Bath Salts

A.M. Links: Romney claims victory in Texas, Charles Taylor sentenced at the Hague, Assange loses extradition appeal, "Bath Salts" blamed for cannibalistic attack

|

  • Mitt Romney won the Texas primary. Romney's campaign claims the win secures his nomination despite not clinching the required delegate majority.
  • Ex-President of Liberia, Charles Taylor, has been sentenced to 50 years in jail for his role in Sierra Leone's civil war.
  • The UK Supreme Court has dismissed Julian Assange's appeal against extradition to Sweden where he is accused of sex offenses. 
  • The European Commission has called for a banking union and recapitalization of banks within the eurozone.
  • Poland's Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, said that he expects more than "regret" from the U.S. after President Obama mistakenly referred to a Nazi facility used to process Jews for execution as a "Polish death camp".
  • The Cannibalistic attack in Miami is being blamed on "bath salts", otherwise known as "the new LSD".

Don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily AM/PM updates for more content!

New at Reason.tv: "Zach Wahls, His Two Moms, & The Future of Same-Sex Marriage"

NEXT: Is the Obama Recovery Over? Or Has it Not Really Started Yet?

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. The Cannibalistic attack in Miami is being blamed on “bath salts”, otherwise known as “the new LSD”.

    AKA The walking dead, AKA the living impaired, AKA necromorphs, AKA FUCKING ZOMBIES.

    1. First a MMA guy rips out his friend’s beating heart, now this.

      Gory death trifecta in play people. Watch your backs.

    2. “‘We have seen, already, three or four cases that are exactly like this …” Aguilar said.”

      See. Zombie coverup. I declare today “go buy a fucking shotgun day”.

      1. I smell a moral panic

      2. OK but what load is effective against zombies? Slugs, buckshot? Not sure I can get buckshot in NY so I might be screwed.

        1. Slugs. Massive head injury.

          1. You have to take out the brain stem. Aim for the nose and mouth and you need a clean 90 degree horizontal shot. Just taking out the cerebrum ain’t gonna do it.

            Concussion grenades would also be helpful here.

            1. “Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don’t you think?”

            2. Interesting question raised here. Given the new knowledge about head injuries from IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan that was discussed last week or so, what would the zombie susceptibility to such things be? It would open up new options in zombie perimeter defense, including some non explosive sonic weapons, perhaps.

              1. Reading World War Z I thought-why did they not just lure them into a huge ravine and run them over with a big remote control steamroller.

                1. Remote control? Pussy. Armored!

        2. #2 Buck is my preferred anti-personnel load, more shot than .00, but still carry plenty of penetrating power. A good mix of spread and knockdown. Slugs will work fine, just don’t miss.

        3. Slug to the head. I recommend Brenneke.

        4. Preferably slugs. But .00 will work at close range (maybe 3-4 feet tops). Bu by the time they’re that close, you should be able to use your machete.

          Wait, we are talking about slow-moving zombies, right? Fast-movers are an urban legend AFAICT.

        5. As we’ve learned, gunshots attrack more. An array of axes, knives, spears and arrows is much more effective.

          Having read “How to survive the Zombie Apocalypse”, I feel I’m atleast moderately prepared.

          1. Sound suppressors are a must have for zombie engagements.

        6. OK but what load is effective against zombies? Slugs, buckshot?

          At what range are you expecting to engage? Under, say, 40 yards with a tight choke, I’d go 00 buckshot. Over that, slugs, but to get decent accuracy you need a rifled barrel, which may be damaged if you start pushing shot through it.

      3. Real men use a crossbow.

        1. Aren’t crossbows limited to a shorter range than a compound bow?

          1. Yes. Probably slower fire rate too.

            1. Yeah, you can only fire one bolt per round with a crossbow. With a compound bow you can make all of your allowed attacks every round.

              1. OK, fair enough, but what about style points?

            2. Shorter range? No.

              A crossbow shoot a bolt at MUCH higher velocities than a compound bow could ever hope.

              It’s the whole “you only got 1 shot” thing about the crossbow that makes it a sketchy choice for anti-zombie use.

        2. Daryl is too cool.

      4. A magic shotgun that never needs reloading!

      5. I am getting really tired of zombies.

        1. I thought I was alone. Fuck zombies, man. I just don’t get it.

          1. I am more tired of the idiotic vampire phenomenon than I am of the zombies.

            1. I don’t associate with many teenage girls, so the Vampire thing is not so present in my life.

      6. Really? This is the fourth time somebody has eaten off another person’s face while stoked on bath salts?

        1. Quotation cut for effect. The real gist was that this was the 4th time someone freaked the fuck out on bath salts.

    3. What an incredible load of shit! Bath saltz? Give me a break!

      Has anyone ever considered the tried and true “Barking at the Moon, Batshit insane?”

      BTW, that one is supposed to be in the latest DSM.

      1. So say a guy started off severely schizophrenic, maybe paranoid schizophrenia, would/could various psychoactive drugs, particularly psychedelic drugs (which I would assume “the new LSD” is) exacerbate the underlying psychosis? I am curious about this; I would think that there was already something mentally amiss with that guy inasmuch as street people are not exactly poster children for mental stability to begin with.

        1. That is entirely possible, Demonica Ona. Take Jared Lee Loughner, for example, as classic case as defined. Apply lithium liberally, give him some MAOI’s and you can have him relatively “sane”.

          Using an unknown or very powerful psychedelic drug could very much cause brain chemistry, or to be more precise, the perception of how the brain perceives stimuli to cause said nutcase to go off his rocker and change his eating habits.

          To be more serious, the only way we would know to to either put him under both a PET scan and brain scan, or do a full and intensive autopsy on his cerebrum, particularly the pre-frontal cortex, to identify possible abnormalities.

          What I challenge here is the blaming of “bath saltz” with no prior pharma panels to justify one way or the other. We don’t even have a meta-study.

          1. What I challenge here is the blaming of “bath saltz” with no prior pharma panels to justify one way or the other. We don’t even have a meta-study.

            Oh yeah, I agree that was pulled from their ass. Can’t forget about the War On Drugs narrative.

        2. The “new LSD” is more like meth than any psychedelic. They are only using that term because they think “LSD” sounds scary. These are the same people who taught that LSD and PCP were basically the same thing in high school health class.

    4. I’ve heard that they call the county morgue “the barn.” This doesn’t bode well.

      1. Great. That means to save money, they’ll be there for at least a year.

    5. seriously, i don’t think any drug can be blamed for someone eating another person’s face. Complete psychotic breakdowns aren’t the average side effects.

      Was umbrella corp nearby for comment?
      Has anyone interviewed Hannibal Lector for his analysis?

      1. Come to think of it, Ice Nine has been scarce lately. I think he had something to do with this.

      2. …i don’t think any drug can be blamed for someone eating another person’s face.

        It’s people like you who think there’s no harm releasing G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate on a population.

        1. Have to run the tests to see the side effects, Fist.

        2. Is it the strawberry scented Pax, like I suggested?

      3. You can’t blame any drug for any actions by anyone. Drugs don’t make you do things. If you do drugs and then decide to eat someone, you had something wrong with you to begin with.

        And “the new LSD”? What?

  2. Barack Obama lost the primary in Lovin County, Texas.

    1. Loving County, that is.

      STEVE SMITH’s favorite county, I can only assume.

    2. BFD, he lost 67 of 120 counties in KY.

      To Uncommitted.

    3. He’s lost that Lovin’ feeling?

  3. Talk about spilling your guts…

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

    1. Trifecta now satisfied. Everyone can relax.

    2. Check out the swat guy in the pic. His shirt badge thingy says ‘polizei’. What the fuck New Jersey?

      1. It’s Obama trying to appease the Poles.

      2. Daily Fail uses stock photos

        1. This is news? The Daily FAIL is infamous for that nonsense.

    3. You motherfucker. You knew I was gonna post this this morning. For some reason you decided to go here before posting boobies?

      1. Ha ha!

        1. In a Nelson Muntz voice.

          1. Excellent!

          2. (in a Montgomery Burns voice)

      2. Early Bird Catches the Intestine, Momma Randian always says.

    4. The man had to be wrapped up to protect his wounds

      Hack and sack, as it were.

        1. Thanks, Fist!

        2. This exchange made me laugh harder than I should have.

          1. I certainly hope you didn’t hurt yourself.

    5. So this asshole threatens to kill himself which prompts the city to roll out the SWAT team. Then when they get there he actually starts threatening them with his knife. AND THEY DON’T SHOOT HIM???? WTF!?!?!?!

      1. Well, it’s not like he was a Border Collie or something.

  4. Peek-a-boob!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..ylish.html

  5. Katy Perry sans make-up.

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

    1. Wait, didn’t we have both of these yesterday?

      Q for the dudes: which is more awesome, sideboob or underboob?

      Outsideboob or insideboob?

      All three? (Lobstergirl?)

      1. Side boob. What you don’t see is often better than what you do.

      2. Sideboob. Outsideboob to be precise. It has the most appeal to the most people. Even lifters like Warty can wear a faggoty muscle shirt and grease his pecs for the ladies and lads who like laddies.

        1. Please. I keep my pecs either completely covered, or completely bared. There’s no reason to be coquettish with my chesticles.

          1. hairy or hairless?

              1. Braids?

                1. Dreadlocks.

                  1. Dreadlocks? You lost the women around here with that admission my friend. And you were doing so well

                    1. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

                      AUS PWN’D!

                    2. What do you mean, women might be turned off by the fact that my chest-pelt is unruly and filthy? That’s stupid. You’re stupid.

                    3. Tell me more….

                    4. (that was for the warted one)

                    5. Kristen,

                      Look into a Royal Enfield Bullet 500 for a first bike. They are way cool, small enough for anyone to ride, and a great first bike.

                    6. Hey John – I took a quick look-see on ebay motors and Craigslist. They seem to be a bit in short supply and at the higher end of the price range, but I will keep it in mind. I’m thinking a Honda Rebel might be my first choice (cheap and readily available). We’ll see what they have at the motorcycle safety course and then I can get a better idea of what I’m comfortable on, given the last bike I was on was my dad’s Kawasaki in the 1970’s.

                    7. A Honda Rebel would be fine, or look into a Kawasaki Ninja 250 or the Honda CBR 250 (I think that’s what it’s called) if you want to go to the sportbike route.

                    8. No crotch rockets allowed!

                    9. Anything with a 250 can’t be called a rocket, and a fairing is pretty nice when you’re going over 70. But I’m not really a fan of sportbikes per se.

