A.M. Links: Gov. Walker Faces Recall, Syria Expels Diplomats, Clinton Slams Romney, Drug Use Could Cost Georgians Benefits, Obama Picks Up Another Endorsement

|

  • Gov. Walker is facing a recall election today over a year after passing controversial collective bargaining legislation. Watch Emily Ekins' analysis of the Reason-Rupe Poll on the recall at Reason.tv.
  • A drone strike in Pakistan may have killed al-Qaeda's second in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi. 
  • Syria expels Western diplomats, including those from the U.S, the UK, and France. The move comes after lasts week's expulsions of Syrian diplomats from many Western nations.
  • Bill Clinton claims that Romney would be 'Calamitous for our country'.
  • Georgia's Labor Department is implementing a policy that will mean that Georgians looking for a job who test positive for illegal drugs will lose their unemployment benefits.
  • Raul Castro's daughter endorses Obama.

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

 New at Reason.tv: Hemp History Week: Ending the War on George Washington's Favorite Crop

Advertisement

NEXT: Shikha Dalmia on Why Michigan Is Big Labor's Next Target

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. A drone strike in Pakistan may have killed al-Qaeda’s second in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi.

    But was he hearding cattle correctly? Maybe it’s time to stop pushing for that promotion to executive officer over at the al-Qaeda.

    1. Are we sure it’s him, or does the Obama just assume that every male casualty is a senior member of aQ?

      Also: Cattle are “heard” because they’re loud. They’re a “herd” because of their brains and evolution and I’m-not-a-scientist-so-don’t-ask-me.

      1. The government doesn’t make mistakes.

        1. neither will aQ when they announce his martyrdom

      2. Are we sure it’s him, or does the Obama just assume that every male casualty is a senior member of aQ?

        They assume that every male casualty was 2nd in command of AQ.

        1. They’re saving the #1 for sometime in October.

        2. They need to stop hiring drummers for #2.

    2. (Listening to cattle, is apparently what I meant.)

      1. The wisdom of the herd is not dissimilar to the wisdom of crowds. You must listen carefully…

    3. Al-Qaeda #2 – the world’s most dangerous job.

      What’s the life expectancy of a #2, something like two weeks? We can’t even get the promotion announcement before he and anybody close by gets wiped out by a drone.

      1. Seriously, didn’t we just get a story about al Queda’s #2 being taken out last week. This wouldn’t happen if they had a good union.

      2. “Al-Qaeda #2 – the world’s most dangerous job.”

        Like playing drums for Spinal Tap or keyboards for the Grateful Dead

      3. I keep wondering if it is ok to re-gift the promotion gift.

    4. Second in command of al Qaeda is a dangerous job. Exponentially more so than the top fellow, or the third officer.

  2. Tennessee man filmed OD’ing on bath salts, describes the experience as “the evilest thing imaginable.”

    1. that just shows how poor some people’s imaginations are

      1. If he were from Ohio rather than TN, he wouldn’t even have to imagine. Just open his window!

        1. Why? Is he looking across the border into Michigan?

          1. I might grant you “looking across the border into West Virginia” as a compromise solution.

          2. hail to those motherfukers
            hail to those big kochsukers
            hail, hail michigan
            the cesspool of the world!

            1. Your comedy is slipping o.

              1. the michigan fight song rendered as tragedy…which is related to comedy!

            2. Shouldn’t you be posting on Ice Nine’s pool pee post downstream, Urine?

    2. Is it wrong that I laughed long and hard at that idiot and the notion that a reporter would interview him?

    3. Jesus Christ, didn’t journalism used to pretend to have some standards?

  3. Bill Clinton claims that Romney would be ‘Calamitous for our country’.

    Best stick with the cataclysmic we have now.

    1. The Obama period has been relatively uneventful.

      No market crashes, no terrorist attacks, no lying us into a war, no Lehman/Bear/WaMu type bankruptcy triggers, banks back on their feet, spending lower at 1.4% annualized, etc.

      The Bushpig Era was a disaster.

      1. I make a motion we don’t feed it today. Can I get a second?

        1. Hang on, I’ve almost got a brown bag full of movement to second with.

          1. save it. we’ve had too much of palin’s crap

        2. Sorry sloop, I couldn’t resist. I am weak.

        3. They can’t help themselves, sloop.

      2. Just a slow whimpering slide into oblivion.

      3. Suck that dick a little harder shrike.

        Oh and Bush suuuuuuccckkkeddd.

      4. Just unrelenting debt, constant real 16% unemployment, the worst “recovery” on record, and now probably another double dip recession. And did I mention all of the old wars and a couple of new ones?

        Obama has ensured that your ilk will never have power in this country again for at least a decade or more. Given that, I think suicide would do yourself and everyone else a favor.

        1. You are economically illiterate. There has not been a single “double dip” much less another since GDP has been positive since May 2009.

          The debt is due to prior policy (except the stimulus) and employment has followed GDP into positive territory since May 2009.

          Yeah, Libya! What a war that is! Too bad no one in the US knows about it.

          1. and now probably another double dip recession

            Apparently you make for being stupid by being illiterate. I said now probably a double dip recession. The jobs report Friday indicates a strong chance we will be in another recession this summer. I didn’t say we had had a double dip only we were going to have one.

            And yes Yah Libya, randomly bomb and kill people so we can create a radical Islamist state and walk away and leave the place in chaos.

          2. Printing $2 trillion out of thin air can certainly make the numbers look good. I mean, it’s all fake, but who the fuck cares? Growth on paper is growth damn it! Doesn’t matter that it’s the same fucking policy that got us in this shit storm mess in the first fucking place.

        2. You forgot NDAA, the institution of total information awareness, and domestic drone surveillance. And the last few nails in the coffin for the rule of law.

          All praise Obama for perfecting the reign of Bush.

      5. *Ahem* “Kinetic Military Action” *Ahem*

    2. What’s worse than “calamitous”?

      1. super-duper calamitous?

        1. double secret calamitous

            1. The Obamanable Snowjobman?

            2. Apparently not original. I looked, it’s all over the web.

      2. triple dog calamitous

  4. New York prosecutor throws punch at traffic cop after stop, found with cannabis

    http://www.news.com.au/breakin…..z1wvGWYm00

    1. New York prosecutor throws punch at traffic cop after stop, found with cannabis

      Now if he’d actually landed the punch, this story would have the best of both worlds: a prosecutor doing time and a cop getting decked.

  5. Lindsay Lohan boobies! NSFW
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..k-set.html

    1. more Lohan

      Freaky Friday! Lindsay Lohan, 25, looks OLDER than Paris Hilton, 31, as former enemies play nice at party

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..z1wvGpRfXO

      1. Lohan is a shoo-in for the lead role in the upcoming Michael Jackson bio.

        1. Holy cow. I thought you were joking until I looked at the pics.

      2. Gads. I would not have recognized her in this photo. Paris is pretty much one cut above a worm on the humanity scale as far as I am concerned, but I have to admit she seems to take good care of herself.

        1. All that money can’t seem to fix that lazy eye, though. Paris has to tilt her head so much to hide it, she’ll spend the last 20 years of her life in a cervical collar.

          1. it’s that popular Columbo look
            http://www.museum.tv/archives/…..olumbo.jpg

        2. Is it just me, or does Paris Hilton remind you of Stewart Scott with that stroke-eye look?

        3. Except for that eye. WTF is up with her eye? Did she catch one too many shots in it?

          1. Looks like it also screwed up her spine.

        4. Paris hasn’t done anything for me since she dated that body builder, started taking steroids, and developed a man-jaw.

    2. I could put on a brunette wig and be more convincing as Liz Taylor than Lohan. God Hollywood is awful.

    3. Peekaboob.

  6. Dallas cop shoots black guy in the back. Nothing else happens.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..fence.html

    1. You’d think, in a big city like Dallas, that all squad cars would have dashcams. But no.

      1. You’d think. But no, we’d rather waste our money on taxpayer owned hotels and retarded ass tollways inside a levy system.

        1. But you have a designer bridge to nowhere!

          1. Oh yeah, forgot about that. Yay bridges to nowhere.

  7. Dallas cop shoots black guy in the back. Nothing else happens.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..fence.html

    1. So he shot him twice, then?

      1. More like three times.

        (This is for the other day, sarcasmic)

        1. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

  8. Interesting signs.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..signs.html

  9. Olsen twin likes older men.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..wards.html

    1. a sleek blow-dry job

      I misread that.

      1. It’s ok, it’s a very common mistake, robc. Though it merely proves you’re part of TEH PATRIARCHY!

      2. Every time I read it, I read it wrong.

        It sounds like like something you’d have a difficult time enjoying, but you’d put up with it.

    2. She is dating Oliver Sarkozy, who is 42

      The Sarkozys must all be dynamos in the sack, is the only thing I can think of.

      1. The Sarkozys must all be dynamos in the sack rich, is the only thing I can think of.

        FTFY.

        But, you say, she is uber-wealthy, why would she need the security of a wealthy man?

        My answer: Genes dont work that way.

        1. Meh. I don’t buy the notion that biology is destiny. Also, even if I did buy it, there are lots of younger rich guys out there. What strikes me as odd about this pairing is the age discrepancy, not her desire to be with someone rich (even though she clearly doesn’t have to).

          1. [cough]daddyissues[cough]

            1. Haha yes. Which makes it even more yucky.

            2. bingo

          2. Im not saying it is destiny. Im saying its A factor.

            But, yeah, I think SF hit the bigger factor. But my factor explains why its Sarkozy and not me, as we are the same age.

    3. What’s funny is that clean dirt wanted is a pretty common sign.

      1. Up the street from my house a guy has a sign saying Clean Fill Wanted.
        Same diff.

      2. Yeah, it’s to fill and level. People don’t want rocks and trash in the fill dirt.

    1. Seems reasonable to me. It’s Brazil, there’s no telling what those panties were involved in.

    2. “I was in the coffee shop and two colleagues called me in to show me the panties,” said Francisco Everardo Oliveira Silva, a professional clown known as “Tiririca” who won a seat in Brazil’s Congress in 2010 as a kind of protest candidate.

      That’s awesome.

  10. Georgia’s Labor Department is implementing a policy that will mean that Georgians looking for a job who test positive for illegal drugs will lose their unemployment benefits.

    Does that mean workers in Georgia will now have the ability to opt out of paying into the unemployment insurance program to begin with?

    Because, obviously, the government can’t force you to pay into a benefits program like that–if they can decide after the fact to withhold your benefits, once you’re unemployed.

    Because that would be fraudulent.

    1. It’s for the children.

      Why do you hate children Ken?

    2. Because, obviously, the government can’t force you to pay into a benefits program like that–if they can decide after the fact to withhold your benefits, once you’re unemployed.

      Hey, if it’s good enough for social security…

      1. Can you imagine?

        Bureaucrat: Sorry, but you failed a drug test, so you’re no longer eligible for social security.

