A.M. Links: Obamacare's Future Looks Bleak, Marco Rubio Endorses Mitt Romney, New Video Challenges George Zimmerman's Assault Claim

|

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: "Obamacare #FAIL: Day 3 at the Supreme Court"

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.

354 responses to “A.M. Links: Obamacare's Future Looks Bleak, Marco Rubio Endorses Mitt Romney, New Video Challenges George Zimmerman's Assault Claim

  1. George Zimmerman claimed to have been attacked and beaten bloody by Trayvon Martin. New video suggests otherwise.

    But what race was the videographer?

    1. The bits of the video I saw did not have enough detail to tell if his nose was broken.

      1. You’re not actually supposed to watch the footage. Just take what the media is telling you and, well, don’t move on, but something.

        1. but i watched it.

          no tape on nose, no black eyes, no blood on shirt (noses bleed profusely).

          1. What color was the shirt? Is the video clear and in enough detail that you would be able to tell if there was drying blood on it? (Blood turns brownish as it dries, it doesn’t stay bright red. And why would the cops or anyone put tape on his nose? And the eyes generally turn black from a severe break the next day. I don’t think the video is conclusive.

            1. shirt grey
              yes
              EMT’s checked zimmerman at scene

              1. Sweater that was over shirt = red.
                Paramedics reported the injuries.

                1. We obviously need to know the race of the paramedics.

                2. not a sweater, rather an open jacket clearly showing his shirt since his hands were cuffed behind his back.

                  no blood

          2. o3 at least you refer to yourself as lower case ‘I’. And I concur!

        2. “New Video Challenges George Zimmerman’s Assault Claim”
          Wrong the video challenged nothing. ABC challenges Zimmermans claim….as does “Reason”.

          1. When new evidence comes to light that doesn’t support my preconceived notions, that’s race baiting!

            THE [FORENSIC] SCIENCE IS SETTLED!

            What’s your agenda Reason?

      2. Maybe the police broke his nose later.

        Y’know, as a professional courtesy…

      3. No, but there’s no discernible blood. Considering that he’s cuffed in the back of a police car and unable to clean his face or staunch any bleeding with his hands, it is a little unusual. Bleeding following an impact strong enough to break the nose doesn’t stop quickly even with pressure.

        There’s certainly no evidence of a scalp laceration, either, for the same reason, although he may have an abrasion that can’t be visualized.

        1. Why does it matter to anyone what anyone thinks this low-res video shows when there is a paramedic’s report?

          1. Why does it matter to anyone what anyone thinks this low-res video shows when there is a paramedic’s report?

            Shhhhh! You’re impinging the narrative, Ice. Documentation is so, passe. This is the Digital Age.

            1. Can someone just tell me where to bring my angry mob?

              1. Check the address Spike Lee tweeted.

          2. It’s written on paper, it must be true just like the bible. No one with a broken nose breathes through it, and that man isn’t mouthbreathing.

            1. No one with a broken nose breathes through it

              Not true, my friend.

          3. If the guy was beaten to the point that he feared for his life, why didn’t the paramedics take him to the hospital?

            1. How many slams of the head against the pavement justifies fearing for your life? The paramedics have nothing to do with it.

              1. I’m having a really hard time picturing a competent paramedic not sending someone to the hospital if they reported that their head had been slammed into pavement several times.

          4. Is there any reason to believe that your average paramedic’s report at a crime scene is any more accurate than a police report?

        2. Yeah that dark blotch on the back of his head is a tattoo. The re-re-re-compressed internet video we’ve all seen isn’t particularly clear, but Julian Sanchez just tweeted that Zimmerman’s tattoo says WHITE AND PROUD, in letters are made of little tacos. I can’t see that myself, and it may not actually say that, but it has to be something just like that.

          1. paramedics cleaned him up at the scene folks. Give me a break; this video “proves” nothing beyond Zimmerman was taken to the cop shop.

            1. It does make you wonder why “Reason” has an agenda.

        3. Maybe you lib assholes should go to Chicago and investigate the black on black slaughter!

      4. Seriously, are the lowlife scummy vermin in the media fucking kidding us? You can barely see the details of anything in that shit-ass video. Nobody could possibly even identify the guy if they hadn’t told us it was him.

      5. The video was also from several hours after the incident. He could have changed shirts, cleaned up the blood, etc. And the video isn’t high enough resolution or a close enough shot of him to prove or disprove anything. Hopefully the cops weren’t so incompetent that they failed to take photos of any injuries at the scene.

    2. No, it was one of those CCTV systems. But I’m sure the camera was made of black plastic.

    3. I’m inclined to agree that there should have been a trial.

      The race baiting antics aside, when an armed person kills an unarmed person, there should probably be a trial. I’m not saying Zimmerman was guilty of anything, but going after an indictment wouldn’t necessarily have been a big mistake.

      And for a case without sufficient evidence, there sure seems to be a lot of evidence cropping up: people who heard the incident over the phone, eye witnesses, voice recordings, etc.

      Shirley, people have been indicted with less evidence than there is in this case.

      1. I agree with you. However, this whole incident has really exposed the underbelly of race-baiters in the USA. These people aren’t calling for a trial, they’re out for blood, and they don’t really care who gets hurt along the way.

        1. Uh, all the “race baiters” have called for is an arrest and a trial. That’s it.

          1. And a $10,000 reward for his “capture”.

            1. That was from an overtly racist group, not the “race baiter” as I would define them anyway.

          2. And how will they react if there is an acquittal, do you think?

            1. Let’s just say that Paul Krugman will be delighted.

              1. +1 for witty broken windows fallacy allusion.

            2. Turn your time machine back to the Rodney King days.

              1. I was in South Central during the Rodney King trial.

                Rodney King was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

                I don’t think this would be like that at all.

                The riots were about a lot of things. Especially about Daryl Gates and the LAPD. They were brutal. It was also about the prosecutor’s office. It was about the acquittal of the Korean store clerk who shot and killed a black girl for shoplifting–and got away scott free. It was about the LAPD not resisting the riot for the first two days.

                This isn’t Rodney King. And if white people had been subjected to the same treatment black people had been subjected to in South Central LA from 1988-1992 or so, we’d probably all riot too.

                There’s nothing wrong with “No Justice, No Peace”. Isn’t that what we mean when we quote Locke in defense of the Glorious Revolution?

                1. Wow, Ken, that’s a major case of white guilt you’ve got going on there. Maybe you should find the nearest black street gang and let them rape you repeatedly until you feel you have sufficiently made amends.

                  1. Actually, I lived and worked in that community. I saw my neighbors and coworkers treated badly by predatory police. There’s nothing wrong with people rising up in self-defense of their rights. That’s what our nation was founded on.