                      My beloved old bike

                    10. They are really high end. Kind of a cult motorcycle. But your boyfriends biker friends would be green with envy.

                      And if you like cruisers, Rebels are great little bikes. And most safety courses have Honda Rebels and Nighthawk 250s. You will have a ball at the safety course.

                    11. Kristen, do not buy a Royal Enfield unless you buy an old one. The new ones come crated in from India and are shadows of their former selves. Having professionally dealt with the exclusive importer of RE bikes into the US extensively over the past 18 months, I can only say that I wouldn’t want to need service or parts for them any time soon. Their dealer network is scattered and their ability to secure parts is questionable. Not only that, but they haven’t utilized any technological advances in brake or drive technology in decades, making them susceptible to problems you shouldn’t have to deal with in a modern bike.

                      Do yourself a favor: buy a BMW.

                    12. Not true Sloopy. The Indian made ones are much better than the British made ones. They are used all over the third world in ridiculously bad conditions and are known to be bullet proof. The Brits never made anything that was ever reliable. The Indians are the new Japanese and can.

                    13. The Indian made ones are much better than the British made ones.

                      Either way, it doesn’t matter. You don’t want to be on a goose hunt for exotic parts, esp for a first bike. Honda/Kawasaki/Suzuki/Yamaha parts and mechanics are unbiquitous.

                    14. Um, ubiquitous.

                      Nice job there, spell check.

                    15. Me fail english? That’s unpossible!

                    16. I agree with The Warty. Don’t spend a ton of cash for a first bike. More importantly, buy one that you fit on! That can be a challenge for the wominz. A Rebel is perfect. Cheap, small and disposable after you’re ready to move up to something a bit bigger.

                      My long, lost motorpickle:

      3. speaking of which, what’s the dude view on this?

        No giant breast on Krakow pagan mound, say art protection group

        1. Mmmm…giant Polish breasts…

          You can do your own Google Image Search from there.

        2. My view is that boobs with scars on them are a turnoff.

          1. My view is that boobs with scars on them are a turnoff.

            Mine too.

            Which reminds me to let everyone her know Banjos’ (all-natural) rack on a size 2p body is now at a 34-F, having grown from a 34-DD over the last 12 weeks of pregnancy. I think she may be one of the first women that will still need a mirror to see her pregnant belly when she gets to 8-9 months.

            1. Damn. Those are some tig ole’ bitties.

        3. Well, as a guy who prefers no more than a B cup, I’ll be skipping this event.

          1. fuuny, I prefer moderate sized breasts myself, but the majority of my past GFs and my wife are well endowed.

            So this begs the question: Do I secretly like large breasts or do women with large breasts like me?

            1. I generally prefer about a C cup. Big enough to play with, not big enough to smuffocate you.

            2. “Don’t like big cars or big women / But somehow I always find myself in ’em”

              – Kid Rock

        4. “This was my favourite proposal, it was light and witty,” member of the jury Joanna Erbel, who specializes in social art, told the Gazeta Wyborcza daily.

          No. No it wasn’t.

        5. I say go for it. It is a *pagan* mound.

          What’s the distaff view on something analogous for the Washington Monument?

          1. Well. Locally there is a long tubular water tower or something that is painted green, and some wag spraypainted “Jolly Green Giant’s Hardon” on it. The reaction amongst old ladies of my acquaintance strongly reminded me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mYbLFD_BwE

            1. “The end is purple!”

              1. That video is one of the bestest things evar. I would love to have lunch with those ladies.

            2. That’s totally awesome – I’m-a send it to my 70-year-old Ma 🙂

        6. From death arises life, ashes to ashes dust to dust, the circle is complete. I say go for it.

        1. Is that IFH? I chose the wrong continent. I may have to re-evaluate my sideboob theory.

          1. Maybe she’s of Ukrainian descent. The boobs suggest it.

            1. Nope, that lass has more of a Franco-Prussian aura about her. Precisely the type of people to ship off to a penal colony.

              1. Ship her off to my penal colony please

              2. Needs a more severe nose to be Franco-Prussian. That woman has Catalan-Basque written all over her face.

                1. You were looking at her face? What a gentleman

                2. Phooey sloop! Look at the chin and cheekbones! And the chin. That is a Franco-Prussian mandible and zygomatic process if I have ever seen one!

                  I also bet my left testicle she had a rhinoplasty!

                  1. In that case, maybe she’s a Joo.

                    1. No way, Warty. She’d be wearing a Tottenham Hotspur jersey if that were the case.

                  2. That’s Keeley Hazell, a British glamour model. Given that she was born and raised in England and Hazell is a Saxon name, I’m guessing an Anglo-Saxon heritage. It’s called Australian cleavage because it’s from down-under.

                    1. It’s called Australian cleavage because it’s from down-under.

                      We really need a sarcasm font.

                    2. Maybe you should work on your delivery.

                    3. Who else is a big fan of British cleavage?

                    4. Fat Brits in their summertime finery – that’s the reason to fear global warming right there

    2. Katy looks cute young sans makeup.

      1. Just like the girl next door with enormous fun bags.

      2. Goddamn ampersand ban! I’m just gonna spell the fucking thing from now on.

        Katy looks cute ampersand young sans makeup.

  6. Romney’s campaign claims the win secures his nomination despite not clinching the required delegate majority.

    Mittster Roboto should aim higher and declare he has enough electoral votes to clinch the presidency.

  7. he expects more than “regret” from the U.S. after President Obama mistakenly referred to a Nazi facility used to process Jews for execution as a “Polish death camp”

    Act wisely, Mr. President. You know what happened after the accidental Koran burning.

    1. Yeah, the last thing we need is Poles rioting in the streets, fixing windows righting overturned cars, putting out fires, and returning consumer electronics to stores.

    2. If it’s in Poland, isn’t it in some sense Polish?

      1. difference between a camp located in Poland and a Polish camp. The latter implies ownership. But, if that’s what TOTUS said, it must be true.

        1. Don’t get me wrong, it was a dumb thing to say. But technically true. It is owned by the Polish government and in Poland, isn’t it?

          1. In one sense, yes, but it obscures the fact that it was not the Poles who set them up and ran them. That is why they get annoyed by the term – they see it as being capable of an incorrect interpretation (probably aided by a sense of guilt over Polish anti-semitism).

            If I beat Naomi Klein to death and buried her in your backyard, technically it would be Zeb’s killing field and shallow grave. Others could incorrectly infer you’re responsible for it. And you may well despise Ms Klein. If others to use terms that suggest you’re responsible, would you try to correct that?

            1. You are quite right, of course, and I completely understand why they were annoyed.

              I like how you worked beating Naomi Klein to death in there.

  8. Baby you can wash my car…

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

  9. Photos show Greenland ice melting faster 80 years ago!

    Nooooo! That goes against the narrative!

    Heresy!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci…..today.html

    1. Something else FDR and/or WWII solved?

      1. when he wasn’t being Fidel Castro’s penpal

    2. Know what else happened about 80 years ago?

  10. Here’s a case where cops showed restraint in the face of a man that was obviously out of his mind. Good thing it ended peacefully.

    1. Told you I’d beat you to it!
      Neener neener nee ner!

    2. OT: It’s funny that the cops that killed that guy trying to eat someone’s face off tried to not kill him first, firing warning shots.

      I run up on someone eating someone else’s face off, my first shot is going to be for the fucking head.

  11. “The sentence is clearly excessive, clearly disproportionate to his circumstances, his age and his health and does not take into account the fact that he stepped down from office voluntarily,” said Morris Anya, one of the lawyers representing Mr. Taylor.

    The next brutal African dictator who is thinking of stepping down voluntarily will now think twice.

    1. Voluntary being a relative word.

    2. “The sentence is clearly excessive, clearly disproportionate to his circumstances, his age and his health”

      I’m sure a lot of Liberians would settle for him just being tortured to death over a period of a few weeks.

      1. Just shooting him would be fine. I am of the opinion that the death penalty should be reserved exclusively for government officials.

  12. Ouch!

    Genitals pulled down from art gallery wall

    http://www.news.com.au/breakin…..6375400834

    1. Gallery director Liza Essers says the image will also be removed from the gallery website as a “gesture of goodwill”.

      That’s a funny way of saying they were pressured and intimidated, and succumbed to the ANC.

    2. Two men defaced the image

      The artist’s genitals have a *face*?

      Shades of Drew Carey!

      1. My Penis Has No Urethra Yet It Must Scream

        1. Edvard Mook was reputed to have a ginormous prostate. The Scream is a self portrait, you know.

  13. British tackle obesity by contemplating a new hate crime. Go on, read it, you fat fucks

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

    1. But the same people who would support that, would also support the government forcing people to lose weight. Cognitive dissonance how does it work?

    2. Instead of fat, how about “gravitationally challenged”?

      1. More like gravitationally advantaged.

    3. Meanwhile, the fat acceptance brigade cheered with joy.

      And fudge cake.

        1. It’s a lie.

    4. Girls as young as five are wrestling with mental and physical illness because they are so worried about being fat, MPs have warned today.

      If only there were some way to correct this issue? Is it nature or nurture that causes this issue? I don’t like mean people, but if you are fat, maybe someone pointing this out to you might give you the impetus to change that fact. I wonder how long before this country makes it a hate crime as well as we seem intent on following the British in their stupidity.

      1. If that lets us put the nanny staters in jail as hate criminals, it won’t be all bad.

    5. Clearly this was authored by the descendant of Sir Cumference, Fattest Knight of the Rotund Table.

      I suspect Christ Christie is involved somehow.

    6. John would… nevermind.

    7. All children could now attend body confidence and self esteem classes at school.

      “Don’t listen to your peers, supposedly-concerned adults, or your inner voice. You’re beautiful just the way you are, and you’re getting better all the time.”

      1. That’s just pathetic. How about putting their fat asses in PE instead?

      2. You’re good enough, you’re smart enough, and doggone it, people like you. Even if you are a bloated sack of lard.

      3. A waistline is a social construct.

    8. And now calling someone ‘fatty’ should be deemed a hate crime, these MPs say.

      Adding “boom-balatty” will get you life.

  14. Can we all now just admit that Obama is just not that bright? “Polish Death Camp”? Are you kidding me?

    1. His teleprompter isn’t that bright.

    2. a couple of years ago he announced the cancellation of a missile defence in Poland on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. You’d think someone would have made a note at the time – Polaks are prickly buggers, so let’s not offend them carelessly

      1. It is because him and all of his aides went to Ivy League schools. And they don’t teach military history at those schools anymore. I read a blog post a few years ago from a guy who had retired from DOS. His office worked with NATO. He would interview these kids and ask them basic questions like “what year was NATO founded?” “Who was the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in 1945?” And they could not answer him.