        Retiree: But I paid in all my life!

        Bureaucrat: I don’t make the rules. Oh, says here that Medicare wants to talk to you about that failed drug test, too. You should call them at…

        Ken Shultz: Private insurance couldn’t get away with that in court.

    3. Because that would be fraudulent.

      You really don’t understand how government works, do you?

    4. I wonder when they’ll start testing cops for drugs.

      1. lol

  11. Still, others say businesses may not take the time to report people even after the policy is well-known. Some employers may have privacy concerns because the tests could be considered medical records, said Dixon of the National Employment Law Project.

    Haven’t they removed all rights from drug users yet? No wonder they’re losing the War on Drug Users.

  12. A drone strike in Pakistan may have killed al-Qaeda’s second in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi.

    What a glass half-empty perspective. A sunnier way of writing this would be: “A drone strike in Pakistan may have created a new al-Qaeda second in command.”

    1. The other guy was third for a reason. You can always replace these guys. But it is like what they did to the mafia. As you you throw the top guys in jail or kill them, the ones coming up get dumber. John Gotti was no Carlo Gambino and so forth.

      1. Speaking of which:
        I just rewatched Miller’s Crossing over the weekend. Although the Godfather bilogy is higher art, I think that Miller’s Crossing easily ties in terms of compelling story and good acting.

        1. “I bet you think you raised hell”

          “When I raise hell sister, you’ll know about it”

          Goddamn, what a great film

          1. “How’d you get the fat lip?”

            “Old war wound. Acts up around morons.”

            1. “I never knew anyone who made being a son of a bitch such a point of pride”

              1. “All in all not a bad guy–if looks, brains and personality don’t count.”

                1. “You better hope they don’t.”

        2. I like Miller’s Crossing. But I can’t say that. Here is the thing. I have seen the Godfather a hundred times and still will watch it when I flip by it on cable. Can’t say the same for Miller’s Crossing. The Godfather is one of the few movies that combines the compulsive watchability of something like The Shawshank Redemption while also being an epically great movie not just a fun entertaining one.

          1. I thought that The Shawshank Redemption was a piece of boring and flat tripe. But I’m no fan of Tim Robbins.

          2. and still will watch it when I flip by it on cable

            You’re capable of watching any movie you like on cable? Maybe you mean on HBO. Or is there little-to-no swearing in the Godfather flicks? I’ve never seen the whole thing. Criminal/Cop flicks aren’t my cup of tea, I just get angry that such scum could actually exist in real life, and then I’m unable to enjoy them despite whatever good qualities the work may embody.

            Back to my point though: bleeping ruins everything it touches.

          3. You’re giving Miller’s Crossing the high hat?

          4. The Godfather is probably an “every four or five years” rewatch for me. Whereas Miller’s Crossing could easily be an every-year rewatch. I think that, for me, it has to do with the difference in pacing.

            And the writing in Miller’s Crossing is the kind where it doesn’t matter whether I know the lines verbatim, it’s just so fun to hear them!

            1. I am that way with Goodfellas.

          5. The Shawshank Redemption

            How did Andy fit in the warden’s shoes or suit?

            1. I said it was watchable. I didn’t say it was realistic. And since Andy did all of the warden’s errands, he ordered the suit and had it delivered to the cleaners and tailored to fit him and then sent back right along with the Warden’s laundry.

    1. a tsunami of hyperbole.

      how meta.

  13. “The Republican Congress and their nominee for President, Governor Romney, have adopted Europe’s economic policies,” Clinton said. “Their economic policy is austerity and unemployment now, and then a long term budget that would explode the debt when the economy recovers so the interest rates would be so high nobody would be able to do anything.”

    Oh, Bill, you’ve still got it.

    1. Holy shit! I didn’t think it was possible for a Rhodes scholar to be that retarded.

      1. Rachel Maddow?

        1. DesigNate, you were just FACT PWNED.

      2. It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.

    2. Strange, there’s nothing in there about the real issue being spending more than they take in. That must’ve been taken out of context.

    3. “Their economic policy is austerity”

      Team Blue, you keep saying that word. It does not mean what you think it means.

    4. I heard this and thought, now this is how a real president lies, Mr. Obama. This is how.

  14. *SPECULATIVE APOLOGISTS MUST IGNORE*

    Markets Finance
    Falling Oil Prices Are No Mystery

    The price declines have coincided with a steep selloff in oil futures contracts over the last two months. Speculators cut their net-long positions?bets that the price will rise?to the equivalent of 136 million barrels of oil, the lowest level since September 2010, according to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This follows a huge speculative buying binge. Oil prices spiked from October through March?a six-month bull run fueled by speculative worry over an Iranian supply disruption.

    With speculative money pouring out of the oil market, the price is closer to reflecting supply-demand fundamentals.
    http://www.businessweek.com/ar…..no-mystery
    _
    proving AGAIN AGAIN that oil speculators add [NO VALUE] to oil production, transport, refining, distribution, retail.

    1. Thank you for reminding us that morons are stupid.

      1. interesting that sarcasmic apologises for speculators while businessweek doesnt

        1. You do realize that Bill O’Reilly blames speculators, don’t you?

          You’re saying that Bill O’Reilly is right?

          You agree with Bill O’Reilly?

          You right wing shill!

          Republican!

          You’re a Republican!

          Ozone Brain is a Republican!

          1. didnt know oreilly was a businessweek contributor. thx

            1. You are agreeing with a right wing talk show host!

              That makes you a right winger!

              Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahaha ha ha haaaa!

              Ozone Brain is a right winger!

              I knew it!

              Shill!

              You’re nothing but a Republican shill!

              Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

              1. And a FAUX NEWZ supporter!1!11 elventy!!

    2. They are almost as bad as hoarders. And who cares if they add any “value” whatever that is? Since when does a purchase have to add value to be legitimate? Sure, ban speculators and go down the road of banning any transaction that is not considered to add value. Good luck with that.

      And lastly, the futures markets add tremendous value. It allows businesses to fix their costs of buying raw materials. It would be much more difficult to run a big shipping firm or airline if you couldn’t fix your costs via futures.

      1. It would be much more difficult to run a big shipping firm or airline if you couldn’t fix your costs via futures

        It’s why some airlines (i.e. Southwest) can offer low fares. But there’s no “value” in that – only rich business people should be able to fly!

      2. They are almost as bad as hoarders.

        Don’t forget the wreckers.

          1. …revisionists too!

      3. “It allows businesses to fix their costs of buying raw materials.”

        Correct.

    3. Uh, actually you’re not proving that at all. Notice that many of these “speculators” are losing their ass by being longs. But what about the shorts who started the slide? They were speculating, too. And it looks like they were right.

      1. no, the iranian negoiations, not shorting, has returned to market to NORMAL supply-n-demand pricing.

        fear n greed speculation

        ticks on a milk cow

        1. “ticks on a milk cow”

          WTF?

    4. They do a pretty good job of smoothing out prices, but I doubt you understand how price increases (or decreases) affect consumers’ behavior.

      A very wise man once said, “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” I believe that applies here.

      1. and bloomberg businessweek just cant know anything about economics

        1. Apparently reading comprehension isn’t one of your strengths either. They weren’t the ones saying “proving AGAIN AGAIN that oil speculators add [NO VALUE] to oil production, transport, refining, distribution, retail.”

          1. so im the wiseman u quoted above? because that’s what i commented about.

  15. Midway at 70
    The perils of looking weak
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/o…..ZZSsN0NPhN

    In one momentous afternoon the Navy not only avenged Pearl but also reversed the tide of war in the Pacific. Later victories in the battle of the Philippine Sea and Leyte Gulf (and the landings on Tarawa, Guam, Iwo Jima and Okinawa) were all made possible by the decisive win at Midway ? and by a Navy that would grow from a crippled giant (211 surface vessels) on Dec 8, 1941, to more than 6,768 active vessels, including 833 surface warships and 232 submarines: the most powerful force afloat for the next six decades.

    Now fast-forward to 2012.

    President Obama took office with a Navy reduced from a Reagan-era peak of 594 active ships in 1987 to 285 in 2009 ? a US fleet smaller than before World War I.

    1. That is not the whole story. The fire power of those ships has increased vastly. I would guess that the 285 ships today could put the 500 ships of the 1980s to the bottom in short order.

      Maybe we are getting weaker. But the number of ships doesn’t necessarily tell the story.

      1. It’s like these morons have never played an RTS. Tech-upgrades, how the fuck do they work?!

      2. Firepower doesn’t mean shit without defense. If those 285 ships are sitting ducks for modern anti-ship weaponry, then it could go from 285 to 0 in short order.

        1. True. But those ships today have a much better defense against anti-ship weapons and have a much lower radar profile. So again, advantage to the modern navy.

          1. China ain’t scared.

            One outspoken admiral in China has scoffed that all it would take to sink the high-tech American ship is an armada of explosive-laden fishing boats.

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

            1. The combat brilliance of peacetime rear-admirals. Not that past performance guarantees future results, but has China won a war against a foreign enemy that involved more than oppressing peasants?

              1. The statement has some merit. A US Marine Corps Lt. General demonstrated the concept in 2002.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M…..lenge_2002

            2. Chinese admirals may not be scared but the kamikaze fishing boat crews will be, at least up until the point where they become chum.

        2. That’s a pretty big if. Which of our potential enemies possesses this tech?

      3. Does the navy have drone boats? Serious question.

    2. IIRC, we knew they were coming to Midway due to broken codes, but worked to make it look like our 3 carriers just happened to be in the neighborhood. The patrol planes’ most important job was to make sure they were spotted so it gave us a reason to rally to Midway.

      1. I’ve mentioned this before, but “Miracle at Midway” is one hell of a great account of the battle.
        http://www.amazon.com/Miracle-…..0140068147

      2. The Japanese thought we only had two carriers at our disposal owing to damage sustained by Yorktown at Coral Sea. Yorktown showed up behind Enterprise and Hornet and contributed to the victory – and also confused the Japanese.

        Of course, not knowing we were in the area contributed hugely, as the Japanese strike planes were rearming for a second sortie against the Midway airfield when the bombs began raining down from our dive bombers, who went in unopposed owing to a poorly coordinated attack that saw our torpedo planes go in first, and without fighter escort. These torpedo planes drew all the Japanese fighter cover down from above the carriers, and were of course cut to ribbons, but cleared the way for the dive bombers and three of the four Japanese carriers were in flames and sinking in short order.

        1. a very fortunate win, to say the least. It took Japanese negligence, our code breakers, and a strong dose of luck for us to win that engagement.

    3. If the US could increase the size of the navy that quickly in 1941-2, I’m sure it could do so even faster now if necessary.
      And what John said. Naval warfare is a whole different thing now.