                    After the first couple of days, the riots stopped being about anything political. After the first two days, when everyone realized the LAPD wasn’t doing anything–as a matter of policy–to stop the riots, the looters came out. And that didn’t have anything to do with racism or Rodney King.

                    I certainly don’t condone arson or looting. But the idea that we’re not obligated to obey an unjust government–that’s actively discriminating against us?

                    I wish more Americans would wise up to that. I can’t imagine anything truer to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

                    1. I wish more Americans would wise up to that. I can’t imagine anything truer to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

                      Yes, but it’s different when Black people do it.

                    2. After the first couple of days, the riots stopped being about anything political. After the first two days, when everyone realized the LAPD wasn’t doing anything–as a matter of policy–to stop the riots, the looters came out. And that didn’t have anything to do with racism or Rodney King.

                      Had I been an A-10 pilot stationed at Edwards at the time, I would have taken my A-10 and took care of the situation myself- whether or not I was ordered to.

                2. “And if white people had been subjected to the same treatment black people had been subjected to in South Central LA from 1988-1992 or so, we’d probably all riot too.”

                  Nope. I mean, other white people might. But I think most of us have a less collective sense of justice. Maybe all LAPD members would be fair game, but I don’t think it would go beyond that for group judgments.

          3. Really? Kill Zimmerman twitter accounts? Passing on home addresses through social media? Ten thousand dollar bounties on Zimmerman?

          4. no Mo; the race-baiters are being very selective. Where was their outrage when the drum major at FAMU was essentially beaten to death? By fellow band members. They’re out because the victim is a black kid and the gunman is not black.

            1. Where was their outrage when the drum major at FAMU was essentially beaten to death?

              I don’t really understand this criticism.

              You’re faulting black people, who are highly sensitive to perceived discrimination against black people, for not being just as sensitive to mistreatment directed against members of other groups?

              I care more about some things than I do about other things. I care especially about things that effect me and people like me. Why is that a problem?

              Do you imagine these people condone murder when the victims are white? Because I don’t think they do.

              There may be a few highly vocal exceptions, but I think those exceptions are basically like the Westboro Baptist Church–not indicative of the whole.

              1. no, I am faulting this faux outrage, generated by little more than the usual assortment of race hustlers who are solely interested in melanin differences between Zimmerman and Martin. It is an isolated incident that is generating grossly out of proportion interest because it appeals to the worst instincts of some.

                1. who are solely interested in melanin differences

                  Not true, it’s mostly about the Benjamins and a little tv face time.

              2. You’re faulting black people, who are highly sensitive to perceived discrimination against black people, for not being just as sensitive to mistreatment directed against members of other groups?

                If ethnic tribalism is understandable when blacks do it, are whites similarly excused for being hypersensitive when they are attacked by blacks?

                1. If by “hypersensitive” you mean “calling for a trial when they perceive an injustice is going un-prosecuted”, then the answer is yes.

                  When white people see crimes go un-prosecuted, we should feel free to call for a trial, too.

                  1. Indeed, A Black guy looked at me funny the other day, and NOTHING WAS DONE ABOUT IT!

                  2. If by “hypersensitive” you mean “calling for a trial when they perceive an injustice is going un-prosecuted”, then the answer is yes.

                    When white people see crimes go un-prosecuted, we should feel free to call for a trial, too.

                    Which is beside the point, as you’re basically arguing that ethnic tribalism is okay, if people are more “sensitive” about it.

                    The whole problem is that they would never protest in the numbers they are if a black person killed a fellow black person. They immediate family members would be devastated, but the rest would shrug their shoulders and move on with their lives.

                    Perhaps if they weren’t so “sensitive” to perceived discrimination, they’d be able to tend their own gardens rather than wait for Whitey give them an excuse to galvanize their outrage.

                2. Honestly, I think that black people get a bit more leeway on racial oversensitivity. The fact is that for hundreds of years, there was a massive consiracy to keep blacks in a low position in society, through slavery and then Jim Crow. Yes, it would be better if everyone would just give it a rest, and people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are just awful. But I think it is quite understandable that black people will be much more sensitive about perceived racism. It’s a stupid shitty situation, but it is reality.

                  That said, people seem to be trying extra hard to push the race angle on this in particularly shameful and disgusting ways.

                  1. people seem to be trying extra hard to push the race angle on this

                    Jus’ gettin’ paid, baby, jus’ gettin’ paid.

          5. A bounty for taking him out and a director posting an address he thought was his?

            I think the guy should be tried, too, and I’m also inclined to think that the kid was killed when he should’ve have been, but it’s abundantly clear from the evidence that we don’t really know what happened at the key moment. If the kid started the actual violence and used excessive force, and the evidence supports that, Zimmerman has a valid self-defense claim. How about we let a court decide what happened?

            The race-baiting is sickening, and the media and activists using this to drive anti-gun and race-division politics should be ashamed. Zimmerman should be tried, and he likely will be. That’s all that anyone should be asking for at this point.

            1. A bounty for taking him out and a director posting an address he thought was his?

              That was a crime. Whoever did that should be indicted and prosecuted, too.

              But there’s no reason to conflate the overwhelming majority of people calling for a trial with the New Black Panther Party.

              That would be like California’s LGBT community voting for Barack Obama because of something stupid the Westboro Baptist Church did.

              1. But there’s no reason to conflate the overwhelming majority of people calling for a trial with the New Black Panther Party.

                No one is. The reference was to the “race baiters”. That only includes the group that is race baiting.

                1. I’m not so sure about that.

                  I think a lot of them are people who are both making this all about race–and also are just calling for a trial.

                  1. If that’s all that was happening, the furor would be dying down more. A trial is pretty likely now.

                    I’m not saying that everyone who is upset about this is a race-baiter. However, the usual suspects are doing what they do, and even the president is trying to play, too, just not as overtly.

                  2. and also are just calling demanding for a show trial to use as a forum for inciting civil unrest.

                2. And Al Sharpton. He’s the Master Baiter.

              2. That was a crime. Whoever did that should be indicted and prosecuted, too.

                I would overlook Spike Lee tweeting address and he had tweeted the addressed of those responsible for this .

          6. I’ll be asking my lawyer to make this argument in a few days.

          7. Uh, all the “race baiters” have called for is an arrest and a trial. That’s it for an elderly couple to flee their home in fear for their lives.

          8. Since the shooting, Zimmerman’s supporters say he’s gone into hiding and that he and his family have gotten death threats.

            http://capitolcommentary.com/w…..972903.jpg

            …but all the “race baiters” want is a trial. Right.

            1. Just because the violent race baiters are telling you to conflate them with black people everywhere is no reason to obey them. Stop doing what the violent race baiters are telling you to do.

              Most of the people who think this is all about race–are not making death threats.

              Most of the people who think this is all about race are just calling for a trial.

              No really.

              1. Just because the violent race baiters are telling you to conflate them with black people everywhere is no reason to obey them.

