking daft. Martin was perfectly entitled to tell Zimmerman to fuck off and keep walking. But he was not entitled to attack Zimmerman because he told him to stay there.

              1. Of course.

              2. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/sta…..87.02.html

                (1)(a)?The term “false imprisonment” means forcibly, by threat, or secretly confining, abducting, imprisoning, or restraining another person without lawful authority and against her or his will.
                (b)?Confinement of a child under the age of 13 is against her or his will within the meaning of this section if such confinement is without the consent of her or his parent or legal guardian.
                (2)?A person who commits the offense of false imprisonment is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

                The “by threat” part would seem to indicate that if you state that you’re willing to restrain someone if they try to leave, you have committed a third degree felony.

                1. Doesn’t matter fluffy. Having a pound of cocaine is probably a first degree felony. But that doesn’t give you the right to shoot me. It is not the felony that gives the right of self defense. It is the use of force. And tell the kid “stop or I will have the cops arrest you” is not a threat of force.

              3. This is why innkeepers’ laws or merchants’ laws provide specific exceptions to allow you to restrain shoplifters or people trying to skip on their bill. Because in the absence of those exceptions, even speaking to someone in a threatening manner and telling them to stay where they are makes you a criminal.

                1. We’re so used to the idea that security guards can just grab people if they feel like it, that we think random citizens can do that, too. And they can’t.

                2. He was a “neighborhood watch” and he was armed. Just a guess, but maybe Florida gives special status to such people. Hard to imagine them carrying guns if it didn’t.

                  And again, merely telling the kid to stop does not give Martin the right to whale on him.

                  1. Hard to imagine them carrying guns if it didn’t.

                    WTF?

                    I carry and the state has granted me no special status.

                  2. Just a guess, but maybe Florida gives special status to such people.

                    You guessed wrong.

                    Neighborhood Watch participants have no powers under Florida law to confront or otherwise restrain anyone. No do they have any special privilege to be armed (beyond what any other CCW holder has), in fact, they are usually advised to not carry weapons.

                    IMO Zimmerman did not intend to kill Martin but the narrative so far appeara to sho someone who exercized exceedingly poor judgment and overzealousness to the point where he initiated a series of events leading to Martin’s death.

                    My guess is that Zimmerman will end up pleading out to manslaughter and will serve little or no prison time. With that conviction on his record he will be unable to get a decent job for the rest of his life.

                    1. The guy’s life is ruined whether anyone likes it or not. It won’t be enough to satisfy those who are out for blood but those less vengeful might end up feeling some pity for the poor sap. Neither changes the fact that he was, through his own rash actions, the author of his misfortune.

                  3. He was a “neighborhood watch” and he was armed. Just a guess, but maybe Florida gives special status to such people. Hard to imagine them carrying guns if it didn’t.

                    John, I’ve participated in a Neighborhood Watch and it was stressed from the beginning that under no circumstances were we to try and apprehend or stop a crime in progress. We were to observe and contact the police and do *nothing else.*

        4. Except that Zimmerman says he was attacked while he was walking back to his car, after he had lost sight of Martin.

          1. So on the one hand we have his self-serving statement after the fact, and on the other hand we have the 911 tapes, which pretty clearly allow us to infer that he left his car intended to prevent Martin from leaving.

            I think a jury should decide if they believe Zimmerman.

            The lack of an arrest here was only valid if, as the Sanford police chief indicated, there was NO evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s account. And the 911 tapes constitute such evidence.

            1. Reasonable doubt fluffy. You don’t have to believe Zimmerman. You only have to decide that his account is reasonable and you must acquit.

              1. You don’t have to believe Zimmerman. You only have to decide that his account is reasonable and you must acquit

                That the jury will realize that, though, may be assuming little much.

                1. you must acquit

                  Where have I heard that before …?

                  Aah, never mind.

                2. That the jury will have no Blacks on it might be assuming a little much.

            1. Why would you say that? Based on his picture, he looks like he eats a well-balanced diet.

        5. Reasonable force, right?

        6. Please. Zimmerman is a douchebag wannabe vigilante…and an idiot. He gives peopla like Curtis Sliwa a bad name.

          1. Well, Curtis Sliwa doesn’t really need the help. And he’s got two ex-wives to step up if he does.

      3. My advice: traveling is when you get the new high score for Angry birds, or “move the box.” Turn away from the tvs and do yourself a favor.

        1. Except for us. We NEED our hundreds of viewers to stay tuned – we have to pay Olbermann’s salary, y’know.

          1. What’s this “we” shit?

      4. a witness says the kid attacked him never got mentioned.

        I’ve heard a witness say the kid had him down on the ground. I’ve not heard a witness yet say who actually started the fight. Given that Zimmerman was out there looking for trouble, I’m don’t know that anyone can say who “attacked” who, only that the kid was winning the fistfight.

        1. Given that Zimmerman was out there looking for trouble

          Says you. Zimmerman says something entirely different. You only choose not to believe him because you don’t like him.

          We probably will never know who started the fight. And that means Zimmerman is not legally guilty of anything. As long as there is reasonable doubt that Martin started it and Zimmerman acted in self defense, Zimmerman is not guilty of murder.

          1. That’s absolutely crazy.

            I’ve compared it to this scenario before:

            A woman calls 911 and says her husband won’t let her leave their apartment. Husband grabs the phone and says, “I’m not letting her leave this apartment!”

            Cops show up to apartment and the wife is dead.

            Husband gives statement to police saying he changed his mind and decided to let the wife leave, and she spontaneously decided to turn around and try to kill him with a knife instead, so he he killed her in self-defense.

            It would be crazy to say, “Well, no one witnessed what actually happened, so a jury should have to find reasonable doubt here”.

            1. If this occurred Martin’s apartment, you might have a point fluffy. But it didn’t. As I said above, Martin had a right to walk away. He didn’t have a right to attack Zimmerman.

              1. Martin had a right to walk away.

                That’s right, he did. And we have every reason to believe that Zimmerman (would have) tried to stop him from doing so, since that’s why Zimmerman was out wandering around the neighborhood. With a gun.

                And if Zimmerman did try to stop him, Zimmerman committed a crime, and Martin had every right to defend himself.

          2. Given that Zimmerman was out there looking for trouble

            Says you.

            Says Zimmerman, who took a gun with him to try and track down someone walking through his neighborhood for the express purpose of “not letting them get away.”

            Sounds like he was lookng for trouble to me.

          3. Believing that someone’s defense is a lie is exactly the kind of thing that tends to extinguish reasonable doubt in the mind of jurors.

            1. And, of course, jurors are there to determine whether the asserted defense is credible in light of all the facts.

              1. Just an FYI, there had been a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood just previous to the incident. A few of Zimmerman’s 911 calls might have been about burglars who “just got away”.