      1. Except that we build and flag far fewer civilian ships now than we did prior to WWII.

      2. Precisely. When you have an all-out naval war, you build more ships. Not to mention that there is no Naval threat comparable to Japan circa 1941. Even then Japan had multiple state-of-the-art carriers and a highly trained pilot force. Today, China has one carrier compared to our 12. That’s a gap they’d never make up if a war were to start anytime soon. Is it really the case that the largest Navy on Earth, with 12 carrier strike groups, “looks weak?”

        Back in the 40’s Yammamoto had it exactly right when he said he’d “run wild” in the Pacific for about a year after which he had “utterly no confidence.” That’s because he knew the our industrial might was unmatched and we’d churn out ships and planes at a breakneck pace. He was right, of course.

        1. And I am sure that if China started building another 11 carriers, the US woudl get a few more going as well.

          1. Or some “accidents” would start happening in Chinese shipyards.

      3. I don’t know if that’s true. We lack an awful lot of the shipbuilding capacity we had in those days.

        It takes a lot of effort to not just build ships, but to build the actual ship yards.

  16. The only chance of your lifetime to witness a spectacular Venus transit comes in the hours before sunset on the east coast of the United States tonight. Here’s hoping we all get lucky with good, clear weather!

    1. Great. What are the odds she’ll do a porno with Octomom?

    2. Do I really have to be the one to say “Literally!” ?

    3. Of course she’s put on weight. Hunting for the real killers is very stressful.

      1. But walking around all those golf courses would burn some calories. That’s what OJ said, at any rate

    4. Anthony is almost unrecognisable on the October YouTube diary she filmed.

      Or, she WAS until she FILMED A FUCKING YOUTUBE DIARY. How fucking stupid can you get. “Gee, I’d like to keep a low profile, better start off by posting videos of myself on youtube. God I’m smart.”

    5. Anthony is being sued by Zenaida Gonzalez, who shares the name of ‘Zanny the Nanny’ who Anthony initially told police had kidnapped Caylee. Anthony admitted fabricating that story.
      It later emerged that Anthony, whose acquittal last July has been compared to the infamous OJ Simpson case, did not know anyone by that name and the real Miss Gonzalez is not even a nanny.
      Now Miss Gonzalez is suing her after claiming she lost her job and apartment due to the association with the disappearance of Caylee, whose body was found in woods near Anthony’s home in 2008.

      What the fuck does this mean? I don’t give a shit about the welfare of Casey, but how can this woman sue her because she shares a name with the fabricated kidnapper? Can this be turned into a class action suit so all the Zenaida Gonzalez’s of the world can get in on the action?

      1. IIRC the Zenaida Gonzales who is suing Casey Anthony had a tenuous connection to the apartment complex that Casey Anthony visited or lived in. The police did talk to her and she did get scrutinized pretty heavily.

        I imagine that the police talked to her employers, and it’s possible she lost her income as a result.

        1. Exactly…it is speculated that Anthony got Gonzalez’s name from a rental application at an apartment complex.

        2. And I do believe she lost her job. There was an in-depth interview done with her on one of the networks.

  17. “As a citizen of the world, I would like him to win,” said Mariela Castro

    Dear Mariela, I stopped listening after “citizen of the world.”

    1. Isn’t citizen of the world code for a bath-dodger with a work phobia?

      1. Pretty much.

        1. Nick Gillespie referred to himself as such on that recent Red Eye. Keeping the cosmotarian cocktail party circuit torch alive, perhaps.

          1. In his case, it probably means “Often travels to Amsterdam”.

          2. One look at Nick on some of those shows and I would assume he is unwashed.

            (Just kidding Nick)

      2. Either that or someone rich enough not to care.

        If it wasn’t used by international communists, I’d like the term, actually. It seems to me that an ultimate goal for a libertarian should be for citizenship not to matter much at all. It only matters now because some countries are more anti-freedom than others.

    2. God, pinkos are fucking retarded.

      1. And in other news, the sky is still blue…

  18. “We’re not the ones who’ve changed. What has changed is the Republican Party,” Obama said. “They have run from a preference for market-based solutions to an absolutism when it comes to the marketplace, a belief that all regulations are bad. That government has no role to play.”

    Mitt Romney, anarcapitalist.

    1. So if Romney is an-cap and thinks each person is a government unto himself, does that mean that Gary Johnson, described by all as more libertarian than Romney, believes that a person’s cells should be a government unto themselves and no longer obey the totalitarian host body and meaningless boundaries they were arbitrarily birthed in?

      1. So I guess molecules are expected to fall into line for the good of the mothercell.

        1. Will no one think of the Farandolae?!

          1. Pipe down there, L’Engel.

        2. What about the atoms? You think it’s acceptable to enslave them to your whims?

          1. We shall not be free until our Quarks are free!

            1. MUONS UNITE!

              1. muons? hierarchy fail.

                1. True wylie. Just getting a charge out of the thread.

                  And it’s “Hierarchy FAIL”!

                  1. getting a charge

                    *grin*

                    it’s “Hierarchy FAIL”!

                    d’oh, “FAIL!” FAIL!

                    finally, fyi

                    1. You SugarFree’d the link, wylie. 🙂

                    2. You SugarFree’d the link

                      Browser hung on submission. After 5mins I refreshed, and that’s what got posted. I assure you, I’m intimately familiar with the A tag.

                    3. oh, might help if I added the link though: preon

          2. Free the subatomic particles!

  19. Supporting marijuana legalization and winning elections
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    One candidate, a former city councilman and first-time congressional candidate, supports marijuana legalization and health-centered alternatives to the war on drugs. The other, a respected eight-term incumbent endorsed by Presidents Obama and Bill Clinton, opposes legalizing marijuana and is against any serious solution to the drug war. The incumbent ran ads against the newcomer decrying his support of marijuana legalization and promising to keep drugs out of the hands of El Paso’s children. The newcomer, labeled “pro-pot,” “soft on crime” and lacking the “character” for the office, was likely to go down in flames.

    Except it didn’t work out like that. On Tuesday, challenger Beto O’Rourke defeated incumbent Silvestre Reyes in the Democratic Party primary, garnering more than 50 percent of the vote in a multi-candidate race to avoid a runoff. O’Rourke is all but certain to be the next U.S. representative from the safely Democratic 16th District.

    1. The drug legalization thing was not the issue. Reyes is a corrupt bastard, and at this point anybody looks better than him.

  20. Cyberattack: Stuxnet’s revelation
    and Shodan’s window into vulnerability
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ml?hpid=z1

    In 2010, details began to emerge about a cyberattack on Iranian uranium-enrichment centrifuges, which drew worldwide attention to industrial control systems. The United States and Israel created the worm, according to a recent New York Times report, with the aim of disrupting the Islamic republic’s nuclear program. Hackers inspired by the Stuxnet attack quickly discovered just how accessible many of the world’s control systems were.

    1. Shodan? Seriously? Did they hire Terri Brosius to voice the search results?

  21. The only chance of your lifetime to witness a spectacular Venus transit comes in the hours before sunset on the east coast of the U.S. tonight. Here’s hoping we all get lucky with good and clear weather!

    1. The only chance of your lifetime

      Speak for yourself.

    2. “In terms of rarity, to be here at a time when it’s happening, you almost have to look at it,”

      That pick-up line doesn’t work as well as the good scientist thinks.

      1. Yeah, I’ll catch it on YouTube later this afternoon. Probably in HD, too.

    3. Here’s hoping we all get lucky with good and clear weather!

      One of these is not dependent on the other.

    4. I don’t know what Venus thinks they’re doing. It’s not even going to come close to blotting out the sun.

  22. http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..are/691791

    Occupy Washington fades from McPherson square.

    1. Do you remember those days when it seemed that every Reason post was about Occupy?

      1. Reason did not cover itself in glory there.

        1. For the most part, no, it did not. Pretty much thoroughly killed my opinion of Riggs’ reporting in general and his reporting of it, too. Though he very occasionally redeems himself on amusingly snarky, low hanging fruit.

          Lucy was pretty fair with her coverage and I enjoyed her blog posts about the subject.

          1. Where Lucy went down and actually talked to those clowns was pretty good.

      2. Remember the months on end when Reason was all about the Ground Zero mosque scare?

        1. It is virtually impossible to build anything in Manhattan. It is inhabited by the most fanatical anti growth liberals in the world. Yet, somehow the Mosque thing was supposed to be a big deal. Welcome to club Muhammad.

          1. the islamic community center continues complete w a worship area. the whole dust-up was to foam the zenophobic wingnuts in order to fund-raise

            1. Because nothing says liberal freedom like a Saudi funded Islamic center.

              1. Um, yeah basically. As long as they own the land that is.

    2. I’m surprised to hear it was still going until last week. I guess their usefulness to party leaders had run out. Now the hipsters need a new way to draw attention to themselves.

  23. Money Men: The Powerful and the Secret Names Behind Campaign Dough
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/po…..12290.html

    Of President Obama’s top 350 bundlers, Bill Allison, Editorial Director at the Sunlight Foundation, says Obama’s list includes 68 who serve on some kind of government board. Obama’s bundlers include George Kaiser, the single largest investor in Solyndra.

    “Kaiser and folks from his foundation had a number of meetings at the White House,” says Allison. “There’s email traffic that shows that Solyndra was discussed at some of these meetings. So clearly?the bundlers get in the door and get the chance to present their priorities and their interests.”
    [snip]

    And while we’re dissecting the President’s bundlers, we should note we cannot do the same for his rival, Republican Mitt Romney.

  24. I wish it were the pee I was worried about.

    1. You can’t say that then tinyurl the link!

        1. Well, I guess it’s a free country, and maybe we shouldn’t even be a country just so that we could all be that much free-er and Std.Lib.Disc. aside:
          I’m at work, and I mouse-over links to know whether I should click them.

          1. Shorter (heh): tinyurl lacks the transparency we’ve come to expect from URLs.

            1. OK, I see. Not sneaking anything in there though. I guess the fact that I had to ask can pretty much assure you that mine are safe.

              1. the fact that I had to ask can pretty much assure you that mine are safe

                ‘Till now.

            2. Just watch, some smart entrepreneur is going to register bbc.co.vk or something and fool people into following the links.

    1. Hahaha, “It’s a cookbook!”

  25. Capturing the Punjabi imagination: drones and “the noble savage”
    http://blogs.reuters.com/pakis…..le-savage/

    In “Terminator: Attack of the Drone”, Hamid imagines life in Pakistan’s tribal areas bordering Afghanistan under constant attack from U.S. drone bombings. His narrator is one of two boys who go out one night to try to attack a drone.

    “The machines are huntin’ tonight,” the narrator says. “There ain’t many of us left. Humans I mean. Most people who could do already escaped. Or tried to escape anyways. I don’t know what happened to ’em. But we couldn’t. Ma lost her leg to a landmine and can’t walk. Sometimes she gets outside the cabin with a stick. Mostly she stays in and crawls. The girls do the work. I’m the man now.”