                It is not necessary for all black people everywhere to seek violence in order for Zimmerman and/or his family to end up dead. For decades fools like Ken Shultz have been excusing behavior out of blacks which they would not tolerate out of other racial groups simply to assuage their own guilt or, perhaps, to impress their friends with their concern about race.

                Holding a trial just to try to placate the belligerent behavior of some self-interested and irresponsible loudmouths would be a terrible thing to do. Nothing is going to satisfy the race baiters short of Zimmerman’s execution.

                1. Holding a trial just to try to placate the belligerent behavior of some self-interested and irresponsible loudmouths would be a terrible thing to do.

                  Holding trials to satisfy the victims of crime–as well as defend the accused–has merit if you ask me.

                  What the hell else are trials for?

                  Why shouldn’t people who think they’ve been victims of crime be allowed to complain if there’s no trial?

                  For decades fools like Ken Shultz have been excusing behavior out of blacks…

                  Oh. I see.

                  For decades, bigots have been dismissing the rights of individuals by smearing an entire race of people–for doing things like protesting when they think they’re being discriminated against.

                  1. Re: Ken Shultz

                    Maybe because of the historical and institutional racism Blacks in the US have faced, when an incident like this occurs, Blacks feel like they have to turn the volume “to 11” just to garner the same response from the police and courts that the average White person gets by default.

                    My point being, a little black girl disappears, and maybe she ends up on the side of a milk carton. A little white girl disappears, and CNN goes on full coverage lockdown for the next 24 months, till we find out the Mom did it.

                    Unfortunately, many people are focusing their outrage at Zimmerman, when really they need to be banging the police to thoroughly investigate this matter, and file appropriate charges if necessary.

                    1. A little white girl disappears, and CNN goes on full coverage lockdown for the next 24 months, till we find out the Mom did it.

                      Yeah, there was continuous coverage of the kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard for eighteen straight years, right?

                2. Yes. It’s not race baiting when we do it.

                  FREE ZIMMERMAN!

              2. Just because the violent race baiters are telling you to conflate them with black people everywhere is no reason to obey them. Stop doing what the violent race baiters are telling you to do.

                I’m not. That’s why I used the term “race baiters” instead of “black people”. At no point did I or anyone else make the claim that “race baiters” = “all black people”, which seems to be what you’re implying. Stop putting words in other people’s mouths for a second.

            2. That’s not a death threat. If it had said “Wanted: Dead or Alive” then you’d be on to something.

              1. A Bon Jovi reference does no one any good in this or any other situation, Joe M.

              2. The part in italics was from the article about the video that was posted above in A.M. Links. As for the wanted poster, does this one make you happy:

                http://www.examiner.com/conser…..live-photo

                1. Yes much better, thanks.

        2. Tha sack of shit with big ears is also a race baiter, right up there with Jesse Jackoff.

      2. when an armed person kills an unarmed person, there should probably be a trial.

        ____________________

        So if I shoot an unarmed crazy person who breaks down my front door at 2 am I am to stand trial for murder? I realize that the Martin case is entirely differetn but you sem to be making a very sweeping generalization here.

        1. Why not have a trial? It should be quick and painless as you’d be able to prove self-defense pretty easily.

          1. Perhaps the thousands of dollars of lawyer fees?

            1. Take a public defender or defend yourself. WTF, it should be obvious what happened.

              1. so a non-lawyer is supposed to go up against a seasoned prosecutor who may or may not have a bug up their ass? Er, no thanks.

              2. This is naive in the extreme. A guy with few resources in West Des Moines defended himself from an armed attacker, the DA is an anti-gun/anti-castle doctrine whore, and here’s what happened, in sequence:

                a. man who defends himself thrown in jail for 100 plus days.
                b. man loses home and all of his possessions
                c. man released from jail and exonerated — “sorry — just kidding!” but has no home or possessions.

                1. So now that we have two clear examples here of why laws are useless, why put them on the books?

                2. This is naive in the extreme. A guy with few resources in West Des Moines defended himself from an armed attacker, the DA is an anti-gun/anti-castle doctrine whore, and here’s what happened, in sequence:

                  Why does not Spike Lee tweet that D.A.’s address

              3. it should be obvious what happened.
                ——————
                in such cases, it is so obvious that the police do NOT press charges, so no one has to waste time or money on a trial. I’ve seen it on more than one occasion.

              4. This is so laughable it has to be meant as a joke.

              5. Then after you go to prison, hire a really good lawyer for post-conviction proceedings.

          2. I say we try you for stupidy….guilty! Is that fast enough for you?

            1. If only this comment made any sense.

        2. So if I shoot an unarmed crazy person who breaks down my front door at 2 am I am to stand trial for murder?

          I didn’t say you should be charged with murder specifically.

          I realize that the Martin case is entirely differetn but you sem to be making a very sweeping generalization here.

          Let’s look at what I wrote again:

          “When an armed person kills an unarmed person, there should probably be a trial.”

          Since when does “should probably” constitute a “sweeping generalization”?

          P.S. Does anybody have a right not to be charged with a crime?

          1. Does anybody have a right not to be charged with a crime?

            I think the only correct answer is “diplomats”.

            1. that’s not a right, per se, more like a privilege. But that’s just quibbling over semantics.

            2. Under what reasonable rule should I not have the right to shoot any unnannounced stranger coming up the stairway of my house at 3 a.m.? Especially after he hears me rack an 870 and keeps coming? That person is either a pro or a deranged/drugged person in full sociopathic mode. So I should next be interviewed by a grand jury for second degree murder? Fuck me.

              1. You understand Zimmerman didn’t shoot someone in the stairway of his house at 3:00 am, right?

                Also, “should”. “probably”.

                “should” doesn’t mean “must”.

                “probably” doesn’t mean “definitely”.

                But, yeah, when you shoot someone unarmed, you should probably have to answer some questions in a court of law. …especially in a case like Zimmerman’s, where there are some big open questions lingering about.

                Answering those questions is what courts are for. This shouldn’t be so controversial.

            3. Does anybody have a right not to be charged with a crime?

              I think the only correct answer is “diplomats”.

              When WJC was being impeached, a number of prominent Democrats declared that the POTUS was entitled to break a few laws.

              1. Thank you.

                I think even he can be impeached though.

                1. In general (not this case):

                  If forensics or whatever proves that you are telling the truth, and there is a mountain of evidence that supports your side of the story, then you shouldn’t get indicted.

                  Besides, D.A.’s like to gather evidence before they press charges. It is called double jeopardy.

          2. I think there are some situations where a trial would be warranted, like this situation where self defense isn’t clear at all. But I don’t think there needs to be a trial when it’s pretty clear what happened, like a home invasion. There should always be an investigation though.

            1. I used to stay in a run down hotel in a not so great part of Los Angeles. There were a lot of ex-cons in the hotel, not a nice place to live at all.