                Standard disclaimers.

    3. To be pedantic, the existence of an injury does not in itself confirm its cause.

      1. Thank you, counselor. 😉

    4. That’s OK. The forthcoming retractions and mea culpas should be entertaining.*

       

      *Do NOT hold your breath

    5. Maybe. I’ve always thought it very possible that Mr. Zimmerman was innocent under the law. I think the police rushed closing the investigation and caused this problem.

      1. Yeah, this is it. The police let it go too fast. If they had gathered all of the informati0on that people know now and announced that they didn’t think that they could charge him, that would be one thing. But deciding right away was just sloppy. But I still think that the best thing for a case like this is to have grand jury decide if charges should be brought. The race angle is definitely getting way overplayed.

        1. My guess is the Trayvon was known by police which is why they accepted Zimmerman’s story so quickly.

          1. He was visiting from out of town, so I don’t think so.

            1. To the Sanford Police all negroes look alike.

              1. Do they all look like crusty jugglers?

    6. Got his ass whipped by a kid that weighed a full hundred pounds less than him.

      Fucking pussy.

      1. He’s still standing. Just saying.

      2. I read that Martin was a 6’2″ FB player and that the picture that you see all over the media is an old one.

        1. the picture that you see all over the media is an old one.

          Check this out.

          1. They lying in this case is horrible. CNN literally went and got Zimmerman’s application to the sheriff’s department. They were that thorough with him. Yet, they never mention this and they only show a picture of the kid from the 8th grade.

            1. link of the pic wouldn’t load for me, but I wondered what was up with this, b/c I thought in the photo shown, he looked about 12 to me.

          2. So? You support summary execution of suspected drug dealers by roving vigilantes?

            1. Yeah, that’s exactly what he said. Jesus Christ, HM, you can do better than that.

    7. Isn’t that more reason to fight back with your fists and feet, then run, not shoot. Unless it is an intruder in your home or other situation there Martin was an aggressor.

      1. I’ve mentioned before that if George Zimmerman was going to patrol the neighborhood playing Rambo, maybe he should learn how to fight a little. At least enough to get away from someone who wants to kick his ass so he doesn’t have to rely on a gun.

        It’s not that hard, just aim for one of the following vital targets with either your fist or foot:

        1. The nose
        2. The adam’s apple
        3. The solar plexus
        4. The groin
        5. A knee

        Problem solved.

  9. Obama’s energy lies
    Playing politics with gas prices and a pipeline
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/o…..R93bTU4ZEK

    Suddenly, gas prices are up dramatically again, and Obama is in a political pickle. His Chevy Volt and Solyndra solutions are like putting out a forest fire with a squirt gun that doesn’t work. His record on denying drilling hither and yon, and a past, reported statement about not seeing oil as a solution to anything, hardly help the country, especially since he is thus sending oil markets signals to increase prices more. Increased production in our own land has happened despite him instead of because of him.

    1. bomb bomb bomb iran is a zimmerman

    2. QE (infintum)

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..nts-new-qe

  10. uh yeah…

    As Dems rack up debt, youth should flock to GOP
    http://articles.boston.com/201…..itt-romney

    The Democratic Party “is focused on providing more and more benefits to my generation, mounting trillion-dollar annual deficits my generation will never pay for,” Romney said. While Democrats are perpetrating “the greatest inter-generational transfer of wealth in the history of humankind,” Republicans are “consumed with the idea of getting federal spending down and creating economic growth and opportunity so we can balance our budget and stop putting these debts on you.”

    1. Hopefully these yutes will help the party change its free spending ways. Won’t hold my breath…

      1. Going from Team Blue to Team Red is like removing your hand from the deep-fryer to the pot of boiling water.

        And, vice-versa.

  11. But the law enforcement was just backup for the real investigators, Microsoft, who had secured a warrant from a federal judge to gather evidence and deactivate servers used by the criminals to infect people’s computers and harvest their personal data.

    Next up: McDonalds Raids Homes of Fatties

  12. Robert Bales, the soldier charged with the Afghanistan killing spree, is a chubby chaser.

    That or his wife ballooned after marriage.

    I’m thinking he’s like John and likes chubbies.

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

    1. Or maybe he actually thought something of his wife and children and didn’t dump them because she got fat.

      1. I’m thinking she was a whale when they got married.

        Fat girls need loving too!

        1. Guy apparently murders 15 people. And your biggest concern is that he has a fat wife. Only you sarcasmic.

          1. I’m putting forth the idea that there may be a correlation between being a chubby chaser and a potential mass murderer.

            1. HEY!!

            2. It’s probably the reverse.

              If you like chubby chicks, the world is your oyster.

              Why would someone like that go crazy and kill?

              They’re probably too busy getting laid all the time or too tired from bouncing all that flesh all over the place.

              Guys who like skinny chicks, now – THOSE guys you have to watch out for.

              1. If you like chubby chicks, the world is your oyster.

                Only if they like you back. If you like chubbies, and they don’t want anything to do with you, then you’re liable to go off on a random killing spree.

                1. only if they like you black.
                  fify

            3. so as an avenue of defense, this soldier can claim “Chubby-Chaser Rage?”

        2. But they gotta pay!

      2. Didn’t he find this wife after bailing on his “investment adviser” identity?

    2. I think he was on the run from a massive fraud judgment, and was trying to make a new life for himself, and figured “Army non-com with chubby Army wife” was not the worst available alternative.

      1. I hadn’t heard that. Good thing they do background checks on people. Jesus. I know so many people who have been turned down by the military because of some bullshit pot conviction in their past. But they took the guy on the run from the million dollar fraud judgment. Yeah, that makes sense.

        1. Fraud is a crime that has a victim. Shit like that doesn’t matter.

          Drug crimes on the other hand?
          Those are crimes against The State.
          You disrespected authority.
          They give a shit about that.

          But crimes against another citizen?

          Phhht!

    3. No wonder he re-enlisted.

      1. +80lbs

    4. You should have a chubby once in a while. Does wonders for my outlook.

  13. College Kicks Out Man Who Killed Trayvon Martin
    http://www.insidehighered.com/…..von-martin

    Seminole State College has expelled George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin, setting off a debate over whether Florida has been too slow to charge Zimmerman in the shooting, WKMG News reported. College officials released a statement saying: “Due to the highly charged and high-profile controversy involving this student, Seminole State has taken the unusual but necessary step this week to withdraw Mr. Zimmerman from enrollment. This decision is based solely on our responsibility to provide for the safety of our students on campus as well as for Mr. Zimmerman.” Zimmerman was enrolled in an associate in arts degree in general studies.