        1. John, they don’t teach ANY history at school anymore.

          1. And HS history never makes it to WW2.

            1. The Simpsons handled this:

              Teacher: [when the bells ring] “Wait a minute! You didn’t learn how World War II ended!”

              [The class waits expectantly.]

              Teacher: “We won!”

              Class: [running out of the building cheering] “Yay! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!”

          2. Sore they do, Womyns herstory, Black history, and of course you can’t forget the recitation of the fearless leaders historical accomplishments and so on

        2. Please, do you really think that Obama is unaware of the fact that the Nazis, not the Poles, ran the, yes, Polish death camps?

          1. I think he is probably vaguely aware of it. But I don’t think he is literate enough about the subject to understand that the Poles would be angry about calling them that. If you asked him the question “who ran the death camps in Poland?” he would know it was the Nazis, I hope. But he is not literate enough and comfortable enough with the subject to see the phrase “Polish death camps” in a speech or a document and recognize it as wrong.

            1. I hate the guy and I’m glad he is getting nailed by this ridiculous nitpick but there were death camps in Germany, Czech, Austria and Poland – tell me, how should he have concisely specified the Polish death camps?

              1. “Nazi death camps in Poland” would have kept the Polaks sweet

                1. Well, sure. And, Lefties will love you if you say “people of color” or “African American” instead of “black”. Do you?

              2. tell me, how should he have concisely specified the Polish death camps?

                because he’s The Obama and, of course, because fuck you, that’s how.

            2. If you asked him the question “who ran the death camps in Poland?” he would know it was the Nazis, I hope.

              Well, I’m sure there were -some- polish nazis.

    3. Yet bombing the fuck out of people living like the Flintstones with drones, and killing innocent bystanders in the process is A-O-fucking-K, right?

      1. If you are in a war, yes. Sorry we don’t get to live on Rainbow Puppy Island there Sloopy.

        1. Isn’t a little early to be stroking your war-boner?

        2. How many of these poor, miserable fucks have made it to the US to carry out an attack in the last decade? How many of them have the means to travel across their own country without dying of starvation or exposure first?

          We’re a lot closer to Rainbow Puppy Island than they are to the 21st Century, but for some reason, you shit your pants at the thought of them speaking ill of us. KILL EM ALL!!!

          Pussy.

          1. Don’t you see that by fighting them there we don’t have to fight them here?

            I mean, it makes perfect sense that these people would rather go against the best trained and equipped killing machine that the world has ever seen, than to attack civilians.

            So much less risk involved.

          2. How many of these poor, miserable fucks have made it to the US to carry out an attack in the last decade?

            Very few. So our plan is working.

            1. So all we have to do is preemptively bomb anyone who wishes us ill, until the end of time, and we will be safe?

              Is that in the Obama/Bush re-write of How To Make Friends And Influence Others?

          3. Perhaps they should consider giving up their barbaric ideology and stop trying to murder the people of Afghanistan. You are not a stupid person. So there is no way you could actually be dumb enough to think that everyone who is killed in Pakistan is just some innocent goat herder. Instead, I think you intentionally choose to be ignorant because the harsh reality that yes, there are people out there who really don’t give a shit and will not ever quit, is just too hard to face. Understanding that would require you to give up a lot of your more cherished beliefs. And you clearly are not prepared to believe that.

            1. Perhaps they should consider giving up their barbaric ideology and stop trying to murder the people of Afghanistan.

              That’s Afghanistan’s business, not ours.

              Understanding that would require you to give up a lot of your more cherished beliefs.

              Beliefs like respecting national sovereignty short of a declaration of war? Beliefs like the freedom of speech, as distasteful as some speech can be? Beliefs like leaving nations alone and merely defending our own borders? Beliefs like using the carrot instead of the stick in foreign relations?

              And you clearly are not prepared to believe that.

              Thank God I’m not.

              1. But sloopy, you don’t understand!

                Those poor Afghan dirt farmers who shooting AKs at our troops would be on the next plane to NYC if our guys weren’t there!

                Those IEDs would be blowing up yellow cabs if our troops weren’t there to provide a distraction!

                Got to fight them there or we’ll be fighting them here!

              2. Beliefs like respecting national sovereignty short of a declaration of war?

                If Pakistan would respect the soveriegnty of Afghanistan and do something about the people on its soil attacking, we wouldn’t have a problem would we?

                Again, it is just too hard for you to face the fact that the US might not be the bad actor in every situation. This whole argument has nothing to do with Pakistan or Afghanistan and everything to do with your own neurosis regarding the United States.

                1. Again, it is just too hard for you to face the fact that the US might not be the bad actor in every situation.

                  Straw men are made of straw.

                2. Again, it is just too hard for you to face the fact that the US might not be the bad actor in every situation. This whole argument has nothing to do with Pakistan or Afghanistan and everything to do with your own neurosis regarding the United States.

                  When have I ever said anything like that, John? I love the USA. We have so many things that are wonderful, and we are undoubtedly a fantastic country, relative to the rest of the world. But we’re going so far away from the ideals we were founded upon, ideals like free speech, respect of other nations and the rule of law. Can’t you see the path we’re taking lowers us to the level of the terrorist who would attack another nation without just cause? You have a definition of terror. Do you not think the people in AfPak, Yemen, Libya, Iraq, etc have a definition of terrorism as well? I’d wager our foreign policy is their textbook definition of terrorism, and rightly so.

                3. John, I think you overreact based on your perception of people’s “neurosis regarding the US”. The US is a better country than most. But that doesn’t mean that the government doesn’t do loads of terrible things, both domestically and in foreign policy.

                  The belief that the US involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan is perhaps not entirely a good thing does not at all imply that the US is the bad actor in the situation. The Taliban/AQ fighters are certainly worse than the US, but that does not, by itself, justify our continuing presence. You need more than moral justification to justify a war. There must also be a good and achievable outcome or a real immediate need for self defense. Retaliation is not self defense.

                4. America becomes the bad actor everytime it enters a war in which we have no business in.

            2. The safety of the people of Afghanistan is not the responsibility of the US government or the US military. Not letting them come over here ends the terror threat much faster than the use of military force ever will.

              1. Yes it is Chris. We were the owns who overthrew the Taliban. It is a bit much to now walk away and leave them to their fate. Moreover, the Taliban has made it quite clear that they intend to go back into the international terror business as soon as they get back into power. That makes their not taking power our business.

                1. And to keep them from not taking power will mean that we will be there forever.

            3. The flaw in your blind faith in US military omniscience is who supplies the intel for the target lists? We know for a fact that at least one of those people was an a-Q double agent. We know that other people the US military trusts in Afghanistan have used their weapons against our soldiers. It logically follows that the intel isn’t as good as we think it is.

              So yeah, Obama’s killing a lot of innocents and settling Pashtun family feuds with his drones.

              1. VG,

                I seriously doubt the targeting is perfect. Just how imperfect neither you nor I know. But I do know they are not intentionally targeting civilians. Do they get it wrong? Sure. But again that is mostly the responsibility of the fighters who hide among civilian populations. If they weren’t committing the war crime of hiding amongst civilians, there wouldn’t be any mistakes to make.

                1. War crime? They’re not soldiers! They’re not employees of a government that will tell them to stop fighting when a diplomatic solution is reached!
                  WTF!
                  They’re hiding among civilians because they are civilians!

                  1. War crime? They’re not soldiers! They’re not employees of a government that will tell them to stop fighting when a diplomatic solution is reached!
                    WTF!
                    They’re hiding among civilians because they are civilians!

                    That doesn’t necessarily hold true either. In the admittedly outdated method of thinking about combatants, they could be analogous to partisans or irregulars.

                  2. Sorry, sarcasmic, but it is a war crime to engage in armed hostilities without wearing a uniform, being in a chain of commande, etc.

                    “Civilians” can most certainly commit war crimes. Many defendants at Nuremberg were civilians.

                2. Hiding in a school is a war crime but dropping a bomb on that school isn’t? Are you fucking serious?

                  1. Hiding in a school is a war crime but dropping a bomb on that school isn’t? Are you fucking serious?

                    Alright, I hate to get this tired clich? out, but are you seriously saying that I can just wrap myself in newborns and do whatever the hell I want, because hey, if you shoot me, instant war crime?

                    That doesn’t make sense.

                    1. Two wrongs don’t make a right, Randian. And if a terrorist “wrapped himself in newborns,” wouldn’t that prevent him from carrying out any attacks? Especially if those newborns were in a village in the Pashtun region of Pakistan or somewhere west of Say’un, Yemen…you know, thousands of miles away from the United States of America.

                    2. Two wrongs don’t make a right

                      Then I guess you don’t believe in self-defense? Should I pull up the George Zimmerman threads?

                      And if a terrorist “wrapped himself in newborns,” wouldn’t that prevent him from carrying out any attacks?

                      Hush – you know what I mean. You’re basically giving carte blanche to every terrorist or criminal who takes hostages.

                      Especially if those newborns were in a village in the Pashtun region of Pakistan or somewhere west of Say’un, Yemen…you know, thousands of miles away from the United States of America.

                      That is a different argument. Whether it is wise or prudent to conduct this course of hostile operations is different from whether Any Particular Strike is moral, immoral, legal, or illegal.

                  2. Hiding in a school is a war crime

                    It can be, if the school is full of kids.

                    dropping a bomb on that school isn’t

                    Not if its got enemy fighters in it, no.

                  3. ^THIS^ to googleplex power

                3. If we were’nt over there, we wouldn’t be the ones responsible for killing innocent civilians.

                  1. That is right bookworm, if we would just surrender and let them plot to kill us in peace, there wouldn’t be a problem.

                    1. John, they wouldn’t be plotting to kill us if we were to stop meddling over there.

                    2. Oh they would continue to plot. Just like they are doing now. Nothing is going to fucking change that so rattling our sabers does fuck all.

        3. Jesus, John. That’s exactly what the 9/11 attackers were thinking. Innocent people had to die because they were at war with America.

          1. Innocent people die in every war. If the standard was “no innocent people can ever die” you would never be able to defend yourself. The difference between legitimate military action and 9-11 is who is targeted versus who happens to be in the way.