    1. Also from there

      Secondly, the narrative on drone attacks takes at face value assertions that they cause high numbers of civilian casualties. The Americans say they are precise; their critics say they are lying; the rest of us simply don’t, and can’t, know the truth. With little independent reporting on the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), we can’t possibly verify whether the claims of civilian casualties are accurate. We don’t know for sure the numbers of the dead, let alone whether among those dead were Taliban foot soldiers who are also civilians.

      What I have noticed however, is that at least some among the Pashtun intelligentsia say the drone strikes are precise, and that opposition to them increases the further away you get from the tribal areas. Earlier this year, a senior Pakistani military officer was quoted as saying that “a majority of those eliminated are terrorists, including foreign terrorist elements”. Writer and academic Farhat Taj has taken this argument further by saying that people actually prefer drone strikes to living in fear of the Taliban and their foreign allies.

      Reason is probably the most disapointing when dealing with this issue. I have yet to see a single intelligent piece on Reason about the drones.

      1. I was at the Air Force Academy graduation this year (my BIL was graduating) and they had a real live drone on display that you could look at and touch, etc.

        It was pretty cool, and I must admit that I’m in favor of drones qua drones. I just wish they were being used in the context of a more transparent, traditional war.

        Also: my wife, who would by no means describe herself as libertarian, has been well-trained enough to make a remark about how ironic it was that all the children were playing on the drone and resting in its shade.

      2. Maybe because you are diametrically opposed to their position?

        1. The problem is that they never do any actual reporting or thought. They just take everything the critics say at face value, throw out a few catch phrases like “murder drone” and call it a day. The above quote is from Reuters, hardly a pro US News site. Yet, even Reuters admits that the facts on the ground are not as simple as they are portrayed. Yet, Reason seems incapable of printing anything but Obama playing Colecovision war killing innocent goat herders for bonus points.

          What exactly are the Reason writers getting paid for? Any fucking moron can repeat the totally unproven accusations of one side as the gospel truth.

          1. I’m just speculating here but it could be something along the lines of: We don’t belong there and it’s not our business to be dropping bombs via video games on people that may or may not be terrorist (the article admits it is unknown). It’s better to let 100 guilty go than to kill 1 innocent and all that.

            Coming from this position, it’s understandable that they would not write about it favorably, even if we were somehow able to take out every single AQ operative because there is no way to do that without wracking up “non-combatant casualties”.

            (FTR I’m opposed to the drone strikes too, and even though I don’t agree with you on this issue I understand where you’re coming from.)

          2. Any fucking moron can repeat the totally unproven accusations of one side as the gospel truth.

            Oh John, that’s classic.

            Reason seems incapable of printing anything but Obama playing Colecovision war killing innocent goat herders for bonus points.

            And since that’s not the opinion you hold, reason is stupid for printing it. Like DesigNate says, the reason you think their reporting sucks is because you don’t agree with it. Why can’t you just admit that you don’t agree with them and move on?

            1. Read the article. What Reason is saying appears not to be true. Lying and printing untruths is not okay just because it furthers your cause. Reason is lying about the drone strikes. If you think it is okay to lie, then just save us the trouble and admit you are a liberal.

              1. …the rest of us simply don’t, and can’t, know the truth. With little independent reporting on the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), we can’t possibly verify whether the claims of civilian casualties are accurate. We don’t know for sure the numbers of the dead, let alone whether among those dead were Taliban foot soldiers who are also civilians.

                We do know that drone strikes are occuring. We do know that our own “law enforcement” has a hell of a time with civilian casualties, and they aren’t using bombs to SWAT raid a house. The idea that there have been no innocent civilian deaths is beyond laughable. Now Reason may be a little hyperbolic about things, but they aren’t lying.

                If the first quote is true (that we don’t and can’t know the truth) then obviously the Pakistani military officer can’t know for certain that “a majority of those eliminated are terrorists, including foreign terrorist elements

                1. No Designate. The first paragraph is about whether the rest of us, meaning western reporters can know. The second paragraph is a statement from a Pakistani military officer who is in a position to know.

                  And the SWAT raid analogy is in apt. First, SWAT raids are not military strikes. If one civilian is killed for every ten combatants killed that is a great rate for a war but totally unacceptable for a SWAT raid. The point of a SWAT raid is to arrest and not kill. And second, even if it were apt, you miss the point. We sure as hell would know how many civilians were killed no matter how unacceptable that number was. The issue here is whether the Pakistani military official is in a position to know what the rates are.

                  And let me requote

                  Earlier this year, a senior Pakistani military officer was quoted as saying that “a majority of those eliminated are terrorists, including foreign terrorist elements”. Writer and academic Farhat Taj has taken this argument further by saying that people actually prefer drone strikes to living in fear of the Taliban and their foreign allies.

                  That is a pretty powerful statement. And it is one from a source that is generally very anti US (Reuters) and one from a person who is in a position to know. What has Reason ever printed on this issue that actually goes to the facts of the number of civilians killed? Nothing I have ever seen. They have never even looked.

                  1. They just assume from the beginning that the strikes are done without distinction. And that is clearly a lie.

              2. If constant warmongering is necessary to be a conservative then I guess that leaves me out. If the only other option besides conservative is liberal then I guess I am a liberal. And I’m not quite sure what part of that article turns everything reason has printed about drone strikes a lie.

                1. Mo,

                  At least try to make a point. The fact is that the drone strikes are not indiscriminate and are not killing anywhere near the number of civilians that Reason claims. I guess pointing out inconvenient truths now makes one a war monger?

                  That is idiotic. You are just confirming that yes you think it is okay to lie as long as the lie supports your cause.

                  1. I’ve been off and on the last few weeks. Has Reason made an actual numerical claim I am unaware of or have they just been “OMG these drone strikes are killing bunches of people!!!”?

                    1. The Reason claim is that Obama is indiscriminately murdering people in Pakistan.

                  2. The fact is that the drone strikes are not indiscriminate and are not killing anywhere near the number of civilians that Reason claims.

                    The fact that they are killing any civilians at all is what makes it wrong, idiot. The fact that the war that rages inside your head demands that we kill these people is what makes it wrong, idiot. The fact that these people aren’t even close to having the means to do anything to this country is what makes it wrong, idiot. The fact that our armed forces (even the unmanned ones) have to travel thousands of miles to kill these people is what makes it wrong, idiot.

                    Now, I’ll admit I’m far from being a pacifist. But I can’t say that I’ve ever gotten the urge to drive even 10 miles to kill someone that I thought might be wishing me ill.

                    1. The fact that they are killing any civilians at all is what makes it wrong, idiot.

                      No it doesn’t. If the standard is that no civilian can ever be killed in war, then all sides to every war that has ever occurred are equally criminal.

      3. Earlier this year, a senior Pakistani military officer was quoted as saying that “a majority of those eliminated are terrorists, including foreign terrorist elements”.

        Oh, well if 51% of the people you murder are bad guys, the program’s a complete success.Tell that to the families of these kids, asshole.

        1. So I guess if you are a terrorist, all you have to do is hide among civilians and cute kids and you get immunity right? It is amazing how astoundingly racist you are.

          First, you always assume that killing our enemies only create more enemies. That doesn’t seem to be the case in any other war. We killed millions of Germans and Japanese and instead of creating more enemies the Germans and Japanese got the message that making war was a really bad idea. You seem to think Arabs are such sub humans that they are incapable of acting rationally. How many times have you people used the term “stir the hornets’ nest” as if the Pakistanis and Muslims are not even humans but some kind of insect like creatures incapable of rational thought.

          Stop posting pictures of those people or stories about them. It would be one thing if you considered them human beings. But you don’t. They are just props to you. It is fucking gross.

          1. Don’t post pictures of children killed in drone attacks because it’s racist?

            Seriously, John?

            1. YEs sersiously. Sloopy is a horrible racist. If he considered Muslims to be fully human, he would consider them to be morally responsible for waging war by using human shields. But he doesn’t do that. That part doesn’t bother him at all. He only rages against the US because they are the only ones he considers human enough to hold to any standard of behavior. It may be a benevolent form of racism, but it is racism none the less.

              1. Don’t you ever characterize me as a racist, you fucking piece of shit. It is you that wants us to control an entire part of the world because you don’t trust them. It is you that believes killing thousands of people, all of middle eastern descent by the way, is a great thing because it prevents some grand attack against America that they lack even the basic materials to carry out.

                You want to talk about racism? You, who believes the Islamic horde would overrun our cities with bombings if we don’t kill them in their beds first, want to talk about racism? You, the man who goes to bed to the sweet, sweet lullaby of FoxNews telling him how many bombs we dropped on brown people that day?

                I wish I was in the DC area today, John. For if I were, I would certainly track you down and challenge you to fisticuffs for your character assassination. Now go back to sucking the taxpayer teat and waving a blood-soaked Old Glory. It’s what you do best.

                1. I consider Muslims to be human beings and their actions to be held to the same moral standard our actions are. You don’t. And sorry if the truth hurts, maybe you should reconsider your views.

                  1. I consider Muslims to be human beings and their actions to be held to the same moral standard our actions are.

                    Oh, so if the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran drone struck your neighbors house killing your wife in the process because your neighbor works for the NSA, you’d be fine with that?

                    Or if the Pakistani government drone attacked a “suspected” militant in the Michigan Militia because he spoke out against Pakistani people, that would be just peachy?

                    Yeah, I doubt you give those brown people the same moral leeway you give our own government.

                  2. First of all, how do you wage war in some village in Pakistan by using human shields. Is there a certain amount of Pakistani human shields that will cause the White House to blow up?

                    Secondly, the racism thing is a red herring. You are arguing that the ends justifies the means, no different than a person who supports Che or any other communist murderer.

                    If an armed drug dealer hides in a flat with children in it do we have the right to hit it with drones? Assuming you agreed with the WoD which I know you don’t. If the drug dealer was black then would it make me racist to protest the murder of these “human shields”?

                2. You wouldn’t challenge me to shit. And if you don’t want to be called a racist, quit acting like one.

                  1. The racist schtick is getting a bit stale, John. I’m not the one that thinks we need to keep an entire region of the world in check because I think they’re all fucking crazy.

                    If you want to see a racist, you merely need to seek out a full length mirror.

                  2. Hysterically calling someone racist is the last resort of a desperate man, John. A tactic usually used and increasingly being used by the left. You are embarrassing yourself, John.

                    1. I am calling sloopy a racist because that is the rational end to his arguments. And he gave away his argument below. His own link admits that most of the people are killed are lawful targets. He is left to arguing that they are unlawful since they don’t kill “leaders” whatever that means. And that is ridiculous.

                      And yes, Sloopy does at some level look at these people as less than westerners. If he didn’t, he would care just as much when Al Quada kills people and understand that the civilian deaths were Al Quada’s fault.