    1. Wow, someone managed to be an even bigger asshole in my eyes than Zimmerman.

    2. “This decision is based solely on our responsibility to provide for the safety of our students on campus as well as for Mr. Zimmerman.”

      You mean, the decision not to presume innocence until proven guilty and thereby simply increase security on campus?

      1. Sounds like a liability insurance decision.

    3. While I think Zimmerman should be charged (and possibly acquitted by jury later), this is stupid.

    4. “Marge, someone squeezed all the life out of these kids. And unless movies and TV have lied to me, it’s a crusty, bitter old Dean!”

        1. THAT’S it! You’re ALL on double-secret probation!

    5. Zimmerman was enrolled in an associate in arts degree in general studies.

      They did him a favor.

  14. The nodders on Morning Joke were on the Obamacare case this morning. Strangely enough, there was no discussion of the law itself, or what it does; the discussion was strictly about political winners and losers.

    What a bunch of loathesome cretins.

    1. I missed most of it but I did get to see Mike Barnicle float the idea that interstate commerce applies because people leave neighboring states to visit Massachusetts ERs.

    2. I like how you watch crappy cable news all day, then complain about it to the other lifers here who have jobs that allow them to comment on the blogs all day but not watch the crappy cable news. It’s like a public service.

      1. Out of curiosity, what time do you think Morning Joe is on?

        1. what time?
          like 1957

          1. Gotta tell you, Orrin, when you’re good, you’re good. More of this please.

            1. Agreed. We always have room for more quality snark.

    3. I look forward to the day when Mika has to come to terms with the SCOTUS striking down the mandate and Obama losing in November. Where’s all of that smug gonna go?

    4. I saw some CNN coverage thismornin. Apparently, it’s OK to not like TeamBlue for this whole mess, because they got their messaging wrong, and it really is their responsibility to explain these massive Federal Power grabs to us hayseeds. So they can understand why we’d be mad. They just didn’t a good enough job at communicating, and that is part of their job.

      No discussion or consideration whatsoever that there exists anything the Federal Government should be involved in. Disgusting.

  15. India: Losing its magic
    http://www.economist.com/node/21551061

    INDIA is a land of large numbers: a place of over a billion people, a million mutinies and a thousand different tongues. But it is not too much of a stretch to say that since independence in 1947 there have only been two kinds of Indian economy.

    The first produced slothful growth, mind-bending red tape and suffocating bureaucracy. The second revved up gradually after liberalisation in the 1990s, so that by the mid-2000s India was a land of surging optimism?open and full of entrepreneurs who overcame a retreating but still cranky public sector. The country seemed destined to enjoy a long spurt of turbocharged growth, thanks to its favourable demography, fired-up firms, gradual reforms and willingness to save and invest.

  16. http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/…..part-deux/

    This Rolland Martin David Steinberg thing is pretty funny. Martin is the perfect example of the liberal journalist who has lived in a bubble so long that he has lost the ability to defend his view points.

    1. Where I come from, Roland Martin is a sport fisherman.

  17. Florida Gov. Rick Scott says George Zimmerman deserves due process.

    FTS!

  18. Shikha Dalmia: Obamacare’s terrible twos
    Justices shouldn’t see health care case as an occasion for modesty
    http://www.thedaily.com/page/2…..almia-1-2/

    The four liberal justices, all of whom are expected to vote lock-step for the mandate, suffer from no equivalent qualms ? a telling fact. By contrast, among the conservatives, only Justice Clarence Thomas is considered a reliable “no” vote: He’s an “originalist” who believes that the court’s fundamental job is to ensure the fidelity of our laws to the Constitution.

    The other four conservatives worry more about two additional things: Stare decisis, the idea that judges should refrain from overturning precedents, even wrong-headed ones; and “judicial modesty,” the notion that the court needs to defer to Congress except in extreme cases.

  19. Microsoft obtained a warrant from a judge and conducted its own raids on botnet servers.

    Unfortunately, a dog was shot in the raid.

    1. But the military-industrial complex has an ace card ready. Tom Burbage, the F-35 program manager at Lockheed Martin, recently revealed that Tom Cruise has signed up to play Maverick in the sequel to Top Gun–and this time, he’ll be a test pilot for the F-35.

      That volleyball scene is going to be a whole lot different with today’s Iceman.

      1. Who is that, Chaz Bono?

  20. OK now that jsut does not make any sense at all to me dude, none,

    http://www.Anon-Works.tk

  21. I don’t think Zimmerman stalked Martin intending to murder him in cold blood. I also don’t think he can properly claim self defense if he was the one who initiated the contact.

    1. I doubt he did. Does some mall cop, really want to get into with a 17 year old high school football player? I seriously doubt it. And if he was that gung ho about stopping Martin, why not just draw his gun? Why try to get in a fist fight? It seems to me that the most likely scenario is that they got into it verbally and Martin got pissed off and attacked Zimmerman.

      1. I think the most likely scenario is that Zimmerman tried to stop Martin from leaving, either through relatively innocuous contact (grabbing his arm or something) or by verbal threat (“If you try to leave before the police get here I’ll stop you!”) and that Martin then punched him.

        The problem for Zimmerman is that as an asshole self-appointed cop, he probably thought he was perfectly entitled to do both of those things to Martin, and was probably shocked as hell to get punched for doing them. (Whichever one he did, that is.) It never entered his mind that doing either of these things would make him a felon and the aggressor, and entitle Martin to use force to escape him.

        So I don’t doubt that Zimmerman thought he was doing the right thing.

        Zimmerman’s claim that they never even spoke, and Martin just randomly decided to fight, just seems wildly implausible to me.

        1. “If you try to leave before the police get here I’ll stop you!

          He probably did say that. And if that is all he did, Martin was in the wrong. If Martin threw the first punch, I have no sympathy for him. Don’t go attack someone with a gun. Sure, Zimmerman was an asshole neighborhood watch cop. But that didn’t give Martin the right to attack him.

          1. And if that is all he did, Martin was in the wrong.

            That’s false imprisonment by threat.

            If Martin threw the first punch, I have no sympathy for him.

            If Zimmerman approached Martin and hassled him, I have no sympathy for Zimmerman.

            1. You are crazy fluffy. So what if he did hassle him. That doesn’t give Martin the right to punch him in the face. You only have right to use force when the other person uses force.

              As I said, Martin had a right to walk away. And that what he should have done. Look at it this way. Suppose Zimmerman hadn’t shot him and Martin had beat him up. Martin would have been arrested for battery. The “he told me I couldn’t leave” excuse would not have been a defense.

              1. Suppose Zimmerman hadn’t shot him and Martin had beat him up. Martin would have been arrested for battery. The “he told me I couldn’t leave” excuse would not have been a defense.