              One night I heard someone coming through my window–about 2 am. I heard him pull the screen off my window and trying to force the window open. I grabbed my weapon, kneeled down behind my bed for cover, and I yelled, “You come through that window, and I’ll blow your fucking head off.”

              Turned out it was my next door neighbor in the hotel. He’d accidentally locked himself out of his room, and he didn’t want to bug the manager ’cause he was late on his rent. In the dark–he just got the wrong window.

              I am so glad I didn’t shoot him!

              If I had? I don’t think it would have been unfair to make me explain myself in court.

              This Zimmerman case is nowhere near as cut and dry as mine would have been.

              1. I don’t think it would have been unfair to make me explain myself in court.

                I do. You shot a home invader. I think you should have to explain yourself to the investigators, but its a miscarriage of justice if it even reaches a grand jury, much less an actual trial.

          3. How about “When an armed person kills an unarmed person, the prosecutor should use their judgement as to whether to ask the grand jury for an indictment.”

            1. That’s about right. Some self defense cases are very clear and there is no need for a trial.

            2. Which, everyone seems to be forgetting, is exactly what did happen here.

              1. Which, everyone seems to be forgetting, is exactly what did happen here.

                I didnt forget it.

                The problem is, the prosecutor made his decision without a serious investigation first.

                1. ^^This is what is wrong with this whole situation. You don’t know what the prosecutor did or how ‘serious’ the investigation really was. Everything in the media is based on conjecture and unfounded accusations. There has definitely been some ‘serious’ investigating going on in the past week, and Zimmerman still has not been arrested, indicted, or to my knowkledge, put before a grand jury; he’s just been tried by the media and Trayvon’s family.

                  1. “”put before a grand jury; “”

                    I vaugely recall hearing that the special prosecutor will bring this to them the next time they meet.

          4. Fair enough, but even “should probably” implies that a trial should occur in most cases. I don’t think that the fact that the shooter was unarmed and the victim unarmed is enough, standing alone, to warrant a trial. The fact that the dead guy was unarmed is only marginally relevant, at best, to whether a killing is legit self-defense.

            In the Zimmerman case, there are other factors weighing in favor of a trial, but those other factors, as opposed to Martin not having a gun, are the key.

          5. Since when does “should probably” constitute a “sweeping generalization”?

            Welcome to the internets, newbie.

      3. If Zimmerman had injuries that he claimed were incurred during the shooting, wouldn’t it be a matter of course for these injuries to be photographed while he was in police custody?

    4. How long after the incident was that taken? Isn’t there a hospital report showing a broken nose? Are they saying that was doctored or something? Also, I’ve heard a ton of complaining that he was never arrested- how is being taken to a police station in handcuff in the back of a police car not being arrested?

      1. I belive you’re not officially under arrest until someone reads you your rights (we don’t know if he was or not), but I could be wrong.

        1. I don’t think that’s right. You’re under arrest when the police detain you for more than a minimal amount of time and you are not free to leave. Getting put in the back of police car in handcuffs, and then taken to the station, still in handcuffs, has to qualify.

          If it depended on reading you your rights, that would be a neat trick for police.

    5. Looking for some bisexual to share your fantasies with?
      Welcome to—datebi.c/0/m—the best place to seek bisexual fun and short-term or long-term relationship. Hundreds of thousands of members with verified photos and detailed profiles are active there. Come in and meet the perfect person, e.x.a.c.t.l.y. what you want for yourself
      BEST OF LUCK!

  2. Youth is wasted on the young.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/uss…..piece.html

    1. If that looks like a penis to you, you’ve got some problems.

      1. Srlsy, go see a doctor.

        1. LOL – maybe she has an unusually large clit?

          1. Knew a girl like that. My buddy never mentioned it being spiraled.

            1. I think the term you are looking for is “prehensile.” Talk about your tentacle porn!

            2. *flashback* nOooo1oo1o1!

      2. Fucking squirrels – to sarcasmic|3.29.12 @ 9:14AM|#
        Beehive carving on top of tree trunk deemed too ‘phallic’.

      3. Hahaha, I think the comment is funnier in this context.

        1. It did sort of work in a fucked-up way.

      4. What picture are you referencing?

      5. I’m not sure I follow… James Franco definitely looked like a penis in those photos.

    2. it’s the hard-hitting journalism that we go back for, every day

      1. Just doing my best to help you grow more hair on your palm.

    3. “Youth is wasted on the young.”

      Prescription strength medication is wasted on the elderly.

    4. Yikes! Selena Gomez has an amazing ass — never knew.
      Hudgins has put on some pounds since her sexting days.

  3. Beehive carving on top of tree trunk deemed too ‘phallic’.

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

    1. Phallic? If your dick ever looks remotely like that, see your doctor immediately.

  4. “Talk to me Mr McClain, where are my detonators?”

  5. Indonesia to ban mini-skirts.

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

    1. Indonesia is preparing to ban the mini-skirt under its tough anti-pornography laws ‘because they make men do things’.

      Um, well, yeah.

      1. There’s two reasons for women to wear a mini-skirt: to entice men, and to show those bitches that your legs are better.

        I don’t know why men wear mini-skirts. Perhaps Warty has some insight.

        1. heh, I remember way back in the mists of high school. There was a girl, perhaps a weak 7/10, who was wearing a (daring for the time) short skirt. She suddenly had a whole gaggle of guys acting nice to her, following her around like she was the hottest thang since Brooke Shields.

          1. On a related note, I was sitting in class in college (before class actually), half asleep and I see this amazing pair of legs in a mini-skirt coming up the stairs, my eyes slowly drift up, amazing body all the way around 10/10. Get to face — 3/10, at best.

            I noticed her after that. She regularly wore mini-skirts and other body accentuating outfits. She never lacked for male companionship.

    2. Indonesia: The World Leader In Trying To Stuff The Genie Back In The Bottle

      1. Perhaps the Indonesians read the UK Daily FAIL and are taking notes from those nubile young starlets’ stuff jobs via the Link of Sarcasmic.

    3. See, these are the types of issues feminists should go after. Fight this idiocy, and be less of a joke.

    4. He added: ‘You know what men are like – provocative clothing will make them do things.’

      So is he trying to say that men are animals lacking the least bit of self-restraint? Or that women are sluts? In the former case, shouldn’t he turn himself over to a jail or some other incarceration facility as some intern’s mini-skirt might “make him do things”?

      1. Several men of my acquaintance have a guaranteed 18+ year relationship with women they’d rather not know because of miniskirts/bikinis/tight jeans. So… I think this is definitely a men’s empowerment deal.

  6. Rising Gas Prices Take Toll On American Families
    http://news.investors.com/arti…..lution.htm

    To the contrary: the administration’s proposed $85 billion tax hike on American energy companies will reduce investment in American energy and make American companies less competitive.