                      If US troops were dressing as civilians and hiding amongst the populace and Al Quada were killing civilians as a result, Sloopy would rightly blame those deaths on the US. He won’t apply the same standards when the roles are reversed because he can’t bring himself to apply equal moral standards to Muslims.

                    2. If he didn’t, he would care just as much when Al Quada kills people and understand that the civilian deaths were Al Quada’s fault.

                      Wow you are fucking thick. We don’t care when Al’Quaeda kills people over there because IT’S NOT OUR PROBLEM. It isn’t our country. Like DesigNate says below, Al’Quaeda isn’t killing Pakistanis in America’s name.

                    3. Bin Laden is dead. The Taliban was kicked out of Afghanistan. AQ is basically licking it’s wounds in Pakistan (assuming I have all that right). They have no standing army. They have not attacked us again. They have no definable way to come to America in any kind of massive wave (barring a Red Dawn scenario).

                      Why do we have to continue to take them out? I’m asking in all seriousness cause I’d like to know your opinion. (And don’t misconstrue this as my thinking they aren’t a threat.)

          2. A more gross misrepresentation of my views on Middle Eastern children couldn’t have been made by Shrike. Congratulations, John. You win the Academy Award for Best Actor for your performance of an indignant warmonger on a political blog.

            Stop posting pictures of those people or stories about them.

            Soooo, you don’t mind killing them, you just don’t want to see them?

            You seem to think Arabs are such sub humans that they are incapable of acting rationally.

            You seem to like constructing men made of straw.

            How many times have you people used the term “stir the hornets’ nest” as if the Pakistanis and Muslims are not even humans but some kind of insect like creatures incapable of rational thought.

            I think I’ve used that term exactly zero times in my life. And I do believe in their humanity. That’s why my views on killing those innocent people are diametrically opposed to yours.

            1. And I do believe in their humanity.

              No you don’t. If you did, you would be angry at Al Quada for hiding among civilians rather than giving them a pass. You only give them a pass because you consider them to be something less than human.

              1. Listen, you stupid fucking tax-leech, I have never once said AQ weren’t the scum of the earth. Using human shields is pretty horrible. But they are in sovereign nations and we live in a society that supposedly ascribes to the Rule Of Law. Just because they are bad doesn’t mean we have to debase ourselves and go against the principles of righteousness and legality we were founded upon.

                We are supposed to be better than indiscriminately killing innocent children along with those who have professed their hatred of us but lack the means to do us harm. But shitheads like you think it’s OK to wantonly destroy the simple lives these people have because there might be a bad guy in the next building.

                And your interjection of Japan and Germany is a pretty poor analogy. What we are doing is more analogous to what the Germans and Japanese did in the nations they occupied. And if I recall correctly, the French, Dutch, Polish, Chinese, Filipino and Korean didn’t take their occupation lying down.

                1. And the sovereign nation of Pakistan has given us approval to do these strikes. And we are not indiscriminately killing people. That is what the article, from Reuters of all places, says. That was the whole point of the thread, that Reason and you are lying when you say we are.

                  How many times do I have to take your lunch money on this issue before you finally give up and stop coming back for more? Righteous indignation is no substitute for logic and facts.

                  1. How many times do I have to take your lunch money on this issue before you finally give up and stop coming back for more? Righteous indignation is no substitute for logic and facts.

                    Holy shit John, you need a fucking mirror. Maybe you’d like to meet my friend the kettle?

                  2. Actually that article from Reuters says that we can’t possibly know for sure. So we’re all wrong I guess.

                  3. We’re each entitled to our opinions, but not our own facts, John. Read that Reuters story again. It says there is almost universal disagreement on whether or not many of these victims are terrorists. The US says they are and the rest of the world typically says they aren’t. Do you think the Muslim people are incapable of honesty in their reporting? Who’s the racist now?

                    And I’d like to see the Pakistani authorization to kill indiscriminately within their borders. Could you link to it, please?

                    Oh, and read this. I doubt it will change your mind at all. Bloodlust is not easily cured.

                    1. No Sloopy you are not entitled to facts. And for that reason you are not entitled to claim that the US is indiscriminately bombing and you are not entitled to claim we are violating Pakistani’s sovereignty when neither appears to be happening.

                      I would love to call out Obama for this. But the facts are what they are. And they are not what you and Reason say they are.

                    2. It is a premium article. So I doubt you have read it. What can be read is that the US is conducting drone strikes. So what? No one is denying that. But that does not mean they are conducting them indiscriminately.

                    3. FTA: On average, only one out of every seven U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan kills a militant leader. The majority of those killed in such strikes are not important insurgent commanders but rather low-level fighters, together with a small number of civilians. In total, according to our analysis, less than two percent of those killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have been described in reliable press accounts as leaders of al Qaeda or allied groups.

                      Care to address this?

                    4. The majority of those killed in such strikes are not important insurgent commanders but rather low-level fighters, together with a small number of civilians

                      Which part of Low level fighter, do you not understand? That makes them a lawful target. And yes, there are more chiefs than there are Indians. More low level fighters are always going to be killed than leaders.

                      And which part of “small number of civilians” do you not understand? Your article confirms exactly what I have been saying over and over again, that the strikes are lawful and not indiscriminate.

                      Now that your own source confirms this, can you shut the fuck up and stop restarting this argument on every thread?

                  4. And the sovereign nation of Pakistan has given us approval to do these strikes.

                    They have? Could you link a story that describes the treaty we have signed permitting us to bomb whoever we want, whenever we want in Pakistan?

                    It would no doubt run counter to the details in this story.

                    FTA: Reuters reports that the drone strike was strongly condemned by Pakistan’s foreign ministry, which called it “illegal.”

                2. Kids are shot dead in my neighborhood at a pretty good clip. High school girls, toddlers in their homes, etc. Why not focus on that? In fact, sloop, since you think murder porn needs to be seen, I suggest you start a website comprised of nothing but pictures of shot dead ghetto kids.

                  For the children.

                  1. But those are human children in Sloopy’s view and that would be exploitative.

                  2. Is it the government doing the shooting?

                    1. Would they be any more dead if it was? And a lot of children die in Al Quada bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have yet to see sloopy link to that porn. Why? Because they Al Quada victims don’t make good props for his political points.

                    2. Maybe because Al Queda isn’t fighting a war or bombing people in our name John. No need to be an asshole about it.

                    3. If we were discussing AQ blowing up their own people, then I’d be happy to show you pictures of their victims. Those attacks are despicable.

                      But we’re talking about the United States of America’s campaign of drone attacks that rarely target leaders of Al Qaeda and very, very often end up killing innocent victims, not a few of which are children.

                    4. drone attacks that rarely target leaders of Al Qaeda

                      Since when is it only legal or legitimate to target leaders? The lowest private is just as lawful of a target as the highest general.

                      You are losing this badly sloopy.

                    5. So we’re justified in killing innocent neighbors because an AQ foot soldier without the means to feed his family, let alone wage an attack on the USA, lives next door?

                      If you cut off the head you kill the beast, right? Are we resigned as a nation to using hundreds of millions of dollars in hardware so we can shoot missiles at what is essentially a buck private?

                      Come on, man.

                    6. The low level fighter is a lawful target. From YOUR OWN ARTICLE the vast majority of those killed are Al Quada members and therefore lawful targets. Once again, which part of “small number of civilians” do you not understand.

                      Again for the 5th time, if Al Quada were not hiding in civilian areas, no civilians would be in danger. The strikes are lawful and not indiscriminate.

                      Why can’t you admit the obvious? Just because the war is lawful doesn’t mean it is a good idea? If you would just argue that instead of engaging in ridiculous and stupid histrionics about things that you clearly don’t know shit about, I wouldn’t have a problem and your case would be a lot stronger.

                    7. Sorry, John. The war as we are fighting it is not lawful, it is not moral and it is not one I can support in any way, shape or form.

                      It is a sad day when we commit atrocities and say it is for other peoples’ own good. We will never know peace until we stop waging war on the entire world for doing no more than speaking ill of us. We will never know peace until we leave nations to their own devices and export American ideals by opening trade and opportunity to people who do not like us simply because we are different.

                      You view the world differently than I. You believe in “Peace Through Power,” while I simply want people to be left alone and my tax dollars to not fund a murderous campaign against little more than thoughtcrime.

                      I rarely wish harm for anyone, but I would love for you to experience what those people are experiencing at the bloody hands of our government.

                      I will discuss this no more with you today. Go fuck yourself, you warmonger.

                    8. The war is completely lawful. I have explained to you why it is on any number of occasions. Once again, that doesn’t mean we should be fighting it. And every time you claim that it is unlawful, even though your own links admit that it is, you just show yourself as being incapable of being anything but emotional about this issue.

                    9. So we’re justified in killing innocent neighbors because an AQ foot soldier without the means to feed his family, let alone wage an attack on the USA, lives next door?

                      If you cut off the head you kill the beast, right? Are we resigned as a nation to using hundreds of millions of dollars in hardware so we can shoot missiles at what is essentially a buck private?

                      Come on, man. I know this war is keeping you fat and happy on the taxpayer dime, but this is just bloodlust.

                3. And if I recall correctly, the French, Dutch, Polish, Chinese, Filipino and Korean didn’t take their occupation lying down.

                  Because the locals all love Al Quada and view anyone who is not Al Quada as an “occupier”. They wouldn’t want any help stopping Al Quada. No, they all want to live in an Islamist hell hole.

                  But you are not a racist or anything there Sloopy.

                  1. I’m sure that not all of them would be too happy to live under Al Qeada or Taliban rule. But I’m also sure they don’t want to be blown up so they don’t have to either.

                    1. I am sure Designate. But it is not like the Taliban and or Al Quada don’t use force. What if they were here and trying to take over? Would you give a shit if the people fighting to stop them blew some shit up? I wouldn’t.

                    2. I am sure Designate. But it is not like the Taliban and or Al Quada don’t use force.

                      We better kill them all just to be safe!

                      What if they were here and trying to take over?

                      Ask me that when they’re crossing the Atlantic in warships.

                      Would you give a shit if the people fighting to stop them blew some shit up? I wouldn’t.

                      Again, ask me when they’re a viable threat as opposed to sitting in huts in the mountains of Pakistan talking shit about us.

                    3. You’re damn right I would. But then again if shrike’s fever dream of a Christian Taliban came true I’d be doing everything in my power to kick their asses out so I didn’t have to worry about my wife and little girl being blown up because it just so happened that one of those fuckers lived in the house next to mine.

                    4. You would want to kill the guy living in the next house and would be cheering his death.

                    5. I personally would want to. I wouldn’t want some foreign government doing it for me from 35,000 feet with the possibility of killing me or my loved ones in the process.

                  2. Because the locals all love Al Quada and view anyone who is not Al Quada as an “occupier”.

                    Then they’re free to kick them out. It’s their business, not ours.