                He’d only be convicted if he had a really shitty lawyer, or if the system is in fact racist.

                Because if a white, blonde 14 year old girl was chased down on a dark street by a fat, creepy bag of shit like Zimmerman, and he threateningly told her she couldn’t leave, and she maced him, she wouldn’t be convicted of a damn thing. (Assuming she’s not in one of those jurisdictions where mace is banned.)

                1. Oh bullshit fluffy. And he didn’t just mace him. He beat him up. And it was obvious who the guy was. He got out of his car. He was the mall cop.

                  It is not racist. You just can’t beat someone up because you don’t like them. I know you hate mall cops. And I know it is hard to admit that maybe a young black kid might have been violent and not wanted some mall cop fucking with him. Can you admit maybe just maybe Martin is not without sin here?

                  1. He wasnt a mall cop.

                    Mall cops have been granted powers by the state. Zimmerman didnt get them, as far as we know.

                  2. And it was obvious who the guy was. He got out of his car. He was the mall cop.

                    That’s just it. He wasn’t the mall cop. He was just some asshole.

                    And when you’re just some asshole, you don’t get to accost people on the street and try to force or threaten them to stay with you because you think they’re “suspicious”.

                    To me, trying to do that puts you in the legal position of being Ted Bundy trying to force or threaten some girl into his van.

                    Black teenagers enjoy equal liberty under the law as pretty white girls.

                  3. John, now you sound like the people who say you have to retreat before you can defend yourself in your home. I have looked but I can’t find anything that says this guy had an official position or uniform or a vehicle with a logo or anything. So why would Martin think this guy was anything but crazy? Also, Zimmerman probably didn’t have the gun drawn when the altercation started.

              2. You are crazy fluffy. So what if he did hassle him. That doesn’t give Martin the right to punch him in the face. You only have right to use force when the other person uses force.

                So “Stand Your Ground” only applies to the guy with the gun? I assumed it meant you could forcibly resist threats on your life.

                1. Sorry. To finish…
                  threats on your life or liberty. And threatening someone with an illegal detention is a threat on their liberty.

                  If that’s what Zimmerman did, Martin had every right to “Stand his ground” and fight for his freedom.

                  The law was written for people in Martin’s situation much more than Zimmerman’s.

                  1. “The law was written for people in Martin’s situation much more than Zimmerman’s.”

                    That’s about what I have been thinking here. I’m not going to pretend to know what happened, but Martin’s right to self defense doesn’t get much attention in these discussions. I can imagine plenty of scenarios where he would quite rightly feel the need to defend himself against some guy following him around at night.

        2. Or maybe Zimmer is telling the truth.
          Maybe Zimmer lost the kid and turned back. Then the kid spotted Zimmer and decided to beat the shit out of him. After being clipped in the back of the head from behind and set upon by a 6’3″ football player, a terrified Zimmer pulled his pistol and shot the kid in the chest.

          It’s just as plausible.

          1. No, it’s not.

            Without some interaction between Zimmerman and Martin, it’s wildly implausible that Martin just “felt like” attacking Zimmerman for no reason.

            What a coincidence! Martin decided to randomly go wilding on the very same guy who, just a few moments before, was following him and voicing anger that he might “get away”.

            1. For no reason?

              Why not for following him?

              There’s a reason right there.

              Teach him not to follow strangers.

              1. Well, when he was on the phone with his girlfriend, he was trying to get away from Zimmerman. It seems unlikely that he would then turn around and start following Zimmerman and attack him.

                I think Zimmerman’s lying about what happened at the crucial juncture. Of course, you have to choose who is more credible, Zimmerman or the girlfriend, and they both can be challenged.

                1. It seems unlikely that he would then turn around and start following Zimmerman and attack him.

                  Unlikely but not impossible.

                  1. What if he didn’t follow Zimmer, but after thinking he’s lost him he finds himself behind him as he’s walking back to his car?
                    He’s already amped up on adrenaline. Figures what the fuck? He’s got the jump on him.
                    *Wham!*

                    Just saying there’s a possibility that Zimmer is telling the truth.
                    That’s all.

                  2. Exactly. I think its more likely that Zimmerman actually caught up to him, made contact, and then stepped over the line by trying to detain him.

                    If that’s the case, Zimmerman shouldn’t be able to claim self-defense. Once you start as the “aggressor”, you don’t lose that status if things don’t go your way (and I know, the stupid FL statute is drafted so that the aggressor can, in some situations, legally kill their victim).

                    1. sarcasmic, it would be interesting to see a map. I continue to be mystified by how Zimmerman could turn around and head back, and still encounter Trayvon.

                    2. I continue to be mystified by how Zimmerman could turn around and head back, and still encounter Trayvon.

                      Some of these developments are like mazes.

      2. Even if you elevat a Neighborhood Watch volunteer to “mall cop”, Zimmerman’s statement to the Sanford PD says that he was not on “official business” but was out driving on an errand himself.

        Now it’s true that NW voluteers are in some sense “on duty” all the time, the fact is that as soon as Zimmerman called 911 and reported his suspicions his obligation with respect to Martin was over.

        The fact that he chose to escalate matters makes him at least partly culpable.

    2. But, but, but the kid was black!

      Obviously this was a hate crime motivated by racism!

      If you disagree then you are racist!

      Racist!

      1. You really think a white kid wearing a hoodie in the rain on that same night would be dead right now?

        1. If he busted dude’s nose and made him think his life was in danger? Perhaps yes.

          1. Would Zimmerman have called the cops if it was a white kid? Would he have started following him if it was a white kid? Would he have continued to follow him after the police were on the way if it was a white kid. Would have have said “sick of these people getting away with it” if it was a white kid?

            I find all of that highly unlikely. Just as I found that if it was an unarmed white kid that lived in the neighborhood that was dead, Zimmerman wouldn’t have been arrested or at least questioned off-site and the crime scene wouldn’t have been left to be disturbed for days.

            1. I dunno. There are some pretty shady looking white kids walking out of the trailer park down the road.
              Racism is a cheap accusation because it puts the burden of proof on the accused.

              1. But denying that there is no racism in this case is just as foolish.

                Zimmerman set in motion a chain of events that led to Martin death. There is no evidence whatsoever that Martin was doing anything other than walking home, and even now, afraid for his freedom, Zimmerman has yet to claim that Martin was committing a crime.

                There was a long chain of time points where Zimmerman would have walk away from this and Martin would still be alive.

                1. “But denying…”

                  Flipping the burden of proof is cheap.

                  1. So is a black kid’s life in Florida.

                    1. Say the kid wasn’t black, but was some piece of white trash from a trailer park who decided to cut through the “gated community” on his way home.
                      Looking out of place and suspicious, Zimmer decided to follow him.
                      The same events unfold.

