Revolutionary Romneycare, Obama Channels His Inner Monarch, Death Race New Jersey Style: P.M. Links

|

  • New Jersey -- home of the Death Race reenactment.

    Romney plan to decouple healthcare from employment with tax incentives for individual plans wins praise — and criticism — for being more revolutionary than Obamacare.

  • President Obama is channeling his inner monarch by wielding the same sort of unilateral executive power that he criticized in his predecessor.
  • Right-wing-populist candidate Marine Le Pen may well be the king-maker in France's presidential run-off after she pulled an unexpectedly large 18% of the vote.
  • Medicare has overpaid tens of millions of dollars in bonuses to physicians in "underserved" areas that the feds fully knew didn't qualify.
  • The police chief of Sanford, Florida, under fire for his handling of the Trayvon Martin case, has announced his intention to resign.
  • Minesota's Democratic Party wants to trim the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so that free speech rights won't apply to corporations, and to permit any and all restrictions on political spending.
  • It's good to have uniformed friends — especially in New Jersey, where state police led a caravan of expensive sports cars on a high-speed cruise.

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.

NEXT: Should Immigration Supporters Hope SCOTUS Upholds Arizona's Law?

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. There’s no law against being a jerk. God bless America.

      So he’s a jerk for exercising the 2d but she’s cool for calling names under the 1st. What a guns-are-icky dimwit.

  1. No stories about tortured children today, I promise. Here we go:

    The guy is lucky he wasn’t shot.

    The charge is petty theft, but it was increased to a felony because Abaire has previous petty theft convictions. In Florida, a third-degree felony can result in a sentence of up to five years and a $5,000 fine.

    1. I googled the guy’s name fully expecting him to be black, but no they charged a white guy with a felony for that. That’s called progress.

      1. Probably should have paid the damned dollar.

  2. Eat the rich, Ontario style.

    This is why I fear a resurgent NDP in Canadian politics.

    1. if the NDP win federally, I will seek asylum in the US.

      1. NDP? National Dictatorship of the Proletariat? (Dictature du Prol?tariat nationale?)

      2. It’s quite likely they’ll form the next provincial government in BC, given the way the winds are blowing and the results of two recent by-elections.

        Sucks to be me, I guess.

    2. I actually thought at one point that the Liberals under Trudeau had so totally preempted the NDP’s program that the NDP would fade away except as a force in those provinces where it had traditionally been a power.

      Now they’re the official opposition at the federal level and there a player in every province except Alberta.

      Considering how bad politics is in the US is, though, I can hardly recommend it as a haven for Canadians trying to escape socialism.

      1. They’re also not a player in PEI and at the provinical level in New Brunswick, but I’m sure you could argue that doesn’t really make much difference.
        So when will Canada’s Greek (or should that be US?) style collapse start? Will Mulclair kick it up a few years?

        Well the NDP doesn’t like the Amerikkkan Empire so according to Rockwell and Raimondo that is all that matters, even if they think antiwar libertarians are dreadful American ideas.

        1. They don’t seem to have made much of a showing east of the Ottawa Valley if I’m not mistaken. Although I seem to recall they once formed a government in Nova Scotia.

          And, of course Quebec has its own brand of political crazy that makes the NDP look tame. 🙂

          They’ve long been a force in Manitba and BC and especially, for even longer, Saskatchewan. But even when the old farmer-labor based CCF* was at its strongest Saskatchewan voters still sent Tories to Ottawa for the most part.

          *Even after the merger of the parties the Saskatchewan party called itself the CCF/NDP because they didn’t want to be associated too much with the eastern dominated industrial labor movement.

  3. Why aren’t NJ state troopers allowed to have some fun?

    The Star-Ledger of Newark is reporting that New Jersey authorities are investigating reports that two state police troopers led a group of dozens of exotic sports cars on a trip to Atlantic City down the Garden State Parkway at speeds exceeding 100 mph.

    1. Bah, should have checked the posted ones I guess.

    2. Was Toretto involved?

  4. It’s good to have uniformed friends — especially in New Jersey, where state police led a caravan of expensive sports cars on a high-speed cruise.

    So I’m guessing the toll booths have been removed, then, because the last time I was on the GSP, you couldn’t get over 50 before having to stop again.

    1. Didn’t watch the video did you? The bozos filming it almost killed themselves at a tollbooth.

  5. anyone catch VEEP last night?