    Those things will make the country more reliant on foreign imports and more susceptible to prices spikes.

    Is this what he means by his “all of the above energy policy?”

    1. just dont cancel big oils’ subsidises

      1. Why don’t you tell us exactly what subsidies ‘big oil’ gets, orrin?

        1. hey i’ll also google current broadway shows for you while im at it heffe

          1. Just steer the hell clear of Spiderman.

          2. hey i’ll also google current broadway shows for you while im at it heffe

            So you admit you have no idea what you’re talking about. Not that we didn’t already know.

            1. Just push Jimmy down and take his juice box, debating the retarded only makes you retarded.

              1. cause juice boxes are subsidised

    2. I have to say, raising taxes on a supplier is a funny way to get prices to go down.

  7. Cell phone recording contradicts officer testimony

    This one is particularly heinous. At least in most other incidents, there’s some sort of pretense for the cops’ actions. In this case, they rolled up on some poor old lady who was stuck on the side of the road and lit into her for no damn reason.

    1. Have the officers received medals yet?

    2. The worst part:
      None of this would be questioned, The Herald says, if the 60-year-old driver, Susan Mait, hadn’t dropped her phone on the floor of her SUV when cops yanked her from the vehicle.

      1. The worst part is that nothing else will happen.
        The officers will not be charged with felonies for lying under oath, they will keep their jobs, and they will do this again. Only now they will make it a habit to look for cell phones before they intimidate and harass innocent people.

        1. The officers will not be charged with felonies for lying under oath, they will keep their jobs, and they will do this again. Only now they will make it a habit to look for cell phones before they intimidate and harass innocent people.

          If a cop killed Trayvon Martin under the exact same circumstances that George Zimmerman killed him, he would not face the possibility of prosecution.

          If George Zimmerman killed a cop under the exact same circumstances that he killed Trayvon Martin, the question is not whether he would be arrested, but whether he would face the death penalty.

  8. If there is no limiting CC principle, and no limit on powers that can be delegated (just how many “the secretary shall” refs are there?), what’s stopping Congress from saying “the secretary shall” tell everyone what to buy unilaterally, all by herself? Broccoli, Volts, the NY Times – all purchased buy us under the Czarina’s mandate whenever she sees fit.

  9. Blame Palin? ‘Kill Zimmerman’ Twitter Account Launched
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-J…..-Zimmerman

    Barack Obama has remained silent as the usual suspects have been busy stirring up hate aimed at George Zimmerman, the Florida Hispanic involved in the shooting death of 17 year-old Trayvon Martin. Now the anger has taken a new twist, breaking out on Twitter with an account named “Kill Zimmerman.” It features an image of Zimmerman in crosshairs.

    1. Whether he’s guilty or innocent he’s going to end up dead somewhere. The NBPP has already shown that they’re going to do it. He’ll be lucky if he isn’t shot in court during his (probable) trial.

    2. no no no
      again, palin killed mccain not zimmerman

    3. But I thought the left had called an end to all this rhet’ric & vitriol! Where’s rhet’ric now?

    4. Barack Obama has remained silent…

      “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon Martin.” – Barack Obama

      Not exactly “silent”.

  10. I Deeply Apologize To The McClain Family For Retweeting Their Address. It Was A Mistake. Please Leave The McClain’s In Peace. Justice In Court

    Justice in court? Is Lee inviting the McClains to sue him?

    1. I heard that counsel had been retained, so I imagine Spike deeply apologized to his lawyer, too.

      1. Douchebag was trying to direct angry twitter followers to a private address – any private address – for what? Lee is looking pretty bad in this even without the mistake part.

        1. He’s a piece of shit for doing this and deserves to be sued into poverty.

        2. If someone had been killed as a direct result, one could certainly argue that he was inciting violence. Actually, that can be argued without actual violence.

    2. Spike proves once again that he is a raging asshole of the anal leakage variety.

      1. My Spike Lee story: So I’m walking near my office and I see this raggedy guy in a ball cap who looks incredibly like Spike Lee. Weird. I see him again later in the day. Is Spike Lee following me? Ha ha.
        Then I learn that Spike Lee really is in town to speak at some TOSU gig. Huh.

        And then the next week I see the guy on the street again.

        (Cue Rod Serling)

        1. Is Spike Lee following me?

          He’s on the neighborhood watch. I wouldn’t advise confronting him.

          1. Ahh, he’ll get your address wrong and start harassing the couple from down the block. Go for broke.

      2. “Do the right thing” was good.

        1. was not!

    3. Justice In Court

      So now that he’s probably facing a huge lawsuit he’s saying “justice in court”? What an asshat.

      Anyone want to know Spike Lee’s (probable) address?

      https://reason.com/blog/2012/03…..nt_2945477

  11. Progressivism and the authoritarian impulse
    …There is no answer to that question once you step outside of the liberal calculus in which all persons, no matter what their moral status as you see it, are weighed in an equal balance. Rather than relaxing or soft-pedaling your convictions about what is right and wrong, stay with them, and treat people you see as morally different differently. Condemn Limbaugh and say that Schultz and Maher may have gone a bit too far but that they’re basically O.K. If you do that you will not be displaying a double standard; you will be affirming a single standard, and moreover it will be a moral one because you will be going with what you think is good rather than what you think is fair. “Fair” is a weak virtue; it is not even a virtue at all because it insists on a withdrawal from moral judgment….

  12. Rove: ObamaCare and the 2012 Election
    Whatever the Supreme Court says, how the president handles health policy will deeply affect his chances in November.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..TopOpinion

    At insurance-industry conferences over the last month, executives have told me that the shrinkage of companies and coverage is only increasing as the industry finds it difficult to cope with the regulatory burdens. This will lead to less supply and less competition just when the law contemplates dramatically expanding the number of people with insurance.

    The mess that is ObamaCare is not going away. The president’s handling of it will deeply affect his re-election chances.

    1. “…how the president handles health policy will deeply affect his chances in November.”

      In other news, sun rises in the East.

      1. Rove said it. Rove is a political genius.

        1. He somehow got a shaved chimp elected a couple times, through legitimate and probably illegitimate means. That may make him some shade of evil, but it doesn’t necessarily make him an idiot.

  13. Obama budget defeated 414-0
    http://www.washingtontimes.com…..ted-414-0/

    President Obama’s budget was defeated 414-0 in the House late Wednesday, in a vote Republicans arranged to try to embarrass him and shelve his plan for the rest of the year.

    The vote came as the House worked its way through its own fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, written by Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan. Republicans wrote an amendment that contained Mr. Obama’s budget and offered it on the floor, daring Democrats to back the plan, which calls for major tax increases and yet still adds trillions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade.