                      There would be a completely different narrative going on, if it was even being discussed at all.

                      The only difference being the color of the dead guy’s skin.

                    2. Neither kid should have had their papers demanded of them by a neighborhood watch nobody with pretensions of being a cop. (And I don’t think a cop should have that right either, despite what the tards on SCOTUS say.)

                    3. I agree. However I find kneejerk accusations of racism to be cheap.
                      They presume guilt and offer no way to prove innocence.
                      Was Zimmer out of line? Yes.
                      Was he justified in shooting the kid? I dunno. I wasn’t there.
                      If he picked a fight and pulled the gun after getting his ass whooped? No.
                      If he lost the kid and then got clipped from behind as he walked back to his car? Maybe.
                      But I wasn’t there so I can’t say for sure.

                    4. It’s all cheap.

                    5. To be fair, a black kid’s life is pretty cheap worldwide, SF. I mean, shit, look at Africa.

                    6. We got ten G’s bounty on that cracka Zimmerman’s head. Who cheap NOW, bitches?

          1. Right, because having a gold grill and tats means you’re a drug dealer and all drug dealers deserve to be shot. Even if everything in that article were true it wouldn’t give Zimmerman the right to attack and murder Zimmerman.

    3. If we presume Zimmerman started the physical altercation, does Martin then have the right to beat him into a coma even if Zimmerman is trying to disengage?

      1. If we presume…

        What do you mean, “if”?

        1. I mean, “since we can’t know for sure either way at this point, but presume the worst case for Zimmerman’s position.”

          But, hey, let’s word it your way, since it doesn’t change the real question in the least: Since we know that Zimmerman started the physical altercation, does Martin then have the right to beat him into a coma even if Zimmerman is trying to disengage?

  22. Lady Gaga: ‘I wear veils because I’m mourning the world’s problems’

    Wow. She’s so profound. And not ripping off Johnny Cash at all.

    1. She’s done awafully well for a tranny. Probably an inspiration to trannies everywhere.

    2. so the world’s problems are all dead!?? then i’m celebrating!!

  23. House Majority Whip Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., will endorse Mitt Romney for the GOP presidential nomination on Monday, the Romney campaign announced.

    No one thinks Santorum will surge a third time, but boy will it be awkward if it happens unexpectedly.

    1. This morning on whatever station was on in our cafeteria they said that “all the candidates had their chance to take the nomination. They all rose and then fell.” Um, I don’t remember you guys talking about a Paul rise.

    2. An unexpected Santorum surge would probably floor at least one person.

    1. They already have him dead to rights for lying to Congress.

      Fuck you Shrike.

      1. Not a big deal.

        1. Corzine was a good soldier for The Cause; therefore, we want him to remain free.

    2. It’s almost as if the SEC is trying to further prove that it is a useless behemoth styaffed by utterly incompetent political hacks. I realize that Madoff, Enron, etc., had already proved this, but those were unintentional on the SEC’s part.

      1. gutting regulatory budgets
        gosh how do it work?

        1. there is no scenario in which bigger regulatory budgets are not the answer derp

        2. The SEC budget hasn’t been cut at least since Obama took office (“continuing resolutions”, anyone?), and I’m not aware that it was but by Bush.

          1. Go on USA Jobs sometime and search for SEC jobs. The SEC is and has been hiring like crazy for about three years now.

        3. Are you fucking serious? The SEC’s budget about doubled after Enron and Worldcom. By rewarding the SEC’s failures in this way, we got Madoff, MF Global, a scandal in which several SEC staffers in DC were busted for doing nothing at work but downloading porn all day, and surely some other things I am now forgetting.

        4. Thanks for bringing your unique brand of stupid so early in the week, Urine!

  24. So, at long last, is our blogwide nightmare over?

    Don’t bet the farm on it.

    1. She’s still trolling as the anonpussy, so clearly the answer is no. Look for lots of White Indian later.

      1. But a lot of the fun for her is no one knowing who she is.

        1. So are you going to send her a nice lawyer letter, John?

        2.    ^

        3. You guys gotta make up your minds. I thought it was so clear that WI was this Godesky guy.

          1. No, he’s just some harmless nut that she came across and used his writing to troll us. She admitted as much this weekend.

            1. The bloom is off the rose. She is upthread posting the usual bullshit. But somehow knowing who she is makes it imminently easier to just ignore her.

              1. It does, doesn’t it? I’m even finding the regular dipshits like Orrin more tolerable now.

              2. knowing who she is makes it imminently easier to just ignore her

                HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

            2. She did? How/where? I didn’t see it.

              1. Here

                Mike M.|3.24.12 @ 12:57PM|#|show direct|ignore
                I see that diabetes-face has got himself a new IP address. He’s probably using the free Wi-Fi at McDonald’s while shoveling four or five Big Macs into his fat belly.

                reply to this

                Libertarian Loser Club|3.24.12 @ 1:03PM|#|show direct|ignore
                Run out of effective arguments, so you’re going to obsess about the bodyof one of the folks I reference?

                Neato “reason” tactic, there. I’m impressed.

                You’re at, oh, a 2nd grade level of discourse.

                Yeah, typical Libertarian Loser.

                reply to this

                1. Thx. Not sure what that proves – “she” does indeed reference him in the body of “her” message right above all that. But, whatever…

                1. you’re my obsession

                  1. But somehow knowing who she is makes it imminently easier to just ignore her.

                    1. Starting…now!

    2. See?

      libertarianism = inappropriate|3.26.12 @ 9:43AM|#|show all|ignore
      what else can you expect from greedy autistic retard boys?

      1. More Wapner!!! More fucking Wapner, damn it!!! And cake!!!!

        1. Knowing who she is makes it imminently easier to just ignore her.

          1. …makes it imminently easier to just ignore?

            LOL

            1. OK, starting now!

  25. During the weekend, in addition to the rally for atheism, there was a rally for religious freedom in numerous cities, including Washington, DC:

    “I’ve been involved in grassroots activism for years, including protests that have drawn national attention, and I’ve never seen as much secular, mainstream media coverage as the Nationwide Rally garnered.”

    http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/

    1. Brought to you by the Stand up Coalition to Stop the HHS Mandate:

      http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/coalition/

  26. Popcorn, when it’s not slathered in butter and coated in salt, is already known to be a healthy snack food and now a group of scientists say it may even top fruits and vegetables in antioxidant levels.

    In other words, don’t bother.

    1. C’mon, butter is great and so is salt. *shakes fist at food police*

    2. What is this strange “popcorn not slathered in butter and coated in salt”?

      1. toasted maize? /Indian (but not White)

      2. Im acutally not a huge fan of buttered popcorn. Without salt, however, and its just packing material.

        But salted popcorn. Nom nom nom nom nom.