    1. My love for Julia Louis-Dreyfuss has been reignited. Elaine Benes as a Vice President that blends Sarah Palin and Joe Biden together. Why didn’t someone think of this before?

      1. I might have to check it out.

      2. That is great to hear. Her last show defined mediocrity downward.

    2. I’ll take that as a “no”

  6. An alternate response to unmanned speed traps.

    One disgruntled man took his dissatisfaction to another level in the wee hours of Wednesday, April 11, firing at least five rounds from a handgun at the vehicle, which sustained minor damage.

    1. I like the British yobbo approach of setting them on fire.

      1. I was just thinking of something along those lines. If the guy was smart, he would have parked behind the car, or a little bit away, crept around outside of it’s vision, and attached explosives to the bottom of the cop car. Remote detonation is a great innovation.

    2. That video is hilarious.

  7. I am all for corporate personhood so make those fuckers pay a personal tax rate on income. Problem solved.

    But corporations want Bill of Rights protection and LOWER tax rates.

    1. Uhh, the corporate rate is 39.5% + any state tax that can’t be written off against federal.

    2. “corporate personhood” is a canard, you know that right?

      1. No, its ingrained in Common Law.

        1. When you say “corporate personhood” what do you mean? Are you objecting to the particulars of the paperwork involved? Are you against allowing people to pool capital to conduct business? Are you opposed to limited liability? If every big business was a LLP, LLC, proprietorship, or called something by a different name would you be happier?

          1. None of that. Look at my post where I say “I am all for corporate personhood”.

            Are you daft?

            1. Yes, but then you qualified it with some nonsense about them paying “personal tax rates”.

              The nonsense qualifier belies your not actually being for “corporate personhood”.

    3. “congress shall make no law”.

      It’s pretty fucking obvious.

        1. In what context does “shall” used in this sense not mean mandatory?

    4. CORPORATIONS CAN NOT PAY TAX. SHAREHOLDERS, CUSTOMERS, AND EMPLOYEES PAY TAX.

      How is that so fucking hard to understand?

  8. The police chief of Sanford, Florida, under fire for his handling of the Trayvon Martin case, has announced his intention to resign.

    If everyone who mishandled that case resigned, there would be a lot of sudden job openings in law enforcement, media and race baiting.

  9. I’m not religious and I generally don’t have anything against religious people but what is this I don’t even.

    We dance in rhythm with God when we keep the Sabbath. The reason we are called to take a day of rest is simple. Humans tend to forget that we did not make the world and thus, that the world does not depend upon us.

    1. *shrugs* I don’t see what’s so wrong with what he said. As a Buddhist, I try to practice Uposatha days.

      As long as one doesn’t attempt to legislate a day of rest, I have no problem with it.

      1. How would legislation mandating a day of rest be enforced without people exploding from the irony?

        1. Dunno…Blue Laws have been around for a long time though.

    2. …we did not make the world and thus, that the world does not depend upon us.

      I’m guessing this person would be an AGW denier? 😉

    3. Except the Sabbath is the Seventh Day ie Friday Sundown to Saturday Sundown… not SUNday

  10. DFLers in the Minnesota House and Senate have introduced bills asking Congress to call a constitutional convention to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would clarify that corporations are not people.

    People who form and work at corporations, on the other hand, are actually people.

    1. I fucking love how stupid TEAM BLUE is about this subject. They just cannot let it go, and keep getting PWNED again and again. It’s absolutely hilarious. It’s like that Kids in the Hall skit where Bruce McCulloch plays the short guy who constantly gets in fights with big guys and gets his ass kicked every single time, but just cannot stop starting more fights.

      It’s TEAM BLUE’s Napoleon Complex.

      1. I am with TEAM RED. Corporations are groups of people according to our common law.

        So make the fuckers pay our tax rates! Which they don’t.

        1. I’ll take that deal. The tax is paid when the owners get the money, okay?

          1. Don’t respond to it, dude. Just don’t.

            1. You don’t understand this shit, Epi. Go beat off to a video game or something. You’re too naive to keep up.

              1. Irony….overload…

          2. Yes, it sounds like you are in a multi-level program of some type – that is ok.

            So your Amway dealer makes $100 and you make $50. He pays capital gains on 2x the amount you do on the same transaction.

        2. I’d be happy to have my corporation (I own some shares) pay personal tax rates. As long as I then get the dividends and share of retained earnings tax free.