            1. They attacked the Pentagon; I guess that was legitimate.

              1. It was a legitimate target. But pretending to be civilians and hijacking a plane was not a legitimate means.

                1. It was a legitimate target. But pretending to be civilians and hijacking a plane was not a legitimate means.

                  Why not? Evidently they felt that was the only method to carry out their mission. It is a war after all and all methods should be considered legitimate.

                  1. So Ex Nihlo you are going to bitch about US drone strikes but then think it is A OK for an international terror organization to pretend to be civilians and hijack planes. Really?

                    Why is it illegitimate? Because it targets and kills civilians. Because it makes it impossible for the defending side to defend itself without killing civilians. The basic law of war is that you were a uniform and separate yourself from the civilian population so your enemy doesn’t have to target civilians. Doing otherwise is just using civilians as human shields.

                    1. Why is it illegitimate? Because it targets and kills civilians.

                      Wow, just like drone strikes in Yemen.

                    2. We are not targeting and killing civilians in Yeman. We are targeting legitimate targets who are hiding in the civilian population. The civilian deaths that result from those strikes are entirely the responsibility of Al Quaeda for their reliance on illegal methods of warfare.

                    3. We are targeting legitimate targets who are hiding in the civilian population.

                      Yeah, that’s an assertion without a fucking shred of proof to back it up. We droned a bad guy! We know he was bad, because the people who droned him said so! Sorry, doesn’t pass the smell test.

                    4. Perhaps you are unaware that innocent people are actually real, not just numbers in the newspaper. Their lives actually end. They don’t get to come back. You are far to blas? about killing innocents with the thinnest of pretenses.

                    5. So Ex Nihlo you are going to bitch about US drone strikes but then think it is A OK for an international terror organization to pretend to be civilians and hijack planes. Really?

                      Actually, I don’t think either is OK, nor have I ever said that it was.

                      Because it targets and kills civilians. Because it makes it impossible for the defending side to defend itself without killing civilians.

                      I am pretty sure the Pentagon is military. You are aware that terrorism is the weapon of the powerless, and that is the only way they could strike back. Was it disgusting and immoral, absolutely. I have no problem with a country defending itself, but once the danger is gone, it has a duty to leave.

                      The basic law of war is that you were a uniform and separate yourself from the civilian population so your enemy doesn’t have to target civilians.

                      If we were fighting a conventional war you would be right. But we are fighting a guerrilla war and there are different rules for that; sucks but it is true.

                    6. If we were fighting a conventional war you would be right. But we are fighting a guerrilla war and there are different rules for that; sucks but it is true.

                      Okay, then don’t bitch when we kill civilians in the process of conducting that war. You can’t have it both ways.

                    7. Okay, then don’t bitch when we kill civilians in the process of conducting that war. You can’t have it both ways.

                      I don’t want it both ways, I want our troops brought home and for the US Gov to stop using drones to kill people all over the world. So yes, I will bitch about the immoral killing of civilians.

                    8. So yes, I will bitch about the immoral killing of civilians.

                      And

                      ou are aware that terrorism is the weapon of the powerless, and that is the only way they could strike back. Was it disgusting and immoral, absolutely. I have no problem with a country defending itself, but once the danger is gone, it has a duty to leave.

                      No, you will just bitch when we do it. the other side is just great for doing it in your view. So I guess it is just our duty to die for your conscience.

                    9. No, you will just bitch when we do it. the other side is just great for doing it in your view. So I guess it is just our duty to die for your conscience.

                      I know you can read and understand what I wrote. At no time have I said they are “just great for doing it.” It is not ‘your’ duty to die for me or anyone else, nor would I ask you too. What I said is that once the danger is gone, we should leave. It is not a hard concept to grasp.

                    10. Because it makes it impossible for the defending side to defend itself without killing civilians.

                      You keep using that word ‘defense’. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

                    11. I know exactly what it means Mo. The fact is that you and most of the other people on this board don’t know shit about this subject and react with rage every time someone tries to educate you.

                      The fact is that when one side hides among civilians the other side can’t then conduct a war without killing civilians. That is why doing so is a war crime. And the more soft peddle on that, the more people will do it and the more civilians will end up dead.

                    12. OK, John, educate *me*, since I allegedly know so little about defense.

                    13. Randian,

                      People on here confuse disagreeing with the war with the war being illegal or unconstitutional. It is neither. I think there are good reasons to leave Afghanistan. The irony of this whole debate is that as a policy matter, I am not opposed to leaving the place.

                      Where I get contrary is with the “murder drone” and and other histrionics concerning legal and Constitutional questions that no one on here has a fucking clue about beyond “I don’t like it therefore it must be illegal and unconstitutional.”

                      For the reasons I explained over and over yesterday, Obama is not acting illegally or unconstitutionally. That doesn’t mean he is doing the right thing. But call it what it is not what you wish it were.

                    14. Not a problem there then. I concur; not everything bad is illegal or unconstitutional. I don’t like the death penalty, for example, but it is neither of the latter two.

                    15. “I don’t like it therefore it must be illegal and unconstitutional.”

                      OK Tony. Whatever you say.

                    16. OK Tony. Whatever you say.

                      Just because one person used that argument illogically or illegitimately it does not follow that this person is using that argument in the same vein. Nor does it further follow that John adheres to the general ‘thought’ processes of Tony.

                      IOW, that’s a fancy ad hominem there.

                    17. IOW, that’s a fancy ad hominem there.

                      The implication is that they are the same person, different sock puppet.

                    18. Not everyone who thinks you’re an idiot is a sockpuppet.

                      You remind me of the guy who’s been divorced 10 times and blames all of his ‘crazy’ ex-wives. Maybe the problem is you.

                    19. Talk about ad hominems…

                    20. When we get involved in a war without a Congressional act of war, we ARE acting in an unconstitutional way.

                    21. The fact is that when one side hides among civilians the other side can’t then conduct a war without killing civilians.

                      See, you keep confusing ‘war’ with ‘defense’. Defending this country doesn’t have to involve killing people on the other side of the globe. I’m afraid that as long as you continue to use the word ‘defense’ to mean traveling to another country and killing people you’ll never quite understand the point.

                    22. See, you keep confusing ‘war’ with ‘defense’. Defending this country doesn’t have to involve killing people on the other side of the globe. I’m afraid that as long as you continue to use the word ‘defense’ to mean traveling to another country and killing people you’ll never quite understand the point.

                      He understands it just fine. The problem is that you’re arguing two or three different points.

                      Point #1: Drone strikes that do not adequately differentiate between hostile and civilian are Law of War violations. John counters that but-for the irregulars hiding amongst the civilians, striking near civilians would not be necessary. Logically, it can be no other way.

                      Point #2: the wisdom of conducting these hostile operations. John is not disagreeing with you here necessarily. Whether you think it’s smart or wise or humane or whatever to continue hostile operations is beside the point of whether it is illegal or unconstitutional

                    23. He understands it just fine. The problem is that you’re arguing two or three different points.

                      As with John, you are also a champion at missing the point. The point is, traveling to foreign countries to kill people is not a necessary part of ‘defense’ no matter how you slice it. If people are on the other side of the globe, living in caves, and thinking up evil plots I can’t for the life of me see how bombing the fuck out of those caves is defending this country. I don’t care if they’re official soldiers, guerrillas, or civilians, they aren’t attacking us.

                    24. If people are on the other side of the globe, living in caves, and thinking up evil plots I can’t for the life of me see how bombing the fuck out of those caves is defending this country.

                      Considering the fact that one of those plots resulted in the death of 2800 Americans, you are just either legitimately or willfully stupid. Just because people are plotting to kill us doesn’t give us the right to do anything about it. Got it.

                    25. John, that plot that resulted in the death of 2800 people was blowback from our meddling foreign policy. By continuing to meddle over there, we are just giving them more reasons for blowback.

                    26. The point is, traveling to foreign countries to kill people is not a necessary part of ‘defense’ no matter how you slice it.

                      Again, John and I get that. He disagrees. I think you’re oversimplifying things by a lot, although I concur with the general thrust of the argument.

                  2. Why not?

                    Because they were out of uniform, using human shields, not in a chain of command, and committing hostilities. That’s why its not legitimate.

                    1. Know why they are out of uniform and not in a chain of command?

                      Because they’re not soldiers! That’s why!
                      There is no one you can negotiate with to get them to stop fighting!
                      The only way to get them to stop fighting what they rightly view as an occupying force is to leave!

                    2. If you put more exclamation! points! in your comment!, that makes it not! stupid! somehow!

                    3. If you! ignore what the comment! says! and instead! focus on! punctuation! you win! the argument!

                    4. It’s been addressed, sarcasmic. You yelling the point doesn’t make it any less addressed.

                      So-called ‘civilians’ can be just as engaged in hostilities as soldiers.

                    5. When you speak of them being out of uniform and without a chain of command, you imply that they are soldiers.

                      Perhaps if you stopped making disingenuous arguments I would quit calling you out for it.

                    6. When you speak of them being out of uniform and without a chain of command, you imply that they are soldiers.

                      I see you really have no point here.

                      OK, fine, they *aren’t* soldiers. Now what was your point again, given that your hyper-pedantry has been catered to?

                      They aren’t soldiers so…..????

                    7. They aren’t soldiers so…..????

                      So stop acting like they’re doing something wrong when they don’t act like uniformed employees of an opposing government.

                    8. So stop acting like they’re doing something wrong when they don’t act like uniformed employees of an opposing government.

                      So it is only immoral to hide amongst civilians and engage in hostile acts is the government says it is. You have no personal problem with it.

                      Just to be clear: an government-deemed status (uniformed v. not uniformed, or soldier v. civilian) determines your morality for you.

                    9. You are quite adept at attacking men of straw! Bravo!

                    10. You are quite adept at attacking men of straw! Bravo!

                      That’s sarca-code for “I’m losing this argument”. You just said that we should not act like “hiding amongst civilians” is “doing something wrong” because they don’t have uniforms.

                      You said that, clear as day. You know you did.

                    11. kinda ironic, don’t you think, that we are debating the use of drones as ordered by the same man who bitched, moaned, whined, and complained about every single anti-terror tactic put in place by Bush, but when put in charge, upped the ante even further.

                    12. Sarcasmic’s comment is well taken. Civilians are engaged in hostilities because we are occupying their land. Wouldn’t we fight back if somebody was occupying us?