        1. I agree, lots of salt but little to no butter, I do not like soggy popcorn.

        2. How does the salt stay on without butter?

          I really like pop corn with soy sauce. Also a good way to get the saltiness to stick.

    3. Regardless of what you slather it in to give it taste, while you’re popping it, it smells like a 9 day old bed pan full of piss left in the summer sun.

  27. I know it’s the morning, and there’s virtually no chance dunphy will show up to defend it, but I’m just gonna put this here.

    Please discuss once the rage subsides.

    1. Albuquerque police officers involved in a rash of fatal shootings over the past two years were paid up to $500 under a union program that some have likened to a bounty system in a department with a culture that critics have long contended promotes brutality.

      Although the union said the payments were intended to help the officers decompress from a stressful situation, one victim’s father and a criminologist said it sounded more like a reward program.

      Nothing helps law enforcement unwind like making five hundred trips to the titty bar.

      1. C’mon man, $500 gets you two, maybe three trips to the titty bar. Or do I go with the wrong people?

        1. It’s cheaper for cops, because it would be a shame if they had to look closer into other activities there.

          1. “Pretty nice tits you have there. Be a shame if something happened to them.”

        2. Funny how this got defended by every cop interviewed.

          My guess is this is a pretty common thing, and will end up blowing up in the face of cop unions.

          1. Unions pay me to shill for them… what’s the big deal?

            Am I gonna have to torch the fuckin’ place?

            1. We’re still going to look the other way on that, Ed.

          2. Well, except for the Idaho cop.

      2. I’m guessing the New Orleans Saints will have paid a higher price than the Albuquerque PD

  28. If we presume Zimmerman started the physical altercation, does Martin then have the right to beat him into a coma even if Zimmerman is trying to disengage?

    I say no.

    But that’s just me.

    1. In Florida, maybe. Trayvon was standing his ground, after all.

      1. The idea of being allowed to stand your ground is something I could get behind, but I think that if they can prove that you killed the guy, you should have to convince the jury that it was standing your ground.

        1. No, the state has to prove you werent standing your ground.

          1. should

            Don’t be a dunphy.

        2. I suppose one ought to have the right to stand one’s ground. But when in a public place which you do not control, you need to make sure you are damn careful that there isn’t anyone behind your target who might get hit accidentally. In most public situations, I think that a duty to retreat, if reasonably possible, is appropriate.

      2. Exercising his 2nd Amendment rights, which all libertarians support.

        Right?

        1. When it suits us.

        2. Exercising his 2nd Amendment right

          Trayvon didn’t have a gun.

          1. Oh, I see. 2nd Amendment and the right to defend oneself only pertains to guns-vs-guns encounters. Gotcha.

  29. I did get to see Mike Barnicle float the idea that interstate commerce applies because people leave neighboring states to visit Massachusetts ERs.

    And, of course, Barnicle was trying to imply that those people in Rhode Island and New Hampshire would be left untreated in an emergency room in their home state.

    1. Of course survivalists and faith healers refuse to seek medical care. To say they are still part of interstate commerce is to say the government owns your body.

      1. Katniss in The Hunger Games struck me as a survivalist, but welcomed flying robots bearing gifts of what appeared to be greasy medicine.

        1. To me she seemed more like a suspiciously same-age-as-me-looking “16” year old.

          1. Ms. Lawrence is 21, and you’ll get no complaints from me concerning her appearance in that movie.

            Makes me feel like much less of a creeper than I do when watching Harry Potter from start to finish.

            1. She looks old for 21 even. Not that I’m complaining. If I ran across her in my daily life I would love to get a chance to be turned down by her.

      2. It would also be quite reasonable for someone to decide that they will only get medical care that they can pay for out of pocket and if something more expensive happens, they will forgo medical care.

  30. Speaking of choo-choo trains, there’s now two private competitors in the market here in the Czech Republic.

    http://www.praguepost.com/busi…..-rail.html

    One of the companies got started doing private buses. My son and his grandma just took a RegioJet train over the weekend it apparently kicks ass, cheaper, cleaner, nicer, faster, everything one would expect when free market competition is allowed. And the tickets can be easily purchased on the internet, something the state monopoly never bothered getting around to.

    1. One of my arguments against Amtrak and local government-subsidised buses is that it crowds out what could be better private service. For example, in Manhattan, plenty of private buses offer a service for around $10/day that takes you on a pleasant, 50-mile trip from central NJ to Manhattan.

      In most cities, the bus costs a $1.10, but it’s horrendously slow and doesn’t go where you need it to. Any private competitors get immediately choked off by a public express bus which will run for a year (at a loss) and then eventually get cancelled.

      1. There’s some Boston to NYC Chinatown buses for stupid cheap (though as I understand it, not very comfy).

      2. I’m honestly surprised this was allowed to happen here, given the amount of corruption, but then I supposed they bribed someone(s) to release the state monopoly.

        So now we have the state monopoly competing with private trains on the same tracks. If they can manage it here, why not with Amtrack?

        1. I mean, the ex-monopoly state trains competing against privately owned and operated trains.

      3. And I know nothing about the safety record of Boston-based “chinatown buses” but there was a recent, nasty crash of a chinatown bus in Virginia. People were killed.

        Which isn’t to say that these are inherently unsafe. (SLD)

        1. All automobiles are inherently unsafe.

          1. I made millions of dollars saying just that, Auric.

            1. And I did it for free?

  31. Bad when “rather” does it, good when we do it.

    Discuss.

    1. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    2. U mad, Mary?

    3. That’s different. We’re in the right.

    4. “Outing”? I don’t think most Reason Hit & Run commenters are closeted homosexuals.

  32. Happy fucking birthday to me.

    And Leonard Nimoy. And Diana Ross. And Steven Tyler. And Robert Frost.

    And Nancy Pelosi?!?!!?!? Fuck me.

    1. And how could I forget the inimitable James Caan.

      It’s bidness, not poisonal!

      1. I like that Stevie Wonder. Off of that album, the title track is pretty good.

    2. Happy b’day!

      Nimoy and Tyler more than cancel out “wait, what?”. Heh.

  33. WITCH LYNCHIN’ IN PROGRESS!

    1. She turned me into a newt!

      1. …slobbering maniac.

  34. If it had a grudge before…

    1. No shit….there sure is a lot of hornet’s-nest-soccer going on up in here!

      1. My scroll wheel has suffered permanent damage.

        1. But somehow knowing who she is makes it imminently easier to just ignore her.

          1. Starting now!

        2. Space bar. Hit the space bar to jump a screen at a time.

          1. Yeah, but the risk to gaming’s default jump key is too great. Better to ruin the scroll wheel – I have number keys on my mouse to switch inventory. 😉

  35. LIBERTARIAN INQUISITION

    Ever wonder how the unknown ideal society would work?