          1. No, you don’t get that.

            Your corp is taxed as a person it is. End of event. Period.

            Then you pay your goddamn taxes, you freeloader.

          2. no. your corporation gets taxed, you get taxed when you get a payout on the investment, you get taxed again when you deposit that check, then you get taxed again when you withdraw any of your money (regardless of source), then taxed again when you enter a store, taxed again when you take merchandise off a shelf, taxed again for every foot traveled with your shopping cart, taxed on the sale at the register, taxed again on leaving the store, taxed again to enter your car, taxed again to start your car, taxed again to turn on your radio, taxed again to leave the parking lot as well as a tax to enter the roadway, taxed for every mile traveled on the road, taxed when you enter your driveway, taxed again to enter “your” house, taxed again when you remove the packaging from your new stuff, taxed again when you put said packaging in the trash…

            1. Declare the pennies in your eyes!

        3. So, people should be taxed separately every time they join a group containing other people? You’re powerful stupid, shriek.

          1. No, idiot. A corporate person is taxed. End of story!

            If you are a distinct person who earns income you get taxed too!

            Its that fucking simple.

            1. You are obsessed over the minutia of paperwork instead of the big picture.

              1. Schedule C corporations pay a tax rate higher than 90% of individual filers and that’s BEFORE they distribute profits to shareholders.

              2. If i’m an LLC you don’t mind if my tax rate is lower? WTF

            2. You didn’t say distinct person, you said “group of people”.

              Many of a corporation’s legal rights are implied by the fact that violating the rights of a group of people would also violate the rights of the individuals. Speech is among them — you can’t muzzle Citizen’s United without muzzling the people that work there or that contribute to it.

            3. “congress shall make no law”

              As you say, it’s that fucking simple

              1. It amazes me how people get hung up on personhood. The law limits Congress in all instances. If a parrot at a shop was trained to squawk, ‘Obama blows, write in Nadir’, Congress would not have the legitimate authority to shut it up.

            4. The corporation doens’t KEEP ANY OF THE MONEY IT MAKES. It just passes through to the shareholders, customers, and employees.

              You’re already double-taxed – first at the corp rate and then at the personal rate. Now you want to double-tax at the personal rate twice, essentially raping the customers and employees (I know you don’t give a fuck about the shareholders since they’re all 1% aren’t they?).

              You sound like the idiots who rail against “the 1%” and speculation and every other leftist bugaboo.

          2. They SHOULD be taxed differently every time they expect society to socialize their group’s risk by providing their owners with limited liability, a concept individuals do not receive. Taxes should be based upon liability risk and not upon income.

            1. If you thingk that limited liability means that corporations somehow have some magic way of getting off the hook from paying their creditors you’re mistaken.

              I don’t think you understand the concept of limited liability as it applies to corporations.

              1. Uh…yeah, I do – the stockholders (the owners) are protected from having their personal property taken to pay the debts and liabilities of the corporation beyond the amount of investment. But that’s a perversion of a free market, incentivizing growth and profit maximization, and disincentivizing safety, the environment and other peoples’ rights. Once the corporation runs out of assets to pay victims of corporate crime, they can declare bankruptcy and the remaining cost is socialized upon the victims and taxpayers, instead of the owners – as it should be.

                1. Creditors extend credit to corporations knowing full well the limitations on their ability to collect in the event of bankruptcy. They are perfectly free to refuse to extend credit or to demand additional guarantees from the shareholders (something that is frequently done to small privately held corporations with small numbers of shareholders).

                  Limited liability is nowhere near the free ride you’re making it out to be.

                  1. I’m not just talking creditors (I also don’t agree with bankruptcy laws) – I’m talking the guy up the river who get cancer thanks to the chemical plant upstream. If the plant has shut down and all the investors cashed out their profits, who pays for the remainder of the value? Usually the victims and taxpayers.

            2. every time they expect society to socialize their group’s risk by providing their owners with limited liability, a concept individuals do not receive.

              Owners only have limited liability if they did not personally participate in the wrongdoing at issue. The also only have limited liability for the contracts and other debts of the corporation.

              And, whaddaya know, you get pretty much the same result under agency law for members of unincorporated associations, although it can get quite a bit messier and more complicated before you actually get there.

              If you are saying that any and all members/owners of any organization should have unlimited joint and several liability for all contracts, debts, obligations, etc. of the organization, I think you need to explain why someone who had no knowledge of, or authority over, whatever created the liability should be on the hook for it.