    1. out of curiosity, did any mainstream outlet carry this story? And remind folks how the last Obama budget suffered a similar shutout in the Senate? It is difficult to imagine that not a single presidential dog washer in either chamber could push the “aye” button.

      1. Depends on if you consider Fox News mainstream. They worked it into another story:

        http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..latestnews

  14. RIP banjo master Earl Scruggs.

    Oh shit! In memoriam, here’s Scruggs jamming out with Bela Fleck

    1. RIP earl
      see u at the big sky concert

    2. Tonight, I’ll make sure to listen to my one Scruggs (live) album.

      1. I never got to see Earl perform live (and apparently never will).
        But I did catch Ralph Stanley just a few years ago — still in good voice.

        1. Once I narrowly missed a free Ralph Stanley show. If he kicks the bucket before I catch him, I will very peeved.

        2. i saw 2 unforgetable shows at the ryman in nashville – ralph & bill monroe.

  15. Sealand: Death of a data haven: cypherpunks, WikiLeaks, and the world’s smallest nation
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-po…..enco.ars/1

    HavenCo’s failure?and make no mistake about it, HavenCo did fail?shows how hard it is to get out from under government’s thumb. HavenCo built it, but no one came. For a host of reasons, ranging from its physical vulnerability to the fact that The Man doesn’t care where you store your data if he can get his hands on you, Sealand was never able to offer the kind of immunity from law that digital rebels sought. And, paradoxically, by seeking to avoid government, HavenCo made itself exquisitely vulnerable to one government in particular: Sealand’s. It found that out the hard way in 2003 when Sealand “nationalized” the company.

    1. Didn’t Sealand “die” a few times before too?

    2. Ars does some pretty good long-form pieces.

      1. to that note…if you havent read their article on the HB Gary/Anonymous thing you are shorting yourselves

        1. I’m pretty sure I’ve peaked, so I should probably short myself.

    3. Much ado about nothing. Sealand was as independent as was its extremely dependent electrical power supply from mainland England.

    4. I blame the jerks in Pod 6.

  16. Rasmussen does a poll on whether Zimmerman is guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin.
    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2…..ether.html

    One-third (33%) of adults believe crime watch volunteer George Zimmerman should be found guilty of murder in the shooting death of the Florida teenager, while 15% think Zimmerman acted in self-defense, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. But 52% of Americans are not sure.

    1. I guess those 33% are over-represented on social networks.

      1. As are morons. Coincidence?

      2. You misspelled “in the ‘Hood”.

  17. We’re Not France, Yet
    ObamaCare is the coup de gr?ce of America’s policy mandarins.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..on_LEADTop

    For the political left affiliated with Barack Obama?in the bureaucracies, the punditocracy and the courts?objections to these expansive laws on liberty grounds, then and now, are mainly arguments over abstractions. The liberty objections simply don’t matter. ObamaCare itself is a masterpiece of mandarin abstraction. Yet 67% of polled Americans believe this masterwork’s mandate is unconstitutional. What are these people thinking?

    1. masterpiece of mandarin abstraction

      That’s… racist?

      1. Racist against Oompa-Loompas!

        1. I see what you did there.

        2. Sloopy, it’s spelled and pronounced “Lacist.”

  18. “It’s evidently and increasingly clear that Mitt Romney’s going to be the Republican nominee,” Rubio told Sean Hannity. “I am going to endorse Mitt Romney.”

    HFS, Marco, ease up on the praise already. Romney’s not a god, he’s just a man.

    1. “I can’t deny the fact that you like me, right now, you like me!”

    2. Romney’s not a god, he’s just a man.

      Not yet. But someday.–Brigham Young

      1. Oooh….that’s good. Very good, indeed.

    3. Romney’s not a god, he’s just a man.

      citation?

      1. Romney’s not a god, he’s just a man automaton.

        FTFY

    4. Marco Rubio is already thinking that whether Romney wins or loses, Marco can’t but help look presidential compared to Biden in the VP debates.

  19. The Dangers of an Interventionist Fed
    A century of experience shows that rules lead to prosperity and discretion leads to trouble.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..on_LEADTop

    The combination of the prolonged zero interest rate and the bloated supply of bank money is potentially lethal. The Fed has effectively replaced the entire interbank money market and large segments of other markets with itself?i.e., the Fed determines the interest rate by declaring what it will pay on bank deposits at the Fed without regard for the supply and demand for money. By replacing large decentralized markets with centralized control by a few government officials, the Fed is distorting incentives and interfering with price discovery with unintended consequences throughout the economy.

  20. Sonner said the gash on the back of Zimmerman’s head probably was serious enough for stitches, but he waited too long for treatment so the wound was already healing.

    I suppose the seriousness of the gash should be readily apparent now. FWIW.

    1. So, apparently Zimmerman is a mutant with Wolverine-like regeneration ability. Too bad he doesn’t have the claws, they probably would have been easier to use than the gun.

      1. Too bad he doesn’t have the claws, they probably would have been easier to use than the gun.

        And infinitely more badass.

      2. No, the edges of a laceration heal quickly in everyone, making sutures actually dangerous, like sealing skin over an open wound. Many people come in to our ER with lacs that would have been sutured earlier but it has become too late.

    2. Who told you to put the balm on?!

  21. Zimmerman got treatment at the scene by paramedics, so that could explain why he wasn’t bleeding in the video. The bigger problem is that he apparently doesn’t have any blood on his clothes, which seems unlikely if he shot Martin at point blank range during a struggle. Would the cops have taken bloody clothes as evidence at the scene before transporting him to the station?

    1. Would the cops have taken bloody clothes as evidence at the scene before transporting him to the station?

      Oops! Our bad!

    2. “”Zimmerman got treatment at the scene by paramedics, so that could explain why he wasn’t bleeding in the video.””

      But if he a serious injury on the back of the head, you would expect to see butterfly tape or something.

      1. No, not if the edges had already closed off — see lacs reference above.

  22. Earlier this month, the president of Kiribati told the Associated Press that his cabinet had approved the purchase of 6,000 acres on the main island of Fiji that would be the country’s hedge against rising sea levels.

    Kiribati consists of 32 low-lying coral atolls and one island spanning more than 1.3 million square miles of the Pacific Ocean.

    “As we look toward the future, the most difficult decisions in many settings are going to involve decisions about whether there should be large-scale migration or large-scale mobilization of communities, taking them out of the regions [that are] their cultural foundation and going to other places. http://www.csmonitor.com/Envir…..the-worst/(page)/2
    _
    Please update your know-nothing distribution list

    Jeesch, u deniers just dont know how to properly cancel climate change

      1. i know deniers confuse weather & climate. bless ur hearts.

        1. So, why has there been no warming since 1998 in spite of rising CO2 levels, in direct contradiction to the models? That falsifies the models, and also seems to falsify the contention that the warming since the 1800’s is man-made, rather than just another natural cycle.