    Now you have a glimpse.

    1. Really, I am not even advocating ignoring you anymore, Mary Stack. Now that we know all of these delicious details about what an out-and-out loser you are, merciless mockery of you is that much more tasty.

      1. But somehow knowing who she is makes it imminently easier to just ignore her.

  36. Not buying the Magic/Unified Troll theory. I think there’s more than one on that grassy knoll.

    Not like it matters, really. Registration or just slap Disqus on or something already, please.

    1. “Unified Troll Theory” would be an excellent name for a band.

    2. The writing style of “White Indian” here matches mstack’s fairly well.

      It doesn’t line up with Godesky’s works, such as his Wikipedia edits or his (rather voluminous) essays. I also haven’t found a pattern of him pestering blogs around the Internet.

      I can’t decide if shrike is mstack or just an admirer.

  37. For real yo:) Rather might not be mstack. Fuck the trolls but be sure you are fucking the right person.

  38. This PC Nazi bullshit is getting old. How much longer is the millionaire media going to keep this up? They’re not even helping the poeple they think they are helping. These assholes have cried wolfe so many times that no one cares anymore.

    Somebody call Media Matters, I just offended myself.

    1. We only focus on right-wing media. You’re not important enough.

  39. Albuquerque police officers involved in a rash of fatal shootings over the past two years were paid up to $500 under a union program that some have likened to a bounty system in a department with a culture that critics have long contended promotes brutality.

    So basically the NFL cares more about stopping bounty programs than the PoPo does.

  40. I demand to be tracked by Facebook in order to post. Don’t let the fact that Volokh chickened out stop you.

  41. This thing of Microsoft sending people to inspect computers is hardly new, they once sent their people to a place where they suspected that the company was using unlicensed windows installs. After a lot of pointless searching they finally had to concede that they were using BSD not Windows, they have this attitude that anyone not using windows must be using pirated software.

    1. To be fair, the contracts people agree to when installing Windows permit Microsoft to make surprise inspections. (Whether or not a EULA is a legally enforceable contract is another topic for discussion.)

  42. ” That hat…….. that fucking hat “

  43. Florida Gov. Rick Scott says George Zimmerman deserves due process.

    I rhink we all agree that the racist, child-hating, white-supremicist, bigoted, deranged-gun-owner bein’ Zimmerman deserves a fair trial before he is tarred, feathered, hanged, shot and electrocuted for his heinous crime.

    1. He’ll get a fair trial before we hang him

      1. Not if we get the cracka first!

  44. I was happy to see Helio win that race yesterday, but the new Indycars looks like brightly painted tugboats. They might as well go ahead and put roofs on them.

    Keep up the good work, Randy. How are the negotiations to merge with NASCAR coming?

    1. Thanks for the spoiler. Still DVR’d.

      A one hour rain delay in Malaysia and every female in my family bogartin’ the TV or demanding my undivided attention will do that.

  45. Actually, since we’ve hashed out the Zimmerman thing quite a bit, I figure I’ll break new ground by using this as the opportunity to start a minarchist / ancap brawl here:

    A lot of the legal issues surrounding the Zimmerman case turn on what Zimmerman was, and was not, entitled to do when he saw someone he considered “suspicious”.

    Doesn’t this incident demonstrate that the ancap position is untenable? If private citizens are to “take back” the prerogatives we have given to the police (one of which is to investigate and question “suspicious” people), wouldn’t we then end up with every private citizen put into Zimmerman’s position – making up their own minds whether to trail and accost strangers?

    1. It does. Being a cop sucks.

    2. I’d say that the flip side of that is also valid: You have no right to impede or interfere with my right to travel, other than contrasting rights, such as property.

      If you stop me on the sidewalk and prevent me from moving any further, you can bet your last fiat dollar that I’m to do whatever it takes to continue, up to and including shooting you, if that’s what it takes.

      Yammering about suspicious activities is only going to get you punched in the nose more quickly, unless you actually saw me commit a crime.

  46. One of my arguments against Amtrak and local government-subsidised buses is that it crowds out what could be better private service.

    No kidding. The only thing AMTRAK does is guarantee there will never be successful quality passenger rail service, even in the limited corridors where it actually makes sense.

  47. In Ancapistan the services currently provided by the monopoly state would be provided by competitive firms most likely organized as joint-stock companies, imo.

    So no.

    1. All we know for likely is that rather is mstack. WI is another animal that will most likely continue to shit here.

      Any luck with getting Penn to wed you?

      1. Is it ‘stick’, ‘sticks’ or ‘stack’?

        I’m sure we’d all like to keep up with the the sudden appearance of a new poster and the subsequent handle hopping.

        1. I’m sticks. And mostly today also stick. The s got dropped somehow(rodents).

          I’m not that new. I used to post as sailor till i made too many dumb comments(feel free to still give me shit though for them).

          Yes I have changed handles. I’ve never taken on the WI handle or trolled here.

      2. We didn’t want to come across as beggars, so we thought we’d leave that to the commentators and/or the reason staff.

        Short answer: not a bit.

  48. Doesn’t this incident demonstrate that the ancap position is untenable?

    I think Martin and Zimmerman are both victims of the culture of unrelenting paranoia which has been cultivated in this country over the past generation (and which has accelerated out of control in the past ten years).

    Zimmerman was out there looking for… I’m not sure what, exactly; vandals, burglars, carjackers?

    Martin was confronted by someone whom he had undoubtedly been trained since early childhood to assume was a homosexual child molestor or some other form of predatory psychopath.

    They were both doomed.

    In a “real world” AnCap scenario, Zimmerman would have minded his own fucking business, as long as the kid was walking in a common area and not wrecking anything.

    1. Not to mention that in ancapistan, both probably would have been openly carrying, and Zimmerman certainly would have been.

      In that scenario, their conversation would have been very, very different, and any kind of altercation/shootout highly unlikely.

    2. I see what you mean, but surely there would be paranoid people even in ancapistan?

      And those people would all feel that they were individually “police”, as we now understand the term.

      Isn’t the point of ancapistan that nobody can “mind his own fucking business”, because we’re now all taking responsibility for doing what the police did before?

      1. But wouldn’t you (personally) require a greter likelihood of guilt? You have no immunity for your actions, so you would probably approach the matter entirely differently and not act unless you were pretty damn sure. You’d require more proof than walking while hooded if you were going to accost someone, knowing that you have nothing to stand on if you’re wrong.

    3. The obvious ancap solution is to stop having common areas. All they do is lead to problems.

      There’s no reason a gated community needs any publicly accessible areas.