              1. RC that’s just too confusing to think about.

                CORPORASHUNS! CHILDRENZ!! BUFFETT RULESZZZ AND MOAR ROADZ

              2. Stockholders elect the board, who elect the agents and approve the policies. They can profit infinitely from their investment and have limited risk, and thus have little incentive to discourage the corporation from long-term risk for short term gains, especially if they are not looking to be long-term investors. The fact that investors are not active in their investments is a direct result of limited liability, and would not be so in a proprietorship or partnership where owners either carefully monitor for liabilities and/or purchase liability insurance to protect themselves.

              3. And I’ve asked this repeatedly and never gotten a good answer: why do many of my fellow libertarians grasp the concept that government should not set up special statuses for marital relationships, yet believe government should set up special statuses for business organizations? Both grant government undue power and control over your relationships in exchange for various legal benefits.

                The only answer I ever get is that profits and growth are good, which is not exactly a libertarian argument.

                1. Corporations will exist with or without government sanction.

                  1. I don’t disagree a partnership could internally/contractually assign liability to remove burden from non-managing investors. That’s still fundamentally different from the current corporate structure, as the managing investors will have extra incentive to reduce their personal liabilities beyond the value of the company via purchasing liability insurance. And victims will still be able to claim from owners before being forced to eat the damages or ask for taxpayers to do so, and the owners will have to sort out their internal/contractual debts to each other after the fact.

                2. Because it’s feasible for X number of people to contract for something similar to marriage without requiring the government to recognize or interfere with “marriage” but it isn’t really feasible to contract the limited liability necessary for an arbitrary number of people to be able safely to invest without the recognition of the corporation as a separate entity.

                  1. So, that’s another vote for “profits and growth are good”, right?

                    Because it’s not the role of government to incentivize or disincentivize safe investment. It’s the sole role of government to protect individual rights. Socialized liability damages individual rights by altering market incentives away from caution, safety, honesty and respect for rights towards profits and growth.

                    Also, many proprietorships and partenerships exist very profitably without government-limited liability.

                    1. Because it’s not the role of government to incentivize or disincentivize safe investment.

                      So you say.

                    2. Sure, it’s my opinion. But it’s hard to deny it’s a market distortion. If you think government should not distort the economy and should leave the market to its own devices (at least until it breaches individual rights), that’s hard to argue for an exception or two that you happen to like despite the rampant unintended consequences.

                      Moreover, the regulatory state is the government’s response to the moral hazards of incorporation. Remove the moral hazards, and the regulatory state can be privatized into the hands of liability insurance providers, or the owners can assume their own personal risk.

                    3. Do you think that being held liable for decisions or actions which you didn’t make or take distorts anything?

                      Moreover, the regulatory state is the government’s response to the moral hazards of incorporation.

                      Oh, I suspect the government would be more than happy to regulate even in the absence of corporations.

                    4. I think being liable for entities and property you own is preferable to letting innocent victims pay the cost for the damages to them caused by your entities.

                      I prioritize payment for liability like this:
                      1.) actual responsible parties in the corporation
                      2.) corporate assets
                      3.) corporate owners and/or liability insurance
                      4.) victims/taxpayers

                      The current system takes out step #3, creating moral hazards to where the owners are not really responsible for the actions of the entity they own and profit from, beyond the amount invested (#2).

                    5. The current system takes out step #3, creating moral hazards

                  2. I don’t see how even under the common law, with no explicit exemption, you get to the point where harm could be found for a mere passive investor. For the individual worker who created a faulty device, the inspectors, and the direct manager of that worker certainly, but beyond that, the law before the modern era would have worked against liability being applicable beyond immediate parties. I would deduce from this that liability evolved to protect workers, not passive investors.

                    1. I’m not saying the court would hold the passive investor personally harmed you. I’m saying in their responsibilities as owners of the organization, they are responsible for that organizations’ debts and liabilities. How they sort out payment via internal contract/assignment of liability, insurance, etc. internally should not limit the entities’ obligations to repay the victims, even if that cost exceeds the value of the corporation and the uninsured owners are left holding the bag.

                      If you want corporate personhood, then their legal obligations should be just as impactful as those for individuals. Does a person’s obligation to pay for a lawsuit settlement end when their bank account is empty?