                    1. Leave the animals in the zoo, right sloopy. Sorry, but when Al Quada started making war on us, it became our business.

                    2. And I guess it’ll be our business forever, even if it costs many more American lives, any goodwill we might develop with the rest of the world and bankrupts us as a nation.

                      Hip, hip, hooray!

                    3. Leave the animals in the zoo, right sloopy.

                      Again, you try to play the racist card. You must not think too much about them to refer to them as “animals.”

                      No, my point was to leave another nation alone and let them determine the government they want. If that government decides to attack us, we will violently defend ourselves. But this is not defense, John. This is an offensive campaign, and it is being waged mostly against people who have done no worse than commit the thoughtcrime of hating America.

                    4. and the actual crimes of killing and murdering 1000s of people in Afghanistan and fully intend to enslave the population of Afghanistan in an Islamic hell hole. They do more than think.

                      And regardless, the debate is not about the soundness of the war. It is about your dopey ass ideas on legality. If you would just shut the stupid back from 11 on those issues, I wouldn’t really disagree with you much.

                    5. We are neither the policeman or the protector of the world. We cannot possibly hope to expend our resources (human, machine, and monetarily) to do so and see any kind of tangible return.

                      If the people of a nation or region do not want to be free, you cannot force them to be.

                    6. All reasonable points designate. But they are not the ones sloopy is making.

                    7. That was half of my point, John. But you called me a racist before you even got into the discussion.

          3. Seriously John? Maybe Japan and Germany were different because we declared war on the government of those countries, not the individuals living there. Oh and we stopped the fighting (absent cold war fun and games) once our objective was complete.

            1. We killed millions of each. And Germany launched a rather nasty partisan war against US forces after the formal war was over. Yet, somehow, they stopped fighting even though we had bombed them and according to you guys just created more enemies.

              And we didn’t make war just on the government, we carpet bombed the entire country.

              1. You don’t think any of those people signed up to be spies or work with the Soviets to attack us?

                1. No. Germany looks like a really peaceful country to me. And our bombing seemed to have solved the problem of German aggression once and for all.

                  1. Ask the Germans how their occupation of the French and Dutch went. Ask the Russians how Afghanistan worked out.

                    Those are more akin to what we’re doing than the other way around.

                    1. Yeah, sloopy we are doing to Afghanistan what the Germans did to France. We are setting up death camps and gassing people by the millions.

                      How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you write stupid shit like that?

                  2. You are aware of a time in history called the cold war that lasted some 40+ years where Germany and the rest of eastern europe weren’t the peaceful places they are now right?

                    And by your own feelings of humanities innate evil, you can’t possibly think we “solved the problem of German aggression once and for all”.

                    1. They were only not peaceful because the Soviets enslaved eastern Europe. It is not like Germany was dying to reinvade France or become a world power again. That is my point. Same with Japan. Japan is no longer an aggressive nation.

              2. Playing the role of MNG in today’s matinee performance of MNG vs. John will be sloopyinca.

                1. Playing the role of MNG in today’s matinee performance of MNG vs. John will be sloopyinca.

                  **Sigh** I’m sorry. I know I should just leave him alone and I apologize if it blew up the thread.

                  I swore long ago that I would ignore him, even when he makes scurrilous accusations as to my character. I failed in that regard today.

                  1. Sloopy you know nothing about international and even less about what is actually happening in Pakistan. All you have is your emotions. You do nothing on these threads but throw out invective and emotion. You haven’t made a single rational argument and your own links contradict what you claim.

                    Why can’t you just be honest and explain why you think the war there is a bad idea?

                    1. You see, people? ^^This kind of shit^^ is why I can’t stay away. This motherfucker who lives on distortions, half-truths and slanderous accusations of racism to make a point just sucks people in like a black hole.

                      He is dyed-in-the-wool war lover and is beyond hope. He deserves to experience the pain he wants inflicted on people 12,000 miles from him that can do him no harm.

                      And the coup-de-grace? Our tax dollars are paying him to sit on here all day long. Our. Fucking. Tax. Dollars.

                    2. I am a war lover sloopy, yet I say like four different times on this thread that I agree with you that the war at this point should be ended.

                      Do you even read the posts? I am sure you are pissed off. The truth has a bad habit of doing that. And I will say again, just make your points about why you think the war is not worth it. Avoid the bullshit histrionics about things you clearly don’t understand. Get it through your thick skull just because the war is a bad idea doesn’t make it illegal.

                    3. And the coup-de-grace? Our tax dollars are paying him to sit on here all day long. Our. Fucking. Tax. Dollars.

                      Yeah, I hate that. I hate even more how shameless he is about it.

                      I’ve always wondered why he never realizes how that colors people’s opinions of him.

                    4. Calling someone a racist is an emotional attack meant to elicit an emotional response.

                  2. I apologize if it blew up the thread.

                    No worries! There are plenty more threads where this one came from.

                2. At least it’s only on one subject for right now. John and Minge could argue about the weather for this long.

                  1. The reason why this thread became a replay of MNG is because I will not tolerate bullshit. And Sloopy’s entire position this is just bullshit. And the irony of the whole thing is that I probably don’t disagree with sloopy that being in Afghanistan after 11 years is a bad idea.

                    But even though I think it is a bad idea, doesn’t mean it is illegal. They are two separate questions. And I am not going let sloopy’s histrionic bullshit go unchallenged. And that is just what it is, bullshit. His own links make it clear that the US is killing combatants in much greater numbers than civilians. That makes the bombing lawful. If you don’t like it, change the law.

                    1. I’ll go Godwin here to prove a point, asshole. Hitler gassing the Jews was legal as well. So was the Japanese campaign of atrocities in China. If there were Germans or Japanese that didn’t support it, they should have changed the law.

                      The NDAA is the law of the land. Is it right?
                      Obamacare is the law of the land. Is it right?
                      Qualified Immunity is the law of the land. Is it right?

                      You just don’t see things like a rational and moral person John. I get it now. I understand you.

                    2. I am talking about international law sloopy. And the law is that it is the mere fact that civilians are killed in a bombing raid are killed does not make it illegal provided, the raid was targeted and the military value of the target is greater than civilians killed. Your own link admits that many more Taliban fighters have been killed in the bombing and only a “small number of civilians.” That makes them legal under international law. And indeed they should be legal. If the standard was no civilians can ever die in a war, everyone who ever waged war would be a war criminal and the term would be rendered meaningless.

                      And once again, there is no comparison to what is going on in Pakistan, targeted strikes against enemy combatants and the indiscriminate murder of civilians that you list.

                      Face it, you lost the argument. Your own link and indeed your own quote above, gave the argument away. Even Reuters admits that what you say is going on is not the true.

                    3. Face it, you lost the argument.

                      I find that without exception this is trollspeak for “stop proving me wrong”.

                    4. Gulo,

                      Really? Last I looked Sloopy’s own link said the following

                      The majority of those killed in such strikes are not important insurgent commanders but rather low-level fighters, together with a small number of civilians.

                      That means that the bombing is no indiscriminate and nothing like he says. He gave away his own argument. And that is why he is so pissed off.

                      And the only trolling I see are the people on here who think that just because I will admit the obvious, that the US is not just randomly killing civilians and is not engaging in war crimes, that I somehow think we should stay in Afghanistan. That is trolling because I never said anything of the sort. Why people can’t just settle for making a factual argument that Afghanistan has served its purpose and our presence there isn’t accomplishing anything is beyond me. You people have a good argument to make. But you are so in love with the idea that everything the US does must be immoral and illegal, you can’t make it. And instead waste time making losing and dishonest arguments.

                    5. Nice job chopping up the quote so it fits your point of view, John.

                      Whole thing: On average, only one out of every seven U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan kills a militant leader. The majority of those killed in such strikes are not important insurgent commanders but rather low-level fighters, together with a small number of civilians. In total, according to our analysis, less than two percent of those killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have been described in reliable press accounts as leaders of al Qaeda or allied groups.

                      98% of the people we are killing in our drone strikes are either low level “fighters” that have never even set foot in America or they’re civilians.

                      That’s 98% of the people we are killing that are no threat whatsoever to the security of the United States. NINETY-EIGHT FUCKING PERCENT, you fucking idiot. That’s legal? That’s moral?

                    6. 98% of the people we are killing in our drone strikes are either low level “fighters”

                      98% of the people killed in any war are low level. If you are fighter you can be targeted and killed. Yes, you idiot, that makes it legal. By your own link only 2% of the people killed in these strikes are civilians. That is probably the lowest civilian death rate ever achieved in a bombing campaign.

                      For the last time, when you are in a war it is perfectly legal to kill the other guy’s fighters, even if they are “low level”. Most of the Americans killed over there are “low level”. That is how war works, most people are Indians not chiefs.

                    7. 98% of the people killed in any war are low level.

                      But this isn’t a “war.” These are targeted drone assassinations. Hardly the kind of attack one would expect to be carried out on Al Qaeda Pvt. (irregular) Omar Ali Muhammad…who could never in a million years inflict the slightest damage on America. And my link says 2% of the people killed are leaders in AQ. The % of civilians is an unknown part of the other 98%. Where are you pulling that number from? My guess is your asshole, but you can correct me if I’m wrong.

                    8. A private in any army is unlikely to do much harm. But he is still a lawful target. The potential to do harm is not the standard. If you are a lawful target, you are a lawful target, it doesn’t matter how valuable you may or may not be to your side.

                      And yes, I misread the 2%. But it still says “small number” whatever that means.

                    9. A private in any army is unlikely to do much harm.

                      Especially when he is in a hut over 12,000 miles from the nearest American city.

                      And I’d love to hear you explain how CIA murderdrones being used to kill foreigners and Americans alike overseas are legal under any law, international or otherwise. That “M” in AUMF stands for military, and last I checked, the CIA was not a part of our military.

                    10. That’s no more trolling than when you say that we all blame America for all the evil in the world. Both are ad homs, but not trolling.

                    11. Gulo,

                      Really?

                      Yeah really.

                    12. Way to respond to my post there Gulo. Just say Really. Don’t worry about the facts or the arguments.

                    13. Way to respond to my post there Gulo.

                      I responded to everything I cared about.

                      Just say Really.

                      Don’t ask the question if you can’t take the answer.

                    14. In other words gulo, you have no answer. What exactly have you added to the conversation beyond whining? If you think the US is acting illegally or that Sloopy’s link is wrong say why.

                    15. Wartroll gonna wartroll, John.

                    16. I am a war troll there gulo. That is why I have said so many times on this thread why I think there is a good case that being there is bad policy.

                      Have you had enough, or do you plan to post more stupid?

                    17. I am a war troll there gulo.

                      We know John, but it’s big of you to finally admit it.

                    18. And the coup-de-grace? Our tax dollars are paying him to sit on here all day long. Our. Fucking. Tax. Dollars.

                      Yeah, I hate that. I hate even more how shameless he is about it.