  49. Sorry, JW.

    1. No worries. I would have seen the results somewhere soon enough. How did Ruebens do in his debut?

    2. Why would you have expected anyone else in the world to wonder what happened in an IndyCar race, Brooksie?

      An offseason full of pants-wetting was determined to end this way. That series will never be worth watching again.

      1. I have to admit, I didn’t pay too much attention to what went on in the off-season. To what pants are you referring sloop?

        1. The “Oh noes! Open cockpits are death traps!” pants-wetting.

  50. A dose o’ stoopid:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..f=politics

    Note the mention of a woman named “Spike Dolomite Ward”. Yikes, her parents must have wanted her to get picked on in school, what?

    1. RAAAAAACIIIIST!!!!!1!ELEVENTY!!!!

    2. FTA: The radical Republicans have been waiting years for this day. They’ve managed to get the very idea of government argued before the Supreme Court. It’s part of their effort to tear down President Obama and the new health care law and take away benefits and consumer protections that are already changing the lives of millions of Americans.

      Why does he neglect to say that “change” is to make their life much more expensive?

      1. Government on trial? I’m all for that!

        1. And, when a Republican president gets into office, the Democrats will have “their effort to tear down” him or her.

          Circle of life.

          1. Damn right we will! ESPECIALLY if the Repukes elect a woman.

            1. That’s “Lives Were Touched”.

              1. Like the way I touch my nephew when no one is looking?

      2. Intentions!

    3. Executive Director, Health Care for America Now

      I stopped reading after that.

    4. Perhaps she was meant to show Brooklyn guido pizzeria owners as racists while assembling an army of kung-fu hookers.

      Nah, probably not.

      1. I like where you’re headed, Ska, but it needs more explosions.

    5. Meh. Sandra Fluke’s piece (That’s right, HuffPo will pay ANYONE Arianna has heard of) is much worse.

  51. Let’s just say Reubens was “unspectacular”.

  52. I think Zimmerman thought this would be his way of getting early acceptance into the police academy. A sort of “jump in” if you will.

    And the more I read about Martin leads me to believe Zimmerman picked the wrong guy to do it on.

  53. Final Four predictions, anyone?

    I see tOSU vs UK in the finals.

    1. Concur. UK will take OSU, though.

      1. Good to hear from ya Rev.

        Sloopy, I had a great time the other night at TD Garden and I thought of you several times during the night. I annoyed some Syracuse fans because I was cheering good play on both sides.

        1. I wish I had been able to trade places with you. All I had were a bunch of inbred jackholes watching some MMA fight around me. And that was at a BW3’s!

    2. Kansas is going to take OSU. And UK is going to choke once again like all Calipari teams do.

      1. vegas foresees the bucks

    3. I really, really, need the UK, KU final, so that’s how I’m rooting.

    4. No doubt. Just hoping L’ville bangs the Cats up a little first.

      1. The Calapitino bowl.

        1. I like it! The winner gets a three year exemption from being investigated by the NCAA.

  54. Man leaves children in hot car as he goes shopping for guns.

    Obviously this means shopping for guns should be banned.

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

    1. My goodness, temperatures soaring into the mid 70s.

      I’m sure the children will be much safer being bounced around foster homes as wards of the state.

  55. BTW:

    Mad Men season premiere was a C-.

    1. What’s a “Mad Men?”

      1. From what I understand it is a cable program centered around a redhead with big tits.

        1. As they move farther into the 60’s I hold out more hope for a very special “Joan and Trudy in I Dream of Jeannie costumes” episode.

          1. One great side effect of Mad Men’s popularity is that it has brought back the late afternoon highball as acceptable office practice.

            We have a good number of hot interns and young staff, so things are shaping up nicely around here.

            1. Hot interns do have a way of shaping up certain things.

    2. Mad Men has been fail since the 2nd maybe 3rd season. The show looks great. Otherwise not that great.

      1. I watched the first season: pretty good.

        At some point toward the end of the second season, I stopped caring.

        1. Most of the charm of the show was ye olde office etiquetter: smoking! drinking! banging secretaries! in the office!!!

          That can only carry a show for so long.

          1. Don’t forget hot redheads.

  56. Isn’t the point of ancapistan that nobody can “mind his own fucking business”, because we’re now all taking responsibility for doing what the police did before?

    But hopefully, that “ad hoc policing” would be restricted to actual harm. If Martin had been methodically breaking out the windows of the clubhouse, or some private residence, Zimmerman would have been justified in intervening.

    1. What Zimmerman seems to have been doing was playing policeman.

      In Ancapistan, there would be no police to imitate. Zimmerman would likely have been an employee of a private security firm, openly carrying, subject to the policies of the firm, etc. I doubt the firm would authorize its people to go around accosting people who weren’t doing anything wrong.

      1. In Ancapistan what’s to stop private security firms from moving into a “protection racket” style business model, forcefully eliminating their competition, and becoming government?

        1. Nothing. The cops do that enough now and they actually are under a threat to at least keep it under control. In Ancapistan, there isn’t even that. And that is quickly what private security firms would turn into.

          1. Third-world police forces are essentially private security firms. As is the mafia.

            But for some reason the ancaps prefer to dig up Saga Iceland as an example of anarchy in action.

        2. Anarchy cant exist. This is exactly one of the reasons. It almost instantly because Multiarchy.

      2. I doubt the firm would authorize its people to go around accosting people who weren’t doing anything wrong.

        This reminds me of Descartes’ claim that it would be impossible to float a balloon over a city and drop things onto it because God would never allow such a thing.

  57. What Zimmerman seems to have been doing was playing policeman.

    I certainly believe this to be true. And, of course, the worst part is he was copycatting the pernicious “presumption of guilt” mentality which pervades modern jackbootery. He presumably accosted Martin in an effort to force him to prove he had a “right” (I have really come to dislike that word; it has been so misused as to be practically meaningless) to be there.

    In the Ancapistan of my dreams, all citizens would be presumptively deputized to participate in the keeping of the peace. That does not mean they would have carte blanche to engage in bullying or thuggery.

  58. And, again, a 901 character FUCK YOU< REASON WEBMASTER!

    Let us say, for the sake of illustration, you were behind a car with no brake lights; rather than pulling him over and browbeating him for twenty minutes and interrogating him at length after forcing him to produce his identity papers, you pull up next to him at the light, and say, “Hey, your brake lights aren’t working. You should probably get them fixed before somebody less attentive than I rams into the back of you.”

    1. But don’t we get to pull the driver out, place him in handcuffs, in the back of the cruiser, while we search his car? Where is the fun in that?

  59. First!

  60. Deedeedeedee, deedeedeedee!

  61. This was like the worst chat room ever.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.