                    2. Does a person’s obligation to pay for a lawsuit settlement end when their bank account is empty?

                      If it’s discharged in bankruptcy. Yes, yes, you are against that, too.

                    3. Much broader than my concern which was to address how a corporation could raise capital without limited liability. Like you, I don’t think that would be a problem if liability is strictly defined.

                      Would have answered earlier but I took a short nap. Had a dream I was walking along a small pipeline trying to reach Deadwood, North Dakota when I was assailed by dryad cowboys. Odd that one.

                    4. “dryad cowboys”

                      I thought dryads were women?

                    5. Not concerned – where there is a profit, people will invest, and insurance can privately socialize and offset the risk. If liability risk is so high that it exceeds investor motivation to profit, perhaps the market is indicating that company should not be in business. Incorporation has incentivized all sorts of dangerous industries that a free market which prioritized individual rights would not.

                3. The only answer I ever get is that profits and growth are good, which is not exactly a libertarian argument.

                  True, and I don’t think that’s an argument that libertarians make.

            3. they expect society to socialize their group’s risk by providing their owners with limited liability

              So if you buy one share of stock and you should be on hook for everything you own? That makes a lot of sense. A lot of NON-sense.

              1. You’re an owner. I didn’t say they’d be on the hook for everything. Surely passive shareholders can rightly lay claims against internal actors who put them at risk, and in a free market system, they would insure themselves from liability anyway. Merely that as an association of individuals their combined liability risk should not be limited by the amount they allocated to the artificial “pool”.

                1. Surely passive shareholders can rightly lay claims against internal actors

                  So your answer is to accept full liability in organization you have may have operational control, and to just sue the managers, who may or may not be able to pay, while someone else is suing you?

                  Well that’s just fantastic! Who wouldn’t want to get in on that?

                  Merely that as an association of individuals their combined liability risk should not be limited by the amount they allocated to the artificial “pool”.

                  If their input in the association is limited by how much they contributed, why shouldn’t their liability? Why is the guy who owns 1% as liable as the guy who own 51%?

                  1. Well, if you own 1% of the stock, I’d assume you should only be responsible for 1% of the total liability payout. However, you can pre-contract those rates however you want internally. I’d assume investor insurance rates would be determined based upon the liability of the companies you own and the percentage of stock you own.

                    Making owners pay the full cost of liability (or the company buying insurance out of profits to protect their owners) would be a small price to pay to eliminate the regulatory state, cap gains, corporate income taxes, etc. which is also part of my proposal. Removing the market distortions, moral hazards and perverse incentives is more than worth it alone.

        4. So people shouldn’t have free speech unless they pay taxes? Shrike, I think we finally found something we agree on.

          1. Why should speech and paying taxes be intertwined like that?

    2. The definition of “incorporated” is “united into one body”. That body has many of the legal rights under the law that an individual has. I don’t know why this is so difficult to understand.

      1. Besides,

        The leftards complaints seem to avoid corporations like Unions, Environmental Activists, Media Businesses, Municipal governments etc.

  11. The Crisis of Big Science.

    I love science and physics and cosmology as much as anyone. But I also oppose government funding of pretty much, well, anything.

    The Slashdot submission contained this insight into the mind of the progressive left:

    If not our government, will anyone fund these immense projects or will physics slowly grind to a halt due to fiscal constraints

    *sigh*

    1. HAHA! I sometimes wish physics would cease to exist if I stopped paying for it.

      1. Without government spending on physics, we’ll have islands capsizing left and right.

        1. Just imagine what would happen if everyone refused to pay the light bill.

    2. We’ve had a couple of guys pony up money to build actual rockets to launch things into space. Some other dot.com guy built a library that is a rival to most universities, just because he could. I’m sure somebody will fund physics. If you can’t find an angel, try kickstarter.

      1. the big projects take so long to construct anyway, you’ve got plenty of time to acquire funds, and still stay on a typical decade-long schedule.

        1. Seriously. They act like the private sector has zero to gain from scientific advances or something.

  12. Medicare has overpaid tens of millions of dollars in bonuses to physicians in “underserved” areas that the feds fully knew didn’t qualify.

    Bwahahahaha!

    [adjusts monocle, strokes white cat]

    1. No wonder you can afford nice things, RC.

  13. “Minnesota’s Democratic Party wants to trim the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so that free speech rights won’t apply to corporations, and to permit any and all restrictions on political spending. ”
    Do their union friends know and approve?