                      I’ve always wondered why he never realizes how that colors people’s opinions of him.

                      While I don’t agree with John’s neocon side I’m uncomfortable with this ad hom stuff. I don’t think working for the govnm’t is really germane to the topic of murdering children in Pakistan for peace.

                    19. My problem is the posting while at work.

                    20. Where are you posting from?

                    21. Where are you posting from?

                      I’m not a government employee at work, so at that point it’s no longer your business.

                    22. Shut up Mary.

                    23. Wartroll gonna wartroll, John.

                    24. Oh, so the Constitutional requirements are trumped by International Law now? Where is the big book full of these international laws, John? I’d like to look this one up.

                    25. Lets talk about the Constitution. The Congress has the power to make war. The Congress passed a resolution authorizing the President to make war against both the Taliban and Al Quada. And Congress has effectively reauthorized that by continuing to fund the war every year since 2011.

                      The President has a right to make war by Congressional authorization against the Taliban. The Taliban are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That makes it a lawful even under US law.

                      And don’t give me this “it wasn’t a declaration of war bullshit”. It was. I don’t care what they called it. It was a declaration of war.

                      An illegal war I Libya or Serbia where the President starts bombing shit without asking Congress. That is not what happened here.

                      Again, just because it is legal, doesn’t make it right or even a good idea.

                    26. When the Constitution was written, “make war” meant to formally declare war. Original intent is important, because I doubt the founders meant declare war on a nebulous and undefinable group and just go around the world blowing shit up. If so, they would not have issued Letters of Marque.

                      That’s why there was no “War on Piracy” back in the day.

                      But your original claim was that it was in accordance with “International Law.” I merely requested a copy of this book of international laws so I may peruse it for future endeavors. Could you link it, please?

                    27. There are any number of books sloopy. Google it. Google proportionality. Google combatant immunity. The concepts are well known and pretty simple really.

                      As far as the Constitutionality, it says “declare war”. And your point about “not making war on pirates” cuts the other way. The founders were perfectly okay with the President hanging and trying pirates without the President’s consent. It is not that they had a problem with the President acting against transnational groups. It is that they didn’t even think Congressional authorization was necessary to do so.

                      The declaration of war following 9-11 was lawful. If you don’t like it, get Congress to resend it.

                    28. There are any number of books sloopy. Google it.

                      I find that without exception this is trollspeak for “I made a claim I can’t support”.

                    29. Go fuck yourself Mary. Everyone knows who you are.

                    30. Go fuck yourself Mary.

                      Wartroll gonna wartroll.

                    31. get Congress to resend it

                      To whom should they resend it?

                      There are any number of books sloopy. Google it. Google proportionality. Google combatant immunity. The concepts are well known and pretty simple really.

                      So….no link then? Protip: if you are going to claim something that murders innocent civilians as legal under “international law,” you ought to be able to reference said law pretty easily.

                      There is no “international law” that our Constitution recognizes. Your buy Bush proved that when he decided torturing was A-OK. And your boy Obama is carrying it a step further by blowing up people half a world away that would never be able to inflict harm on our nation.*

                      *Some of them are American citizens that haven’t been charged with a crime other than the thoughtcrime of speaking ill of the USA. And of course some of them are the innocent children of those thoughtcriminals.

                    32. Al Awaki is not in Pakistan. And I have given stated my objection to the Al Awaki strike numerous times sloopy.

                      Your statements about the Constitution are not even sensible. There is no law of war in the Constitution. There is only a “war power” which has been lawfully exercised by congress in this case.

                      And for the record the international law of war is incorporated into US law and the UCMJ. So indiscriminately bombing civilians, if it were occurring here would be a crime under US law as well.

                      The war in Afghanistan is a lawfully declared and conducted war. You just don’t like it. And that is your right. And you may be right about that. But it being a bad or even dumb war doesn’t make it an illegal war.

                      And Obama is not my boy. I hate Obama. And if I were the partisan hack you guys all accuse me of, I would be on your side in this. But I am not. The drone program is not illegal and not a war crime. And I am not going to change my opinion on that just because doing so would make for a fun way to slam on Obama.

                    33. The war in Afghanistan is a lawfully declared and conducted war.

                      You misspelled Pakistan, Yemen and Iran.

                    34. It is the same in Pakistan and Yemen with the exception of the Al Walaki strike. And last I looked we are not at war with Iran and haven’t used a drone there for anything other than spying.

                      Give it up sloopy. You have a decent argument to make. Why can’t you just make it? Why isn’t saying this is a bad idea good enough for you?

                    35. Give it up sloopy. You have a decent argument to make. Why can’t you just make it?

                      Yet you employ strawmen and call me a racist when I make it?

                      Why isn’t saying this is a bad idea good enough for you?

                      Because “bad” doesn’t quite cover the murder of people who pose no threat whatsoever to our nation and the resulting deaths of Americans, Pakistanis, Afghans, Iraqis, Yemenis, Egyptian, Libyan, etc people that are a direct result of our meddling in the affairs of other nations.

                      And I will repeat this again: if our government kills someone 12,000 miles from our shores that is not a direct threat to the United States, then our government has murdered that person. If we murder the neighbor of that person, we have murdered twice and have made an enemy of that neighbor’s family and friends.

                    36. And that sloopy is just nonsense. The average Japanese person didn’t pose a threat to the US, but we still killed them and it wasn’t “murder”, it was war. That is how war works. If you don’t like the war say way. But spare me the histrionics.

                      And once again, if killing in war created new enemies as opposed to destroying your enemies’ will to fight, Japan and Germany would not be peaceful countries today but cauldrons of enemies bent on revenge.

                      And furhtermore, I have 2800 bodies that says those people can be a direct threat to the US. It is not like we decided to invade Afghanistan for fun.

                      The bottom line is that you seem to have no interest in the truth or the legality of the matter. You have decided that feeling a fierce moral smugness is more important. Good luck with that. But don’t expect anyone but fellow travelers to take you seriously on this issue.

                    37. OK. Thanks for your response, and even though you have missed my point completely, you at least typed a bunch of words.

                      When engaged in a declared war against a nation, the rules are somewhat different. A nebulous declaration against “a bunch of people and anyone who would support them” is a blank check, and in my opinion does not pass the smell test of legality. You should know this and you probably do, but it’s more fun to blow people up who say nasty things about us from halfway around the world.

                      I will just agree to disagree with you on this point. And I’ve no feeling of moral smugness on this issue. I have stated my opinion on the matter. If you think that is smugness, racism or whatever other word you choose in an attempt to debase the conversation, so be it. But I will tell you this: if I see you and you call me a racist to my face, I will beat the ever-loving shit out of you. You don’t know me or what is in my heart/mind. You don’t know what has happened to me or my family for fighting racism. And you will not have the right to direct that epithet in my direction in person.

                    38. Well sloopy, if you don’t like people taking your arguments to mean you are a racist, stop taking my arguments to be an endorsement of war. You have called me a war monger on this thread with no idea what is in my heart about war or what my or my family’s experience with war is. And now you are all butt hurt because I did nothing but applied the same standards to you.

                      I will be more civil to you, when you are more civil to me. You want to engage in invective and name calling and call me a neocon and a war monger because I point out the inconvenient facts of the international law of war, fine. I am going to call you a racist because you apply a different standard of morality to the US than you do to Muslims.

                    39. How about we agree for me to say, “Go fuck yourself and do not engage me again until you are ready to do so without resorting to erroneously calling me a racist because I respect all human life the same and do not like the fact that my government is killing innocent people 12,000 miles away because they want to kill people that are not a threat to us,” and you respond to a board I will no longer be reading? Would that be OK?*

                      *By the way, your first response to my comment on this thread was to call me a racist. You said I considered them “sub-human.” So we could all do without the indignation of me calling you a war-monger. I hate to say “you started it,” but when it’s a fact, it’s a fact.

                      Respect is earned. And calling someone a racist and attributing lies and distortions to them right out of the gate is not a great way to start earning it.

                    40. sloopy, I’d like to remind you you’re trying to have a civil discussion with someone who openly accused you of racism, and who you wanted to engage in fisticuffs.

                      He said “You wouldn’t challenge me to shit.”

                      You’re wasting your time with a classic keyboard warrior, what possible positive outcome are you hoping for?

                      Mock him like I do or, even better, use the time for something productive.

                    41. You are so smart Gulo. It is just amazing how enlightening your posts are on this subject. We should all be like you.

                    42. Fuck you Mary.

                    43. I know it is you Mary. Your particular brand of insanity is like all insanity impossible to fake.

                    44. particular brand of insanity

                      Wartroll gonna wartroll

  26. Obama’s new week: Could it possibly be any worse than his last one?
    http://news.investors.com/arti…..-sinks.htm

    A brand new “work” week starts today for the president of the United States. Obama is off to New York City on Air Force One for not one, not two, but three more campaign fundraisers. First things first. That makes nine fundraisers in the last two “work” days.

    At least that part’s working for him, albeit not as well as his cadre had hoped. This week does hold, according to late polls, the threat of a political spanking tomorrow in Wisconsin, if voters reject the recall of Republican Gov. Scott Walker and endorse his fiscal reforms that have already saved taxpayers millions.

  27. The vetting of Elizabeth Warren’s academic background begins
    http://legalinsurrection.com/2…..nd-begins/

    Most of their study replicates several earlier research publications. These are hardly mentioned. The writers make extravagant and false claims to originality and priority of research. There appear to be serious errors in their use of statistical bases which result in grossly mistaken functions and comparisons. Some of their conclusions cannot be obtained even from their flawed findings. The authors have made their raw data unavailable so that its accuracy cannot be independently checked. In my opinion, the authors have engaged in repeated instances of scientific misconduct.

    Man, if only I stuck with the gravy-train of academia.

    1. IOW, the ratfuckers in the GOP are back at work.

      1. Holy shit, is there no Team Blue cock you won’t suck?

        Brown is a big spending, pretty boy, GOP ass clown but you fucking know that Warren is a lying piece of shit and yet you still defend her?

        1. No, you idiot. Attack Warren for her policy beliefs but this “vetting her academic record” is pure stupidity.

          Since when do wingnecks care about academics?

          You assfucks should have “vetted” your 2008 VP candidate.

          1. “vetting her academic record” is pure stupidity.

            Except when progressives do it. But you wouldn’t know anything about that, would you Mr Conservative?

          2. Yeah WTF?

            If Harvard academics don’t care about academic standards why should anyone else.

          3. your 2008 VP candidate.

            Wayne Allyn Root? Well, you’re right on that one.

            1. We should have vetted our Presidential candidate even more. I’m no fan of Root, but compared to Barr, he’s a libertarian.