                    13. Illegitimate? Sounds like a bunch of British whiners bitching about slovenly dressed Colonists hiding behind rocks taking pot-shots. Contrary to the Fallout series mantra, war does change. If you are fighting a “liberalized country that values human rights” armed with trillions of dollars of 21st century hardware armed only with pack-animals, AK-47’s, and a crazy religious book (any of them, take your fucking pick), hiding among civilians makes sense. The predictable results are reprehensible for all involved, but predictable nonetheless.

                    14. Drax,

                      You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say on the one hand that it is just great for Taliban fighters to hide amongst civilians. And then on the other hand say it is horrible for the US to then kill civilians in the process of killing said Taliban.

                    15. You can’t have it both ways.

                      FFS John, you are the only one who keeps saying that you evil fuck. Everyone else here is saying we have no business being over there killing them. It doesn’t matter where the fuck they hide, WE DON’T BELONG THERE! Get it?

                    16. And Mo “I don’t think we should be there” is not the same as “Our being there is illegal”. They are two separate questions.

                      You can’t seem to grasp that. So go ahead and play MNG and call anyone who understands that evil. How many times do you have to lose this argument before you get that through your thick skull?

                      And further, even if we didn’t belong there or our being there was a mistake, that doesn’t make our enemy’s tactics any less loathsome or illegal.

                    17. Just curious John, but did you learn these straw man techniques in law school?

                      Because you sure are good at misstating someone’s argument, and then making a case against something they did not argue.

                    18. If you call something a straw man repeatedly, no one will a) realize you’re not using that term right and b) notice that you’re losing the argument!

                    19. And Mo “I don’t think we should be there” is not the same as “Our being there is illegal”. They are two separate questions.

                      Kindly point out one place where I called being there illegal. I said we don’t belong there. As in, we don’t need to defend the United States from 12,000 miles away. Attacking does not equal defending.

                      Now, are you calling plotting against the USA a thought crime that is punishable by death? Do you honestly not believe that it is possible to defend this country without attacking people on the other side of the globe?

                      How many times do you have to lose this argument before you get that through your thick skull?

                      I see you believe that you somehow won this argument.

                    20. If you call something a straw man repeatedly, no one will a) realize you’re not using that term right and b) notice that you’re losing the argument!

                      If you use lettered lists no one will a) realize you’re missing the point and b) notice you’re not even arguing against the right points.

                    21. I wasn’t addressing you.

                      Yes, the right points have been addressed and argued against. Your failure to see that renders this hopeless. He disagrees with you with respect to what constitutes defense, and he’s addressed the squarely. Unless you have some novel argument to add…

                    22. I wasn’t addressing you.

                      Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

                    23. Talk about how the recovery hasn’t worked has been addressed and argued against ad nauseum.
                      Talk about how the TSA is full of perverts and doesn’t accomplish anything has been addressed and argued against.
                      The fact that political pundits regularly say dumb things has been addressed and argued against.
                      The fact that cops screw up, raid wrong houses, and kill dogs has been addressed and argued against.
                      The fact that enviros hate fracking even though it’s overall a good thing has been addressed and argued against.

                      And that’s just today on reason. The fact that they can’t see that they aren’t changing any opinions renders this whole website useless. They really ought to just pack it in because they aren’t changing anybody’s mind. Unless they have some novel new argument to add…

                    24. Now, are you calling plotting against the USA a thought crime that is punishable by death?

                      Oh so actively plotting and making every intention of attacking and killing Americans is a thought crime. That is ridiculous. Yes, the government has a responsibility to find people out there plotting to kill Americans and either kill them or prevent them from doing harm. Protecting its citizens from foreign attack is the most basic function of a government.

                      Mo you are now left defending the position that just because people are plotting to kill Americans that doesn’t give the American government the right to do something about it.

                      If being forced to defend that facially stupid position is not losing an argument, nothing is.

                    25. Oh so actively plotting and making every intention of attacking and killing Americans is a thought crime.

                      Yeah, it is. It’s almost the textbook definition (if there was such a thing). Until a thought it acted upon it’s still just a thought.

                      Yes, the government has a responsibility to find people out there plotting to kill Americans and either kill them or prevent them from doing harm.

                      No, it doesn’t.

                      Protecting its citizens from foreign attack is the most basic function of a government.

                      Yes! OMG, do you see the light?

                      Mo you are now left defending the position that just because people are plotting to kill Americans that doesn’t give the American government the right to do something about it.

                      My opinion is that it gives the government the right to track what’s going on and be prepared to defend against it.

                      Your opinion is that it gives the government the right to travel to their homes and blow them up.

                      If being forced to defend that facially stupid position is not losing an argument, nothing is.

                      I know, it’s always easy to call the person who doesn’t agree with your idiocy an idiot. That way you don’t have to actually think about the opposing point.

                    26. Why can’t I have it both ways? I surely hate BOTH the REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS, so I don’t see any problem accusing the government that taxes me for its own past/current/perpetual mistakes and a group of ill-equipped nutjobs who hate ME for actions that MY BULLSHIT government has taken. Mind you, I have not voted for anyone at the local, state, and federal level that has actually won in over a decade. IOW, I refuse to be forced to support/accused of supporting most/all actions of our bullshit government. I’d move, but it’s likely whatever wealth I have would be confiscated upon my exit. Plus, I’m too dumb and old to learn a new language.

                    27. The only way to get them to stop fighting what they rightly view as an occupying force is to leave!

                      Or kill them.

                      Because they’re not soldiers!

                      Just so. And only soldiers are allowed to fight wars, in order to protect civilians from what happens when people who are indistinguishable from civilians engage in warfighting.

                    28. Do you know why these people are indistinguishable from civilians?

                      Because they are civilians.

                      They are civilians fighting what they view as an occupying force, just as you or I would likely take pot shots at or set up IEDs against foreign troops in our backyard.

                    29. Uh-Oh sarcasmic… can you hear the drone comin…oh shit. Too late.

      2. You can be evil and stupid.

        To the point, as a Polish American? I am extremely offended about what the Obama said, and I will not be voting for him.

      3. Come on sloop, after those 20 Muslim terrorist finish pedaling their submarine over here in four years they’re all going to jump out and throw a missile at the NY Port Authority. WE CAN’T TAKE THAT CHANCE!

      4. If they were innocent, they wouldn’t be living in the same country as Al Qaeda. Also, we have an unlimited right to kill as many fucking towelheads as we please, since we’re civilized.

        1. They love us because we kill them in the most spectacular way possible.

      5. Didn’t we beat this to death yesterday? What, John’s going to change his opinion after he sleeps on it?

        1. if people can be zombies, why not ideas? As Doc says upthread, ya gotta take out the brain stem, and clearly no-one managed that yesterday

          1. Clearly, greater force is necessary. What drone for zombie?

        2. Sloopy got the worst of it yesterday and is still butt hurt about it. You can always tell who loses an argument by who is still angry about it the next day.

          1. You’re at least creeped out by that Cytotoxic weirdo, though, right?

            1. Zomg yes high fives.

              1. There’s nothing quite like a psychotic Objectivist chickenhawk, is there?

                1. Isn’t ‘psychotic Objectivist’ redundant?

                  1. That’s a real fuckin’ knee-slapper there, I tells ya.

                    1. About that reputation for humorlessness, Randian…

                    2. Be funny and I promise I’ll laugh.

          2. Sooo, you got the worst of all those arguments that you had with minge? ‘Cause you’d keep that shit going for days.

            1. I usually was not still interested in an argument the next day. The same argument never went from day to day. And the few times it did, it was because one side got the clear better of it.

            2. Whoa! ZING!

            3. It’s really weird that registration chased MNG away. Maybe he was doing a lot of sockpuppeting and got pissed that he couldn’t do it any more?

              1. Like you miss that shitbag, Warty? I say good riddance.

                1. I don’t miss him. He would never make an honest argument. I hate that.

                2. I certainly don’t miss him. A few other bad-faith pricks are welcome to follow him out the door, too.

              2. I still think MNG is in Colombia chasing escorts with the Secret Service.

                1. MNG was prone to the odd ad hominem and occasional dishonest arguementm though I never mixed with him like John did, but he was at leat not nearly as bad as Tony and shrike. And shrike I think was just young – Tony was straight up, dyed-in-the-wool, drink-the-koolaid-everyday, Stalin/Mao/Castro-apologist, progressive-in-the-absolute-worst-sense douchebag.

                  1. MNG’s schtick was to form somewhat intelligent arguments that were opposite of libertarianism, have those arguments more or less dismantled, then start all over again the next day feigning never having learned a damn thing.

                    It’s all well and good if you disagree, and that’s great, but he showed minimal growth, and it was intentional on his part.

                    1. feigning never having learned a damn thing.

                      What makes you think he was feigning?

                    2. You could hear the smirkiness coming through the comments. Now that ‘gut feeling’ does not pass for knowledge that I can prove, but you could almost hear him say ‘I’m just gonna argue this tired old shit all over again, even though I’ve done it before and I know what the arguments are’

                  2. Shrike, assuming he was real and not Mary Stack, was and is just nuts. He did seem to have some knowledge of finance. But his arguments and absolute hatred of anyone not on his team was borderline demonic.

                    1. Yet shrike had the occasional lucid moments where he was quite reasonable. Which leads me to believe that he is legitimately nuts.

          3. Sloopy got the worst of it yesterday and is still butt hurt about it. You can always tell who loses an argument by who is still angry about it the next day.

            Opinions are like assholes, John. “Winning” and “Losing” an argument is relative. I feel pretty good about what I had to say yesterday. While neither of us won the argument, I guess you are technically on the winning side of it, since we had soldiers wake up today and start flying their remote-control death machines over foreign soil thousands of miles away looking for the right hut to (hopefully) blow to smithereens all in the name of “defense.” Congratulations, fucker. I hope that blood washes out of your shirt.

            1. If you felt so good about yesterday, why are you coming back at it today? I am not the one who reignited the argument. You are.

              1. I’m coming back because it is an interesting topic with great implications on our present and future. IOW, it’s worth talking about.

                I could go on and on with Daily Fail links, commenting on the inanities of pointless topics, and I often do. But when an issue as important as the drone attacks and the way we are carrying out our war against the middle east comes around, it warrants more than a single discussion at the end of the day.

                It’s not always about you, John.

                1. I don’t mind debating it either.

    4. Cut the hip president some slack, people! He obviously thought “Polish Death Camp” was the name of a band.

    5. He was doing his Obamnac the Magnificent routine. Ed McAxelrod was supposed to open an envelope and say “What do you call sleeping in cemeteries?”