    1. They are too stupid to realize that unions are corporations. We should pass it quick before they figure it out.

      1. Aren’t the actual parties organized under a corporate structure?

      2. Hardly, they just want to micromanage which groups of people have which rights. Ideally, they can strip speech rights for corporations on a case-by-case basis, to completely cripple the opposition.

  14. One Saturday last fall, President Barack Obama interrupted a White House strategy meeting to raise an issue that wasn’t on the agenda. He declared, aides recalled, that the administration needed to more aggressively use executive power to govern in the face of congressional obstructionism.

    “We had been attempting to highlight the inability of Congress to do anything,” recalled William Daley, who was the White House chief of staff at the time. “The president expressed frustration, saying we have got to scour everything and push the envelope in finding things we can do on our own.”

    Barack Obama, the first president ever to have to confront opposition from our Constitution’s checks and balances.

    1. Remember those “It’s not fascism when WE do it” posters the left were fond of waving about whenever TEAM RED went all executive-power-trip?

      Good times, good times.

  15. Public school students better prepared for university

    Haven’t had your daily fill of BS yet? Try this article on for size.

    As a graduatesurvivor of BC’s public school system, I find this pretty hard to believe.

  16. OT: Who else has gone and seen The Cabin in the Woods? And were you as disappointed as I was?

    1. Yes, though I didn’t go in expecting much. & it was even worse than that.

    2. What? Everyone I know is raving about it. I haven’t seen it yet.

      1. There were some idiotic fanboys raving about it as we walked out of the theater. They were clearly idiots. It’s a very weak movie, and I was very surprised to be that disappointed by something with Joss Whedon’s name on it.

        1. Wheadon’s name is exactly what has me interested. Well shit.

          1. His input was clearly minor. You can feel the bits that are his, and they are few and far between, and mostly in the beginning. The most aggravating aspect was the “we are going to reference stuff but in such a vague and generic way that we make it unclear what we’re referencing”. So what is the point?

            And any movie that has Sigourney Weaver come out for a brief cameo mentioning “old gods” and not reference Lovecraft or Ghostbusters needs to be punished.

            1. Ooh, that is unfortunate, because they both should be mentioned as often as possible, even under normal conditions.

    3. Relevant:
      http://redlettermedia.com/half…..e-stooges/

      I thought it sounded interesting, but haven’t seen it yet.

  17. Obama: a rich, creamy, monarch center, inside a thick layer of chocolate monarch, with a candy-monarch coating.

    1. And Michelle is even manlier than Dr. Girlfriend.

      Wait, wrong Monarch.

      1. Dr. Girlfriend’s only masculine feature is her voice. That’s not true of Michelle.

  18. Ejaculated on His Wife While She Gave Birth to Their Son.

    Nothing to add here. Just thought I’d contribute this to the Reason cultural milieu.

    1. Wait, what?

      1. Sounds more like he creamed his pants during the delivery, but still.

    2. “THAT IS NOT HOW FERTILIZATION WORKS, LINDA!”
      -Morbo

      1. MORBO DOES NOT TALK THAT WAY!!!

    3. You just made my brain hurt. Further confirming that my decision to not watch reality TV was the correct one.

    4. Well, I honestly don’t know how to respond to that. I laughed at Jezebel’s article, though. I guess it just goes to show that some people have no concept of TMI.

  19. Barack Obama: the King Joffery of American politics.

    1. He tortures whores too?

      1. Yes, the whore called America. See what I did there?

        Oh, and I wonder when we’ll get a Jezebel post screeching about the sexualized violence in GoT. It’s bound to happen.

        1. http://tigerbeatdown.com/2011/…../#comments

          Close enough for government work.

          1. What the hell is wrong with these people? Do they think an author is incapable of writing characters who don’t possess the same exact mentality as the author? That if an author writes a convincing villain, it’s because the author is truly evil?

            1. William Peter Blatty == Pazuzu

            2. Gee um thanks for reading that so I didnt have to. Some of us put down Lord Fouls Bane after chapter 4.

              I take it she disapproves of rape. Quite a controversial stand given the powerful pro-rape lobby on K-street.

            3. Try that again. Trying to edit around Reason’s butt fucked 50 character limit bug screwed that up.

              Gee um thanks for reading that so I didnt have to. Some of us put down Lord Fouls Bane after chapter 4.