          1. 6 iceages & 6 melts prove climate change.

            1. 6 iceages & 6 melts prove that humans have nothing to do with climate change

        2. So do the skyisfalling douches

        3. And the warmists would never do such a thing. But hey, when you can rely on infallible computer models to say what the climate will be like in 2100, there’s no need for exaggeration.

          1. geologic science isnt a model.
            6 iceages & 6 melts prove climate change.

          2. I think you’ve somewhat overestimated your opponent here, KC.

            1. his opponent is geology

  23. RIP banjo master Earl Scruggs.

    May Mr. and Mrs. Sloopy mourn his passing with cheer and good humor.

    1. Tell me about it. Banjos was quite sad.

      1. Congrats to you both and may you have a lifetime of bliss, sadness, and joy!

        Earl is now kicking and picking with Lester Flatts somewhere else.

      2. Is rapmant intentionally misspelled?

        1. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

    2. Groovuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuus! Where the hell have you been?

  24. Mitt Romney trails Barack Obama by 19 points in basic popularity as the 2012 presidential contest inches closer to the main event, with a record 50 percent of Americans in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll now rating Romney unfavorably overall.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po…..opularity/

    Time to dump this loser.

    1. Doesn’t matter, Nobama is a shoe-in.

    2. Kiss my ass that Romney’s down 20 points to Obama. 60-40? No way.

    1. I can see why that woman would want a boob job badly enough to farm pot.

  25. HFS, Marco, ease up on the praise already. Romney’s not a god, he’s just a man.

    Yea, and I would still push Willard Shit Flopney down the nearest flight of stairs without a second thought.

    I still maintain A) The Zero is a lock and B) A Flopney Admin would be a slightly more crapitalistic Obama second term. The only would be Judicial appointments. Mark my words, if by some fait accompli Flopney falls into the WH in full Kramer style, he will push for 50 RomneyCare clusterfucks. The lure of block grants, a la The Ryan Plan, has a fungible appeal.

    1. We lose either way, doc. That’s the way this works.

      Between Obama and Romney, I favor Romney, but mostly for court-appointment purposes. He might be less hostile to capitalism, but I think, by and large, that he’s just another statist fuck.

      1. I’m for Romney too – only for the wailing and gnashing of liberal teeth. However, that pleasure will be short-lived as we continue to slide away from a Constitutional Republic.

        Hmmm… now I sound like a character in “I, Claudius”

        1. I can’t root for a collapse, because I believe that will be followed by more tyranny, not less. The limited government message is making the rounds a little more than it has in quite some time, so there’s an inkling of hope that we’ll eventually move the other direction.

          Though certainly not in this election, whatever the likely result.

    2. The only would be Judicial appointments.
      ————–

      that’s a pretty goddamn big only, unless you think the Harvard faculty lounge should be making decisions for you for the next 30 years or so.

      1. It’s a small part of what a president does, but it’s quite significant. And it’s enough of a reason to favor this idiot over the other one.

        1. Not that I’m voting for him. Probably LP. . .again.

          1. Gary Johnson is at the state LP convention this weekend. A friend and colleague from my paper is moderating the convention’s LP presidential candidate debate. I might check it out (although I’m more tempted by the meet and greet G.J. cocktail hour)

            1. Just checked out the LPO website — says Nick and Matt will be there, to. Huh. I really might have to check it out.

              1. Be sure to post pictures for us after!

              2. more importantly, will “The Jacket” be there?

            2. I met Harry Browne, long ago.

              1. But enough about your fraternity hazing rituals, ProLib.

                1. Not Greek, unless you count being initiated in the Eleusinian mysteries.

    1. Why am I not surprised?

    2. Nice

    3. You didn’t actually read the article did you?

      1. I discovered this article because I was reading the reader letters in a real life physical copy of an issue from a couple months later, and Bailey was defending himself, saying:

        First, I want to stress that mandatory health insurance is a second-best proposal. A totally free market system would be preferable; it’s just not likely politically. Mandatory health insurance is a way to stop creeping socialization and preserve private medicine.

        I thought it would be fun and timely to throw the original piece out there for the lolz. So yes, I have read it.

        1. Ah, toilet-reading: The only reason to have a physical subscription!

          1. I take my Kindle into the can all the time.

  26. Me for President.

    Why vote for the lesser of two evils?

    1. Fuck you bitch, I’m the real deal.

    2. Vote for the Crawling Chaos in November! With my thousand faces, I’m sure to have one that you like.

    3. Think of the children!

  27. Prescription strength medication is wasted on the elderly.

    I have some spry and feisty patients who would be very glad to dispute and debate this with you, Mr. Shultz. And they are more than capable of swinging a walker or cane upside your head, so approach carefully.

    1. If you have an erection lasting more than four hours…

      1. If you have an erection lasting more than four hours…

        Have Warty paged and go pole vaulting. Ken can be the pole fulcrum.

        1. If a patient asks you about his four-hour erection, what’s your advice? Hire some hookers? Take a cold shower?

          1. They slit the penis open to drain the blood and then stitch you back up.

            1. Fuck that shit. No one is getting a scapel close to my penis. Last time that happened, I got cut. I rather die first.

              1. I’m sorry….did you say “last time that happened?”

          2. Actually, yes on the hookers. No on the cold shower. The fastest and least intrusive way to relieve priapism is an orgasm to inhibit blood pooling in the penile veins and spongiosum from a hormonal cascade and allow to erection to subside. Nature is funny that way.

            Otherwise, the blood has to be drained manually with a large gauge needle and reduce the risk of both throwing blood clots (from the blood pooling and coagulating) and possible necrosis of the penis.

            1. Otherwise, the blood has to be drained manually with a large gauge needle and reduce the risk of both throwing blood clots (from the blood pooling and coagulating) and possible necrosis of the penis.

              My penis shriveled and is hiding behind my asshole just reading that.

            2. I read somewhere the needle wouldn’t work. Good news. Needle > scalpel

              necrosis of the penis or as it is known outside the medical community: Ke$ha

              1. She actually doesn’t look half bad when you peel off the accumulated layers of makeup, paint, and glitter.

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

                1. sarc, Ew, OK? Just EW!

                  1. Yeah I know she’s barfalicious. Just saying she cleaned up nice for that shoot. The rest of the time she is indeed a cure for randiness.

                2. Her skin is just gross. Yeah, she looks all bad.

              2. I read somewhere the needle wouldn’t work.

                Depends on the patient and how superficial the veins are; in cases like this, it’s advantageous to have a veiny pecker. It is a large gauge needle, a 17g up to a 10g lumen. Otherwise, a more intrusive approach like you described is required, and has way more complications, most notably impotence.

                1. 10g? Sweet fuck.

            3. My day would have been better not knowing that.

              1. Ya know what would be a really bad name for a rock band?

                1. I’m thinking Necrosis of the Penis works as a song title, though. Some 8 minute long sludgy guitar solo nonsense number.