    6. I don’t think it is necessarily that he isn’t that bright. He is lazy, however, and clearly knows next to nothing when it comes to critical events of the last 100 years.

      Is this his fault, or the education system that puports to produce our best and brightest?

      1. Is this his fault, or the education system that puports to produce our best and brightest?

        Short answer: Yes.

        Long answer: In my opinion, a person (especially a person who prides himself on his intellectual attainments, such as Obama) has a duty to continue educate himself about various topics, in particular topics about which you are going to opine. You don’t stop learning stuff, or trying to learn stuff when you leave school. I think it is personally irresponsible to go through life ignorant and uncurious. I see this lack of curiosity as one of Obama’s greatest flaws.

        1. Very true, Demonica Archiva. You can’t stagnate in your intellectual pursuits; otherwise, your lack of intellectual zeal and appetite will reveal itself very, very quickly.

        2. I agree. And to think that “incurious” was one of the reasons they said they hated Bush. In reality Bush was a voracious reader who often invited authors to the White House just to talk to them about their books. Meanwhile Obama is completely dogmatic and incurious but is constantly told he is a genius.

          1. In reality Bush was a voracious reader who often invited authors to the White House just to talk to them about their books. Meanwhile Obama is completely dogmatic and incurious but is constantly told he is a genius.

            I remember reading an article a couple of years ago talking about books that Obama was reading, right around the time the healthcare fight was going on. It was essentially a list of politically partisan tomes on current events, which told me that Obama (and his team) is a lot more interested in confirming his own biases than in genuinely expanding his knowledge.

            1. are we sure he was really reading them? I suspect it was a shout-out to his cheerleaders

          2. Obama really is the affirmative action President.

          3. You mean Bush has read other books besides “Black Beauty”?

            1. Yes dipshit

              http://sec.online.wsj.com/arti…..34689.html

              does being liberal mean you are anytime and always stupid?

              1. I’m pretty sure that was a joke.

        3. I could not agree more.

          Unfortunately, once you have been initiated into Team Blue (or Team Red, for that matter) intellectual curiosity is replaced by doctrine. Nice and easy to follow, all the best people think the same way, and leaves more time for campaigning, passing legislation to payoff campaign debts, etc. etc.

        4. Learning is a lifelong adventure. Once you stop learning and being curious you might as well pack up and die. Humans are made for learning and discovery.

      2. I agree about the laziness. He undoubtedly found early on in life that he could get ahead on his race and schmooziness alone. He was rewarded and reinforced along these lines and voila! Now we have someone who may have had the capacity for critical thought, but abandoned that long ago for the path of least resistance.

        1. and people say affirmative action doesn’t work.

    7. One of the things that amuses me is the focus on Romney’s “gaffes” that are often not gaffes at all, while completely ignoring a series of real gaffes that started with giving – in honor of The Narcissist in Chiefs coronation – a set of DVD’s to the blind (as in his eyesight only resolves blobs) English prime minister a set of DVD’s encyrpted to be played only on North American DVD players and has continued ever since.

      The best part was the episode where Obama started to read the Irish PM’s speech off the teleprompter and kept going – despite the obvious statements that no U.S. president would make – until a horrified Irish PM stopped him.

      1. Did that last thing really happen?

        Please tell me you have some linked video of it.

      2. Wasn’t it the other way around?

        http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..-meltdown/

        1. Holy cow! You’re right! how did I get it so wrong?

          1. He will do it, my dear Tarran, he will

      3. The best part was the episode where Obama started to read the Irish PM’s speech off the teleprompter and kept going – despite the obvious statements that no U.S. president would make – until a horrified Irish PM stopped him.

        I must see this immediately!

        1. I have egg on my face. Apparently I had it completely backwards.

          1. Still pretty hilarious. I suspect a lot of politicians blindly follow the teleprompter.

  15. Romney’s campaign claims the win secures his nomination despite not clinching the required delegate majority.

    And the legacy media is just marching along to that tune. But even by the most modest estimates, Paul has ~130 delegates now. That’s not counting the ones bound to Romney. I can’t wait to see what happens in Tampa.

  16. From the link in this post, there are a couple of things we should always keep in mind amid all the hoopla on Europe:

    EU paymaster Germany has so far firmly opposed any collective European banking resolution and guarantee system and any use of bailout funds without a country having to submit to a politically humiliating EU/IMF austerity program.

    1) Spain, Greece, Italy, et. al. still think the problem is that Germany and others won’t extend them more credit–minus the insistence on austerity.

    They don’t think the problem is their own bloated public sectors. They don’t think the problem is their own bloated budgets.

    It’s people who insist on austerity, that’s the problem.

    Madrid said its bank rescue fund would issue bonds to inject funds into nationalized lender Bankia, but that looks expensive with 10-year borrowing costs at 6.67 percent near their euro era peak and close to levels at which Ireland and Greece sought international bail-outs.

    2) As bad as Germany, et. al.’s insistence on austerity is, the market is insisting on much more austerity than Germany.

    Before the Germans cave in, they should keep in mind that the smart money in the world thinks Germany is acting idiotically for giving Greece, Spain and others such sweet terms, already.

    1. My is it bad that Germany is insisting on austerity?

    2. Starving the beast only pisses it off. Europe is making that obvious.

      1. And starving the beast is the only thing that works!

        I’m trying to think of a time in history in which the beast said, “You know what? Things are so good right now. I think now would be a great time to slash our budget–becasue we’re so flush with cash!”

        “Because we’re so flush with cash, now we’re gonna slash our budget” never happens. California, the federal government, they’re both the same way, too. The only time they ever really slash their budgets is when they have no other choice.

        So, let’s give them no other choice.

        That’s why what both the state of California and the federal government need right now? Is deep, painful tax cuts. The beast is still screaming about Prop 13 in California–after all these years!

        Starve that fothermuckin’ beast.

        1. The beast is still screaming about Prop 13 in California–after all these years!

          And yet they continue to spend. Unfortunately, once a certain line has been crossed, I think the only that works is collapse. The beast will thrash about and suck up every available resource until then. I think we have crossed that line. There is no taste for true spending cuts in Washington. There are too many vested interests.

          1. Think how much worse it would have been if they’d been able to go after property taxes.

            And Jerry Brown is all about austerity right now. He keeps saying, “If you don’t let me raise your taxes, I’m gonna have to really slash the budget–and I’m not kidding!”

            Oh, no, Jerry! Not that! Don’t slash the budget–please don’t throw us in that briar patch!

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7tyhpWiZyM

    3. They don’t think the problem is their own bloated public sectors. They don’t think the problem is their own bloated budgets.

      It’s people who insist on austerity, that’s the problem.

      Sadly this also describes about 40 to 45% of the US electorate.

      1. The auterity that’s coming is going to make people wish theyd gotten their acts together in the ’00s and ’10s.

        1. Yes. I am of the belief that a good portion of our country has gone insane. How else do you explain their willingness to damn into bankruptcy programs they claim to believe in? The most evil libertarian could not have dreamed of a better way to kill off than entitlement state than just having the thing go bankrupt.

          1. Not insane, just stupid. De Tocqueville called it.

            1. And Mssr. Alexis was frighteningly accurate in his assessment.

              1. He puts Nostradamus to shame

                1. That’s bullshit. In fact, Nostradamus predicted this comment:

                  Conflict Barbarian in the black Headdress.
                  Blood shed Dalmatia to tremble,
                  Great Ishmael will set up his promontory,
                  Frogs to tremble Lusitania aid.

                  Clear as day.

          2. Canned goods. Ammo. Cigarettes. These will be the currency of the future.

    4. Apparently, German resistance to a bailout is shrinking in the face of recent electoral losses.

      They are talking about a deal where a new bonding authority is created, that will refi up to the allowed level of debt, and will issue bonds for amounts over a country’s allowed level of debt in exchange for liens on, among other things, their gold reserves.

  17. America weeps – all that intellect, talent and legal skill to be wasted.

    1. “The work that I’m doing with military families is a forever proposition because they will always need a voice out there. They will always need a country standing strong, and if I have any kind of platform, I’m going to be their voice.”

      What, exactly, does Mrs Obama do for military families? Tell them to eat more broccoli?

      1. She probably works to get AAFES to quit selling unhealthy snacks.

        1. I doubt if she knows what AAFES is.

          1. I wouldn’t be surprised if the existence of AAFES was unknown to her. But if she did know, she’d sure as hell try to get them not to sell bad food.

  18. Donald Duck in “awesome Holocaust” kerfuffle

    http://www.spiegel.de/internat…..35691.html

  19. “The Cannibalistic attack in Miami is being blamed on “bath salts”, otherwise known as “the new LSD”.”

    And I was just getting use to the old LSD. I fucking hate change.

  20. Cynthia Nixon’s ginger spawn grows stronger every day. Fear him

    1. Cynthia Nixon and Christine Marinoni

      Who and who?

      1. I am ashamed I know this, but Cynthia Nixon was the redhead in Sex and the City.

        1. She also has munchausen’s syndrome is a an expert gambler at the track: http://www.housemd-guide.com/s…..yn_235.jpg

        2. “A show about three hookers and their mother.”

          1. I always thought it was a show about one hooker (Kim Catrell), her ridiculously hot friend (Kristen Davis), and their homely tag along (Sarah Jessica Parker).

      2. She dumped her husband and kids to run off with a butch lesbian “education activist”.

      3. I love the gender-confused look on the face of the Mexican woman (who might actually be thinking that Prince Harry needs to lay off the steroids).

    2. “I ATE A BABY!! Oh aye, baby! The other other white meat. Baby, it’s what’s for dinner!”

    3. Bizarrely, it’s not even her own ginger spawn (at least, according to the Fail), but her wife’s. The new household is like a ginger vortex, apparently.

    4. Dear fuck, that is a hideous family.

  21. I have a second collection of synth music out. As usual it’s free.
    http://projectcommunique.bandcamp.com/album/2

    1. Thank you, my Lord. Downloaded and soon to be tweeted to my 5 followers

      1. ooh, my audience is growing with leaps and bounds 😉

        1. I also peruse your synth wizardry, Your Masked-ship. I, however, do not tweet.

  22. http://campaign2012.washington…..es/568146#

    Interesting article on the Obama campaign. This caught my eye.

    He quotes Plouffe as saying. “Let’s be clear what [Romney] would do as president,” and then summarizes: “Potentially abortion will be criminalized. Women will be denied contraceptive services. He’s far right on immigration. He supports efforts to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage.”

    Are these people really that stupid that they believe Romney would do that? Or do they know their supporters are so stupid they believe that? That is just absolute nonsense.