              I take it she disapproves of rape. Quite a controversial stand given the powerful pro-rape lobby on K-street.

              1. Still not quite right, but I’m not fighting the squirrels.

          2. Wow that was rough. We’ve actually been criticizing the HBO series for a lot of totally pointless sex, nudity, and sexual violence (just because we think it is pointless–oh look, here’s this week’s installment of naked whores running around everywhere for no apparent reason! because it’s HBO!), but…ugh.

            I would like to know what is allowed for women characters though. You can’t be a bitch, and you can’t be a mothery type, and you can’t be ugly-but-powerful, or young-and-tomboyish. But you also can’t be just like a man either, I would assume. WHAT THE HELL IS LEFT?

            1. Don’t you know? The only women characters allowed are idealized versions of themselves!

              1. I thought we said no bitches…

                1. I thought we said no bitches…

                  Ok you’ve earned this.

            2. I can’t believe I read through that whole comment and there was no gratuitous nudity or sex scenes. You suck, nicole!

            3. It was tough to watch, but I am going to defend it as an important scene in the way it characterized Joffrey. When he humiliated Sansa in front of court that was him trying to not appear weak after Robb Stark embarassed him again by whipping another Lannister army. Of course being the coward that he is he took it out on the defenseless Sansa, but he felt that he was making an example. That’s a ploy.

              But in the privacy of his bedchambers he made it clear that he is a geunine psychopath who get pleasure from violence even when the violence serves no purpose in advancing his public image. It should have been a minute or so shorter but it was still important.

        2. Oh, and I wonder when we’ll get a Jezebel post screeching about the sexualized violence in GoT. It’s bound to happen.

          Ask and ye shall receive.

          1. I was going to comment on that, but Reason’s filter sucks.

          2. To be fair, these two scenes are absolutely the most graphic and sexually explicit scenes in GoT history

            Maybe on TV. Clasp your hands together and pray to your beloved moon-blood-goddess that they don’t televise Chiswyck’s little bedtime story about how Ser Gregor and his merry men a thirteen-year-old girl.

            Women (and their vaginas) have to suffer a lot at the hands of men on GoT.

            Except when Cersei uses hers as a credit card (She’s been fucking Lancel and Osmund Kettleblack and Moonboy for all I know).

            Which is why homely women all over the land have to get unmercifully screwed from behind like it’s their patriotic duty.

            Vargo Hoat tried to get his “duty” from Brienne the Beauty. He would have had better luck with a goat.

      2. I don’t know whether to love or hate this season. I may have gone full book-snob but some of the characterizations and scenes so far have grated on me. Sandor Clegane isn’t as snarky as his book counterpart, Littlefinger isn’t as witty and amiable (essential to his character is that he is from so minor a house that no one counts him as a threat, except that he controls the finances of the entire realm and his information network may be on par with Varys), Shae is a little too mouthy (acting like a girlfriend instead of, well, a whore), and the whole full-frontal “RENLY IS GAY!!!!!!!!!!” the writers seem eager to shout from the rooftop.

        Then there’s Lena Headey and her one facial expression.

  20. Big Girls Need Love Too: Dating While Fat and Feminist

    But um, I’m not trying to date a dude with a fat fetish. No hate on fetishes, but being the object of that particular one feels… objectifying. I want to date a man that has a range of desires wide enough to see a big girl as attractive. Just like I find a range of men attractive.

    Uhh, I think I found the problem. And men are supposedly the ones who are too picky? What dude has ever said “Gee, It really creeps me out that she likes guys who look like me. I can do better.”

    1. wide enough

      indeed.

    2. So, she either wants to date an alcoholic, or John?

      1. No, pretty sure she wrote off John in the first sentence.

    3. “I don’t want a guy who is actually attracted to me the way I am, because that’s objectifying, and my religion…I mean philosophy…says that’s bad.”

      You can’t make this shit up. It’s a fucking religion, right down to the self-punishment.

      1. It really has gone past the point of parody, hasn’t it?

        Wait, maybe she still clings to the faint hope she’ll lose weight, and if he has a fat fetish he won’t like her anymore? I’m grasping at straws here.

        1. I wouldn’t try to figure out how she thinks, dude. That way lies madness.

      2. I’m beginning to suspect that we have a self-destruct trigger built into us, and something is beginning to set it off.