            4. I think just the sight of the needle would be enough to lose the erection.

            5. Wow, there’s a choice. For the married or the otherwise coupled, sex. For the single, porn/masturbation. For the insane, the needle and the necrosis.

              1. so, no downside then

                1. That’s right, everybody wins. That’s why they advertise the four-hour erection. Doctors and regulators don’t give a shit–that’s a feature, not a bug.

    2. waiting on palin’s death panels to direct grandma into the soylent green grinders.

  28. waiting on palin’s death panels to direct grandma into the soylent green grinders.

    Worry more about your congenital and intractable case of stoopid, Ozone Boy. Which, by the way, is not covered under any plan. Buy some bag balm and go to town.

  29. P.S. Does anybody have a right not to be charged with a crime?

    Come on, people; wake up!

  30. Behindertsein ist sch?n

      1. Are you ready to retract your libelous and scurrilous assertion from yesterday?

        1. Hey, one little hillbilly village is like every other.

          1. I hope someone folds you up in a hideaway couch and leaves you on the porch for the possums.

            1. As long as it’s not raccoons. I’ve already had raccoon troubles to last a lifetime.

              1. We were house shopping and looking at a vacant property a few weeks ago. The raccoon paw prints in the second bathroom were a sign that something was awry somwhere.

                1. And they never put down the seat.

    1. AWAACK!

      You rang?

  31. the Fed determines the interest rate by declaring what it will pay on bank deposits at the Fed without regard for the supply and demand for money. By replacing large decentralized markets with centralized control by a few government officials, the Fed is distorting incentives and interfering with price discovery with unintended consequences throughout the economy.

    I’ve been saying this for at least a year. Where’s my check, WSJ?

    1. Get in line, young’un

    2. No shit, Sherlock.

  32. I’ve been saying this for at least a year. Where’s my check, WSJ?

    Trolling for residuals, P Brooks? Whom do you think you are, a 1%’er?

  33. the blood has to be drained manually with a large gauge needle and reduce the risk of both throwing blood clots (from the blood pooling and coagulating) and possible necrosis of the penis.

    What, no leeches?

    I am disappoint.

  34. They’re in my head, stealin’ my ideers.

  35. Your daily nut punch

    http://content.usatoday.com/co…..opStories+(News+-+Top+Stories)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher#.T3PZL455G9Z

    Here’s how The Herald describes the two versions:

    The recording catches Stasnek cursing out Mait (although the officer later denied it), giving no advance warning that Mait was about to be cuffed for resisting arrest (although the officer testified that she had done so three times), and later hashing out a plan with her fellow officer to make sure their stories jibed (they did).

    1. Later in the recording, while Mait is heard sobbing in the background, the officers are recorded discussing what had happened:

      Fernandes: “I didn’t hear anything you said. I was in the back of the car.”

      Stasnek: “I did drop the F-bomb.”

      Fernandes, laughing: “I didn’t hear that. In my [internal affairs] statement, I didn’t hear that. … Don’t worry, I will put everything that I witness before on everything she said.”

      After the altercation, Mait was jailed on charges of felony obstruction and DUI, allegedly from drugs.

    2. None of this would be questioned, The Herald says, if the 60-year-old driver, Susan Mait, hadn’t dropped her phone on the floor of her SUV when cops yanked her from the vehicle. She was on the phone at the time with a Geico service rep who, per company policy, was recording the conversation.

      They beat up an old lady with a flat tire. And then conspired to lie about it and send her to prison. How many times does this happen where the cops are not recorded? And if they will do that to a 60 year old woman in an SUV, what do they do to poor and minorities?

    3. The Miami Herald article.

      http://www.miamiherald.com/201…..-cops.html

      1. prosecutors are investigating whether Coral Springs police officers Nicole Stasnek and Derek Fernandes filed false documents

        I’m not holding my breath. (well actually I am, had franks and beans for dinner and just let a stinker slip out, but that’s totally unrelated to the story)

        1. They will receive a stern warning to take people’s cell phones in the future.

          1. plus two weeks paid vacation, right?

        2. I recommend Fibertarianism.

      2. Stasnek: “Did you not see this uniform I have on? Don’t give me any s— right now. Give me your f—ing driver’s license.”

        That is pure, distilled, “respect mah authoritah!” right there.

  36. What, no leeches?

    I am disappoint.

    They don’t drain the blood fast enough, even with hirudin.

  37. They beat up an old lady with a flat tire.

    I’ll bet their arms were tired when they finished.

    1. Context Brooks, context.

    2. To be fair, you’ve only got to hit someone once or twice that way.

    3. Regardless of the other two, I see what you did there.

  38. is this the greatest Queen cover ever?

    http://fox8.com/2012/03/29/dru…..e-cruiser/

    1. Yeah but his air guitar-playing was a little rough.

    2. To quote a co-worker: “I’m surprised they didn’t beat the shit out of him.”

      1. Mounties.

  39. What’s the difference between today’s H&R commentary and July 7, 2006’s H&R commentary?

    1. Threaded comments?

    2. I was institutionalized then. So I wasn’t there to shit on every thread.

      1. I was shitting on every thread back then. Bitch stole my job.

    3. That Postrel person I keep hearing about?

      1. Trick question.
        Answer: nothing.

  40. Obamacare can’t be scrapped. I distinctly remember some Spineless Republican Surrender-Monkey Senator (Hatch? Graham?) declaring, before Obama had even signed the bill that the ACA would be virtually impossible to get rid of and that his colleagues should face the reality and work to improve the bill with additional legislation.

    (I haven’t found the video yet, but I know I saw it.)

    1. plus SCOTUS aint gonna unhinge the employeer mandate

    2. work to improve the bill with additional legislation

      IOW, let’s pile more shit on this shit so it will be less shitty.

  41. NPR lady this morning, introducing yet another story on how the SYG law supposedly is implicated by the Martin/Zimmerman freakout:

    “The stand-your-ground law allows a person to shoot someone if they are threatened.”

    (IIRC. The “allows you to shoot if you’re threatened” idiocy is burned in.)

  42. My favorite line from today

    “”Millions stay off the job to protest new labor laws in Spain

    Los Angeles Times – an hour ago

    REPORTING FROM MADRID — Millions of Spaniards stayed off the job Thursday to protest new labor laws that allow companies to opt out of collective bargaining pacts, reduce wages and fire workers more easily.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.co…..spain.html

    Because nothing says “I want to keep my job” like petulantly refusing to work.

    Again = what I find shocking is that we can be watching the EU welfare-state system imploding in front of our very eyes… and the young people of America all march in the streets, crying, “We want to be more like them!!”

  43. This just in: Santorum surpasses Gingrinch as “Biggest Blabbermouth”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..r_embedded

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.