    1. Are these people really that stupid that they believe Romney would do that? Or do they know their supporters are so stupid they believe that?

      I think of liberals as falling into two camps. The manipulators and the manipulated.

      The manipulated do believe the bullshit, and the manipulators know it is bullshit but also know that the manipulated will eat it up.

      Shorter answer: yes.

      1. It is just nuts. Romney couldn’t ban abortion or criminalize contraception as President if he wanted to. My other theory is that liberals would screw the other side that badly if they ever got the power, so they assume everyone else would do the same.

        1. Your other theory is 100% accurate.

        2. They have to keep the culture war bullshit going because they know Obama has no credibility on war or the economy.

          Romney’s smartest move thus far has been to deflect every criticism from Obama back to this one issue–he knows damn well that if Obama thought he was strong on this, he’d be crowing about it nonstop. If he had any credibility on the war, he’d be touting that constantly, but now that we’re keeping troops stationed in Afghanistan well into the next decade, he’s not going to touch that one either.

          1. In some ways Romney is a good foil to Obama. Everyone wanted a hell raiser. But that just would have allowed Obama to change the subject and reignite the culture war. Romney is so boring and staid that it makes Obama’s attacks on him look ridiculous. Obama might have gotten away with claiming that Santorum or Gingrich or even Paul wanted to do these things. But Romney? A former governor of Massachusetts? No one but the 30% or so of the electorate who will believe anything the Dems tell them is going to buy that.

            1. And how well is Romney doing against Obama? The electoral poll shows Romney behind by over 100. Republicans will maybe learn next time to stop nominating boring warmongers.

              1. He is doing quite well. He gets 14 electoral votes right out of the gate just for winning the states McCain won thanks to the census. That puts him a 187 just for showing up.

                It is considered near certain that he will flip Indian and North Carolina. That puts him at 213.

                He is up nearly every poll in Florida. Given Obama’s problems with Israel and the large Jewish and Cuban votes in that state, Obama is likely to lose there. That puts him at 242. That leaves 31 votes to a majority.

                The remaining swing states are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Wisconsin.

                That means he only has to win 31 out of 85 votes in the swing states. That give him a lot of room for error and makes Obama’s path to re-election very tight.

                And war monger? That is an interesting charge coming from a President who escalated one war and started another.

                For a “bookworm” you don’t read or think much do you?

    2. Women will be denied contraceptive services.

      Seriously, they make this shit up and then parrot it?

      Oh wait, politics as usual.

    3. How abortion is even an issue in presidential races is beyond me. It’s legal, and nothing is going to change that anytime soon, if at all. On top of that, the president lacks the power to outlaw abortion.

      1. On top of that, the president lacks the power to outlaw abortion.

        Do they even teach civics anymore?
        The fact that so many people think the president has dictator like powers makes me wonder.

      2. Actually, Pro’L Dib, that may not be entirely true, if ObamaneyCare is upheld in toto. Under how the law is wirttn, HHS has the ability to pull essentially medical and health legislation out of its ass at will, it is theoretically possible.

        And who controls (the spice) the HHS?

      3. *written*

      4. It’s legal, and nothing is going to change that anytime soon, if at all.

        Except that the bounds of that legality are always being defined, challenged, and redefined, mostly in the courts. I don’t think this stuff is massively important, mostly because I don’t think any appointments either way are going to be very good (or very bad), but let’s not pretend we don’t know that judges are still relevant for a ton of this shit, and the president gets to appoint a bunch of them.

        1. We’ve had a conservative court for quite some time. No significant change to abortion laws.

          1. Not significant for most people, but for a few–and I’m not just talking about SCOTUS. Think parental notifications, waiting periods, propaganda, ultrasounds, heartbeat-listening, etc. The contraception thing is the same. I’m not going to go around saying “access” means someone else has to pay for it, but if the state is going to require interactions with multiple state-licensed professionals to get the pill, those state-licensed professionals should actually have to give it to you whether they like it or not and not claim some kind of religious exemption.

            Yes, this is picking-away-at-the-edges stuff that most people don’t care about, and it’s ridiculous to think anyone should vote for Obama over Romney because of it. But it happens.

    4. He missed a few things:

      the dead shall rise from their graves and seek revenge on the mortal world
      mysterious showers of frogs and bloods
      a virgin will give birth to a rabbit
      Fenriz will swallow the sun

      1. You forgot that the earth will stop healing and the oceans will begin to rise, again.

    5. I just saw an ad on MSNBC that said

      A Romney presidency means that women won’t be able to get the birth control and cancer screenings that they need.

    6. Santorum might try to do those things, but Romney wouldn’t.

    7. they know their supporters are so stupid.

      I think that is part of the definition of ‘their supporters’.

    8. “Women will be denied contraceptive services.”

      Of course, all that means is that they will have to pay for them. I am so tired of this crap. I really need to stop paying attention.

      1. It’s really not the only thing it means. If your pharmacist can refuse to fill your prescription, which you can only get from a state-licensed pharmacist after seeing a state-licensed medical professional, I’m going to call that actual denial of services.

        1. OK, I can see that. Not sure what the appropriate response is. I’m inclined to say that if you want to be a pharmacist, you need to be willing to do all of the things that pharmacists do, including dispensing contraceptives.
          What I am curious about is if the proposed rules which would allow pharmacists to follow their conscience on this would also allow them to do so with any drug. Would it be OK under this law for a Christin Scientist pharmacist to refuse to dispense antibiotics, say?

          Of course the best thing would be just to let people buy the drugs they want or need without having to get a permission slip from a state licensed gate-keeper.

        2. Okay, so you might have to go to Walgreens, Walmart, CVS, Duane Reede, a supermarket pharmacy or one of the other chain pharmacies instead of using the religious fanatic pharmacist you refer to as ‘yours’. So? It’ll probably be cheaper since you’re clearly going to an old-style pharmacy.

          ‘State-licensed’? And they’re not now?

          This is, quite literally, much ado about nothing.

  23. Or do they know their supporters are so stupid they believe that?

    It’s gotta be this. Otherwise, I might find myself even more fearful if they’re true believers and not opportunists.

  24. Man can’t sue over being left in prison

    Buxton Heyerman was left in prison extra 20 years

    The kicker: A year later, the Michigan appeals court overturned it. But instead of getting a new trial, Heyerman stayed in prison. His attorney was aware of the decision but told him to keep quiet and allow the statute of limitations on the crime to run out.

    1. Well, it looks like he actually volunteered to stay in prison. The problem is that his attorney fucked up, but that doesn’t mean that the State did anything malicious, so to speak.

      1. I agree, and the attorney apparently got in trouble for malpractice. I just thought it was an interesting story.

  25. Even the left is now looking at the evidence surrounding Zimmerman objectively:

    It doesn’t matter if he profiled him or unfairly suspected him of criminal activity. It doesn’t matter that he was a crime warrior. He didn’t break the law. His neighborhood watch program, set up with the assistance of the police, instructed residents to report suspicious activity. That’s what he did. He wasn’t on watch that night, he had a concealed weapons permit, and it wasn’t a crime to get out of his car to see where Trayvon had run off to, so he could tell the police when they got there.

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/5/27/44552/1872

    1. Whatever. The key, practically the only, point that matters is: who started the fight? All this chin-tugging over what happened up until that point is pretty meaningless.

      And we have no evidence worth the name on who started the fight. We have some inconsistent statements from Zimmerman, of course, and we know who was winning it, and who ended it, but not who started it.

      1. Which way does the BOP shift?

      2. I remember a saying about history being written by the victor…

      3. It’s almost like he had a concussion, or something.

      4. Who started the fight RC doesn’t matter. That is the whole point of stand your ground. If I start a fight with you by say punching you. And then you fight back and use force to such a degree that you place me in the reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, I have a right to use deadly force in self defense. The fact that I punched first doesn’t matter.

        We have debated this issue over and over again. And you refuse to understand that. I just don’t get your fixation on who started the fight.

        1. So if you want to murder someone, take your pistol with you, pick a fight, let them whoop your ass real good, then shoot them!

          Nice!

          I like it!

          1. If punched me and I broke out a ball bat and started beating you with it, I have escalated the fight a bit wouldn’t you say?

          2. Actually, I think John is right. If you initiate a fight and the other guy decides to escalate it to a life-and-death struggle, you don’t lose the right to defend yourself. If the circumstances make the lethal use of force reasonable, you walk.

            Whether that happened here isn’t something we’ll ever know for sure, but it sure sounds like the amount of doubt here is huge. I’m not sure the Martin family could win a civil action with the evidence that appears to be on hand, and, of course, the burden on the state is much higher.

            1. What if John went out with a pistol in his pocket to pick a fight with someone, made sure the fight went badly for him, then shot the guy?

              Sounds like a clever way to get away with premeditated murder.

              1. The answer is that people try to commit murder and have an alibi or defense all of the time. At least when the murder is premeditated.

        2. If I start a fight with you by say punching you. And then you fight back and use force to such a degree that you place me in the reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, I have a right to use deadly force in self defense.
          I don’t think that is true. Or at least it shouldn’t be. You just assaulted someone. They are the one’s with the right to stand their ground.

          If what you say is the point of the SYG law, then I think it needs some work. If you start a fight with someone, then they may well have reasonable fear for their life and bodily integrity and should have the right to defend themselves with deadly force (they can’t read your mind to tell that you don’t mean to kill them). Then you perceive a threat to your life/body and respond similarly.
          If someone attacks you, you don’t know if they are going to try to kill you and you shouldn’t have to assume that they are not trying to kill you. I think it is unreasonable that the attacker in that case can fight back against deadly force and use SYG as a defense.

          Legally you may be right. But morally, I think that if you start a fight, you bear the responsibility for the outcome. There is no way for the person being attacked to know what the intentions of the attacker are. And it seems to me that that is the real point of SYG and the castle doctrine.

          1. That said, if reasonable doubt means anything, Zimmerman should be acquitted.

          2. Just because I start a fight with you Zeb, doesn’t give you the right to kill me.

            Suppose I come up and punch you but do nothing else. Then in response you pull out a gun and shoot me. Would you be acting lawfully? Absolutely not.

            Given that you have no legal right to use the gun, how then do I not have a right to use deadly force to defend myself once you pull it out?

            You guys just can’t get past the “he started it” meme.

            1. Well, yes, according to you, it does–under SYG. He can kill you under SYG just as justifiably as you can kill him–though I think you’re wrong on this.