    4. Indeed, what (sane) dude has also said, “I’m really turned on by women with type 2 Diabetes who will die from coronary artery disease at the age of 40.”

      1. The kind that can afford big life insurance on chubbos?

      2. what (sane) dude has also said, “I’m really turned on by women with type 2 Diabetes who will die from coronary artery disease at the age of 40.”

        He lives in a community property state, she’s loaded, and he’s broke. That’s what kind of sane man.

        1. Ok, ok….fair enough.

      3. Joseph Bruce and Joseph Utsler?

        1. Joseph Bruce and Joseph Utsler?

          I saw what you did there. And now you’ve outed yourself.

          1. Wait, we allowed a Juggalo to post here? Take your Faygo and get your painted ass back to The Gathering.

          2. I really hope you had to google those names.

            1. Dude, I’ve watched this. It will blow your mind.

              1. Dude, I’ve watched this. It will blow your mind.

                Is it better than Strangle-Fuckin-Mania?

            2. I really hope you had to google those names.

              To tell the truth….no.

    5. But the fact remains that I’m a short, dark-skinned, fat Black girl, with a natural.

      So she wants a man who will love A fattie, but isn’t into fatties and is willing to whack his way through your weeds?

      Good luck with that.

  21. What is with France? Your three choices are a variety of far-left socialist parties, a slightly less far-left moderate party, and then a fascist party. Yay democracy?

    1. I think they have one or two relatively classical liberal parties like Liberale Alternative, but those parties have very little power. Kind of like the LP here.

    2. They should be like us – split up the fascist party into the other two parties.

  22. (3) The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the people, through federal, state, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

    You know, the DFLers (whatever the fuck they are) have a point here.

    Artificial entities would be legislative bodies, according to their definition of “artificial entities”.

    1. So, if the peepul decide that a given “artificial entity” doesn’t have property rights, then they can just seize all of its stuff?

      1. Yosemite is MINE mothafuckahs.

    2. If someone thinks that a corporation that tries to convince them to buy shit is more dangerous to their well being than a political party dedicated to telling them what they can do with their shit then that person just sucks at basic life skill calculation.

      1. Ah, but the catch is, most of these troglodytes are convinced that the political party will only tell OTHER people what to do. After all, every single thing I do is perfectly cool. It’s those other people who need an authority figure.

  23. Belters!

    Best to get your Belter crest shaved now.

    1. Saw that last week. Interesting.

      Again, once we have cheap access, shit’s going to get very interesting. No surprise that more and more companies are forming to exploit the opportunities that are beginning to open up.

  24. President Obama is channeling his inner monarch by wielding the same sort of unilateral executive power that he criticized in his predecessor.

    Who didn’t see that coming when that glib, empty suit strutted on to the national stage? Oh, yeah, millions.

    1. I think they DID see it coming, and they wanted a turn.

  25. I posted this on the AM links, I am pushing a poll here.

    Please go here and vote for Kiran Hill
    http://centerrightnv.com/2012/…..-poll-cd4/

    Well for those of you that sort of agree with me, you can vote there.

  26. The centerpiece of Romney’s plan would overhaul the way most Americans get their health coverage: at work. He would do so by giving Americans a tax break to buy their own health plans. That would give consumers more choices, but also more risk.

    A tax break would just increase insurance premiums. People working at the Hoover Institute should know that. In the end, like Obamacare, it just means bigger profits for Big Insurance.

    1. Perhaps. But I loathe government run health care far more than I despise profits.

  27. Minesota’s Democratic Party wants to trim the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so that free speech rights won’t apply to corporations

    What do corporations sound like, anyway? Is it more of a death-metal growl, like Cynic, or a more of a death-metal robot voice, also like Cynic?

  28. Romney plan to decouple healthcare from employment with tax incentives for individual plans wins praise – and criticism – for being more revolutionary than Obamacare.

    A taxable income reduction for personal health insurance purchases would be great. They should also let you save money in a personal HSA tax-free.

  29. BTW Ron Paul is going to win Nevada.

    Ron Paul has mostly taken over Clark county the most populous county in Nevada.

    Ron Paul supporters completely took over Nye county, and the struggle is on in Washoe county.

    The State convention is going to be a Ron Paul rally.

    We live in historic times people.!

  30. Thats a pretty sweet looking ride there no?

    http://www.Planet-Anon.tk

  31. Obama’s executive powers seem to have extended to messing up the link above to the article at the Statesman.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.