              If you initiate an altercation–an assault, and your victim is able to get the upper hand and put you, the assailant, in fear of your life, you, the aggressor, cannot claim any defensive stance if you kill him because, as far as anyone knows, you intended to kill him from the get-go. If someone is killed during the commission of a crime, the person committing the crime is considered responsible. Since you are the assailant, you are responsible for the death of the person you just killed.

        3. Who started the fight RC doesn’t matter.

          Depending on the local law, it can, and it should.

          Nobody who starts a fight should ever be allowed to claim self-defense. Getting your ass kicked, or even killed, is a risk you assume when you start a fight.

          Under Texas law, the aggressor has to either abandon the encounter or clearly communicate their intent to do so, in order to regain their right of self-defense. IOW, they have to stop being the aggressor.

          Just because I start a fight with you Zeb, doesn’t give you the right to kill me.

          First, yes it does, if Zeb is reasonably fearful of death or serious bodily harm because of your assault on him. Since you could well wind up on top of him pounding his skull against the concrete, I would say he can probably meet that test.

          You assault Zeb, and he’s the one who has to carefully calibrate my response so as not to put you in fear of anything? I don’t think so.

          1. The problem with John’s approach is that, once both sides have thrown a punch, then both sides have an equal entitlement to use deadly force in self-defense.

            I don’t think a rational self-defense law would ignore who actually started the fight.

            1. RC. What Pro said below.

              You assault Zeb, and he’s the one who has to carefully calibrate my response so as not to put you in fear of anything? I don’t think so.

              I think so. Your approach would totally vitiate the need to meet force with force and have a reasonable believe that you were in danger of great bodily harm or death before using deadly force in self defense.

              Under your approach, your act of starting a fight with me, allows me to use deadly force even though I am in no danger of death or great bodily harm, and not only can I use that force, but also, you can’t defend yourself against it.

              That is just nonsense RC.

              1. Your approach would totally vitiate the need to meet force with force and have a reasonable believe that you were in danger of great bodily harm or death before using deadly force in self defense.

                Not at all. The trigger is still the reasonable fear, etc. Once that threshold is passed, the victim can use lethal self-defense.

                Under your approach, if the victim lawfully elects to use lethal self-defense (or even effective self-defense that puts the aggressor in reasonable fear, etc.), then the aggessor can lawfully kill the victim.

                1. Not at all. The trigger is still the reasonable fear, etc. Once that threshold is passed, the victim can use lethal self-defense.

                  No it isn’t. If the trigger were “the reasonable fear”, then who started the fight wouldn’t matter. What would matter is if there was a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. That is my standard.

                  Once you start worrying about who started it, reasonable fear becomes irrelevant. What matters is who was the aggressor.

                  Here is the question, if in your view, you start a fight with me, do I, absent a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death, have a right to use deadly force to defend myself?

                  If your answer is no, then we don’t disagree. If your answer is yes, that I do have a right to use deadly force to defend myself even in cases where I don’t have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death, then how have you not then vitiated the need to meet force with force?

                  1. What if you are attacked by someone who you have absolutely no hope of fending off, but they make it clear that you are not in danger of great bodily injury or death. Just a good solid beat down. Meanwhile you’re armed.

                    Do you have to submit?

                  2. If the trigger were “the reasonable fear”, then who started the fight wouldn’t matter.

                    I’m saying that completely disregarding who the aggressor is, is completely nuts. As the aggressor, you are disqualified from claiming self-defense, regardless of how fearful you are once your victim lawfully elects to use lethal self-defense.

                    Here is the question, if in your view, you start a fight with me, do I, absent a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death, have a right to use deadly force to defend myself?

                    No. The trigger is still the reasonable fear. You, as the victim, are entitled to use lethal self-defense if you have the reasonable fear. Your attacker, as the aggressor, is not entitled to use lethal means against you, because he is the aggressor.

                    Here’s the problem, John. Once you elect to use lethal self-defense, your attacker will automatically be put in reasonable fear. Your approach guarantees that the aggressor is given a free pass to kill any victim that tries to defend themselves.

                    1. Your approach guarantees that the aggressor is given a free pass to kill any victim that tries to defend themselves.

                      By John’s argument, say I attack some twerp who is half my size, and I make it clear to them that I’m only going to rough them up a little bit.
                      They pull a gun on me, so I kill them.
                      Since I communicated to them that they had no reason to fear great bodily injury or death, they had no right to use deadly force to defend themselves.
                      I walk on self defense.

                    2. Isn’t that the excuse that the police usually use?
                      All they were doing was giving a harmless beat down when the person fought back, forcing the cop to kill them.

          2. Unreasonable use of force is unreasonable. If I shove you, and you pull out an ice pick, why can’t I shoot you? The ice pick is an unreasonable response to a mere shove.

            1. If your big beefy male self shoves a woman into a back room, and she pulls a gun to defend herself, are you now entitled to pull yours and gun her down?

              Allowing the aggressor to use lethal means if/when the victim elects to use an effective means to defend themselves puts a burden on the victim not to put their aggressor in fear of harm. I don’t think self-defense works that way. It allows the aggressor to lawfully kill someone who has lawfully decided to use lethal self-defense.

              I don’t think so. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

              1. If your big beefy male self shoves a woman into a back room, and she pulls a gun to defend herself, are you now entitled to pull yours and gun her down?

                You are changing the facts. There, the women may rightfully fear for her life. And if she has a reasonable fear of such, then yes even under Pro and I’s standard, she has a right to pull the ice pick. But that is not your standard. Under your standard, the women can push the beefy male and he is free to pull the ice pick and kill her. After all reap the whirlwind right?

                What you are saying is just not the law of self defense RC.

                1. I am reciting the law of self-defense, in general terms, together with the (formerly widely held) understanding that an aggressor cannot claim self-defense to justify capping their aggression with murder.

                  Under your standard, the women can push the beefy male and he is free to pull the ice pick and kill her.

                  If he can argue that being pushed by the woman put him in reasonable fear, yes. If he can’t, then no.

                  Same for the woman when she is pushed.

                  1. Answer me two questions, John:

                    (1) Under your approach, is there any circumstance under which the aggressor would not be entitled to claim self-defense if they kill a victim who has lawfully tried to use lethal means to defend themselves?

                    (2) Do you think an aggressor should ever be allowed to kill a victim who lawfully tries to use lethal means to defend themselves?

                    1. RC,

                      1. Yes there would be. If the aggressor uses force to create a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, he is not entitled to use deadly force even in response to the victim’s use of it.

                      2. Yes. In cases where the agressor did not create the reasonable fear of great bodily harm but the victim of the aggressor unlawfully raised the prospect of deadly force in response, in that case the aggressor is free to act in self defense.

              2. Well, I’d say it depends on the totality of the facts. Certainly, initiating force isn’t going to win you any prizes from the jury and could effectively shift the burden somewhat.

  26. Were we really defending ourselves?

  27. Obama’s health care aid to small firms disappoints

    WASHINGTON?It seemed like a good idea at the time.
    But a health insurance tax credit for small businesses, part of President Barack Obama’s health care law that gets strong support in public opinion polls, has turned out to be a disappointment.

    Time-consuming to apply for and lacking enough financial reward to make it attractive, the credit was claimed by only 170,300 businesses out of a pool of as many as 4 million potentially eligible companies in 2010.

    That’s put the Obama administration in the awkward position of asking Congress to help fix the problems by allowing more businesses to qualify and making it simpler to apply.

    http://www.twincities.com/ci_2…..game-maker

  28. Via Balkothis is so awesome I had to order it.

    1. the creaking sounds of the pages just add to the creepy thrills

      1. I love that the outside looks like some sort of medical tome.

  29. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec…..lunch.html

    Mark Zuckerberg leaves no tip at lunch in Rome. What an uncultured douche bag.

    1. That’s not true. He left call options on Facebook stock as a tip.

    2. Because he did as Italians do and didn’t tip?

      1. Not true. You don’t tip 20% in Europe but you tip some. Even Italians tip a little.

        1. It is not routine. It really isn’t.

    3. Tipping in Italy, and many other places in the world, is not de rigeur.

      1. Again, it is not what it is here. But it is the general practice, although they would faint if you ever gave them 20%.

        1. They also put a “service fee” or some such right on the check, which negates the need to tip.

          1. Sometimes. Maybe they did in this case. But not always.

        2. It is definitely NOT ‘general practice’ to tip in Italy, John. I don’t know where you got that.

          1. Maybe Italy is different than the rest of Europe. But you sure as hell tip some in Germany, France, the UK. You never leave zero.

            1. In the United Kingdom, you tip 10% for food but never, ever for drinks. I asked the service people myself. In France, if the bill says service compris, you are under no obligation to add that extra coin or two.

          2. I think it varies a bit. I haven’t been to Italy, but in Spain, tipping is pretty rare, and usually a Euro or two if anything. In Belgium, the only people I saw leaving tips were people who work at restaurants or bars themselves.

            One of the things I like in Europe is that you aren’t obliged to tip. I like it when prices for things are stated up front. I wish US restaurants would just raise their prices by 20% and pay their service staff.

            1. I wish US restaurants would just raise their prices by 20% and pay their service staff.

              As a former waiter I wouldn’t like that one bit.

              I consistently made more money than the majority of my coworkers to the point where crappy servers would quit. (“It’s like so not fair that he makes so much more money than me! I quit!”)

              What you suggest would remove the incentive for crappy servers to quit, and the customer would lose.

              1. Bad service, no returnee. The restaurant has every incentive to prevent that from happening.

                1. The restaurant has every incentive to prevent that from happening.

                  The best way to achieve this, in my opinion, is with tips.
                  Crappy servers don’t last long because they don’t make money.

  30. See? You ban FourLoko, and this is what you get; society running amok on “bath salts”.

  31. just as Kathleen explained I can’t believe that any one able to get paid $7852 in four weeks on the internet. did you look at this site makecash16Com

  32. Even if it is bath salts or what the fuck ever that “made” hi eat another man’s face, it’s still caused solely by prohibition. If one could go to the fucking drug store and buy whatever floats their boat (which is made by a company trying to carve out a market space for themselves), people wouldn’t be reduced to buying “bath salts” or badly cut coke/heroin/whatever.

  33. the homeless man was clearly to blame in all of this. if he wasn’t such an easy target (not having a home and all), the zombie would have been too occupied attempting to eat his own face long enough to come off his bodacious high.

  34. :O 😮 that’s new is very danger if you like to share with me so plz Click Here for more info!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.