              1. Apparently nobody was vetted in 2008, including the man who became our president.

          4. Well since I’m not an icky Republican, I wasn’t a registered member of the Libertarian Party, and I wrote in Mickey Mouse for President, I’m not sure how I could have vetted a VP candidate.

            What her academic record proves is that she is a lying sack of shit and you are still defending her because she’s blue instead of red. Which makes you a Demfag.

        2. Would expect anything less from a vulgar idiot who fantasizes about being Palin’s Buttplug?

          1. Think Occam’s Razor. Palin’s Buttplug is the GOP equivalent.

            1. Anyone who claims to be a Goldwater fan, yet supports Obama… *is* a buttplug.

  28. Trying to prove that they could, in fact, fuck up a wet dream, Think Progress recaps Game of Thrones and tells you what you should think about it. Those people can suck the fun out of anything.

    1. No snark, just curious: What did you object to about the article?

      1. Maybe this?:

        A Song of Ice and Fire has always had a lot of characters who are sex workers, but the books barely give them points of view, much less opportunities for power. There’s something powerful in the way this season has diverted from the books, deconstructing Tyrion’s affection for prostitutes as a condescending nobless oblige that leaves women vulnerable. Tipping Daisy for her tryst with Pycelle is more about Tyrion’s self-satisfaction than her protection?he’s blind enough to send her into Joffrey’s rooms to be beaten to a pulp. And there’s something fitting about the fact that Varys, a man who by some of his peers’ definitions is no man at all, is the one who can truly see Ros as a person, with potential as well as vulnerability. Their inabilities to use their sexualities conventionally, him in conquest, her in marriage, means that others fail to see them fully, and gains them room to maneuver.

        It just rubs me the wrong way, which often happens when I see the word “deconstructing.” Also, sex workers? Although the comments are even worse.

        1. What, you were reading those books/watching those shows for enjoyment? Don’t you know that everything you watch or read is meant to be broken down and deconstructed to find it’s pure underlying meaning?

          1. Don’t you know that everything you watch or read is meant to be broken down and deconstructed to find it’s pure underlying meaning?

            Hey now! Some of us like doing that! 😛

            I actually do enjoy reading stuff that has been broken down, even if I don’t agree with the person’s conclusions, because it usually leads me to thinking about it in a new way, or coming to new realizations about it.

        2. It’s stupid, but then Ros was added as a character precisely to draw in this crowd. A perfectly rendered pander isn’t recognizable by the people being pandered to.

          Hey, did you know the next Disney princess is going to fight with a bow and arrow AND have curly hair! Wow!

          1. I’ve started pretending that what I’m watching on TV has nothing at all to do with the books. That way I can stop worrying about shit like where exactly Ros came from, or why Tywin Lannister has taken Roose Bolton’s place at Harrenhall, or…well, any of a thousand other things, really.

        3. I don’t mind deconstructing stuff (heck, I spent a number of years parsing obscure texts to do just that), but yes, the sex workers thing made me roll my eyes too. It strikes me as trying to apply a 21st century morality/ ethos to something that is clearly not intended that way; GoT takes place in a medieval-type cultural (a fantasy culture at that, which makes it even more problematic). But it’s Think Progress. And you are a braver woman than I to venture into the comments section.

        4. a lot of characters who are sex workers peasant farmers, but the books barely give them points of view, much less opportunities for power.

          1. A masterful deconstruction of the deconstruction 😀

        5. Callgirl! She was a callgirl!

          No Cyril, when they’re dead, they’re just hookers!

  29. Bill Clinton claims that Romney would be ‘Calamitous for our country’

    So Romney is running against Clinton now? Makes sense, since Obama is in a showdown with Bush. It’s going to be an interesting election season.

    1. Clinton has cred here. 1993 to Jan 2001 was the high-water mark for the United States.

      Just compare Bosnia to Iraq for example – NASDAQ 5000 to NASDAQ 1600.

      1. That Gingrich Congress was fantastic wasn’t it?

      2. And when Obama loses this fall are you going to kill yourself over it Shrike? You taking the gas pipe would really make an otherwise unremarkable election special.

      3. Well at least you’re willing to admit what everyone in America already knows: Obama is no Bill Clinton.

        Clinton was successful because he knew when to back off and compromise. Obama on the other hand is the classic invincible ignoramus who knows nothing but thinks he knows everything, and his pride and stubbornness will be his downfall.

        1. Yep – Clinton was a pure pragmatist, Obama is a pure ideologue.

  30. Feeling passive-aggressive? Share this

    1. That was just mean ifh.

    2. That girl looks so stupid for so many reasons – she really didn’t need to add the chewing gum.

    3. what the…I don’t….sk-whaaa?

  31. Why do women keep making passes at me? The eco-warrior aristocrat hailed as the ‘new lesbian face of Britain’ reveals an intriguing modern trend – illicit advances from married women

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..z1wvNzsLcv

    1. The recent spate of “I’m irresistible” article on the Daily Fail is interesting. Assuming “sad delusion” qualifies as interesting.

      1. I bet lots of liberal feminist wives hit on her. They feel it is their way to get street creed.

      2. She may often be the hottest lesbian in the room. That ain’t a very high bar to clear sometimes.

    2. So she’s confirming that all women are just a couple drinks away from hot lesbian action. I think anyone who went to college knows this.

  32. I believe today is the 23rd anniversary of the man with the largest balls in the world revealing his presence.

    Here’s to Tank Man. Let’s hope he got away.

    1. Here’s to Tank Man. Let’s hope he got away.

      Oh, I thought you meant this guy:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer
      And I didn’t know how to let you down easy…

      1. No, no. That’s Killdozer Guy.

        1. Ooooh! That’s right!
          I guess I mixed up his nom-de-boom

    2. Cheers!

    3. Righteous. Fuck them authoritarian bastards.

    1. Thanks. Now my brain hurts from the stupid coming out of Trenton.

    1. LOL. Apparently no one believes in the concept of TMI anymore.

    2. Serial killers, robots, weirdos and Weird Robotic Serial killers.

    3. gee, I think I’m a freak… but there is always a new contestant around the corner.

    4. Man Keeps Staring At His Boss’s Boobs

      When the sidebar is more interesting than the main content…

    5. That was the best pick me up in a while. Whenever I have doubts about my Grooviness, this link will assuage them.

      1. Whenever I have doubts about my Grooviness

        Let’s be honest, someone having doubts about their mithering averageness would have them assuaged by this link. The bar truly is not set very high

        1. It seems there is some money to be made creating a sane/insane filter for dating sites.

    6. Oh whew! I was convinced the squeeze’s tinfoil hat pic was gonna be on there

  33. “The price of the South American country’s government debt has surged, and yields have fallen. Venezuela’s stock index has doubled this year, making it by far the best-performing stock market in the world….a JPMorgan index of Venezuelan dollar bonds [has gained] 9.5% since December, more than twice the 3.67% return on the broader JPMorgan emerging markets bond index.

    Investors have warmed up to Venezuela amid growing uncertainty about the future of the country’s leadership.

    —-Wall Street Journal

    Emphasis added.

    http://professional.wsj.com/ar…..18806.html

    Note to the Europeans who are having trouble selling their debt: leadership matters.

    The markets can’t wait for Chavez to die. They’re trackin’ everything that happens to his colon like they’re trackin’ their favorite team through the playoffs. And when he’s gone? It’ll be all “ding, dong the witch is dead, the wicked witch is dead!”

    Here’s my wish list for the coming year:

    1) Scott Walker wins the recall.

    2) The Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate.

    3) Hugo Chavez drops dead.

    4) Obama gets thrown out on his ass.

    I can dream.

    1. I think all of those are pretty good bets. And I will throw in Castro finally getting his villa in hell, and the EU finally going down as bonuses.

      1. I think two of them work against each other.

        If the Supreme Court strikes the individual mandate down, I think that will give Obama’s reelection campaign more energy. Likewise, if the Supremes uphold the individual mandate, I think that will galvanize Obama’s opposition and make it more likely that Obama gets thrown out on his ass.

        Incidentally, if Liz Warren were to fall flat on her face against Scott Brown, that would be icing on the cake.

        1. I think the mandate going down will be psychologically devastating to liberals. It will demoralize them not energize them.

          1. Do you think the same thing will happen to conservatives if the mandate is upheld?

            If not, then why do you assume liberals will behave differently from conservatives?

            1. If the mandate is upheld, the Conservatives have a way to do something about it, vote. If it is struck down, what can liberals do about it? Even re-electing Obama can’t change the Court. They will be devastated and angry at each other.

    2. You need to elevate your sights.

      1. I’m talkin’ about what’s already on the menu.

    3. 2) The Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate.

      You mean strikes down ObamneyCare, right Ken? I hope you aren’t a “repeal n’ replace” kinda guy.

      FTR, that is one of my biggest fears with the impending ruling that SCOTUS does strike down the IM, but severs and leaves the rest intact (SCOTUS has done this before) and I think that might actually be worse than leaving it in place.

      I can seriously see the opinions reflecting this and creating what is essentially a new law out of existing cloth, to paraphrase Justice Scalia.

      1. Unfortunately I can see this happening. How much are tickets to the Ukraine? I may have to “visit” my ancestor’s birthplace.

      2. I think that if the individual mandate is struck down, it will make the rest of ObamaCare fall like a house of cards. Even the Obama Administration was arguing that ObamaCare couldn’t survive without the individual mandate, right up until it came time to go before the Supreme Court.

        So, I think all we need is the individual mandate struck down–and the rest of ObamaCare will be replaced with something better. …especially if the Republicans make gains in the Senate.

        In the meantime, having the SC go on the record that there are limits to what the government can compel people to do will be a victory all by itself.

        I’m certainly not about to support the mandate or ObamaCare just because I’m afraid we might end up with something worse. I’m not convinced a system without a mandate could be significantly worse than what we’re looking at right now.

    4. 3) Hugo Chavez drops dead.

      This one is a sure thing, and I suspect much sooner than later.

      1. We’re talking a matter of months, right?

        It could be any day now.

  34. Yesterday after work, I helped three kids fish their cell phone out of a storm drain. All it took was a broom handle slathered with duck tape. I asked the kid who owned the phone how old he was. He said nine. It says a lot about the country when nine-year-old ghetto kids have a cell phone.

    1. Without GPS, how will they ever find their way out of the food desert?

      1. Follow the trail of discarded grocery bags? Oh, wait, we’re outlawing those.

        1. It’s for the children. The poor moppets might suffocate on them, that is if they don’t starve first.

    2. I think it says more that the kids couldn’t fish something out of the sewer. Useless fucking morons.

      1. reminds me of one of the new bevis and butthead episodes, where they watch a clip of the jersey shore goons trying to retrieve a volley ball that escaped from their deck.

        They’re busy trying to cobble together a contraption to reach the ball….except, they could have just climbed off the deck and retrieved the ball by hand.

      2. Perverse Incentive

        We had a floor furnace in the house I was a little kid in growing up, a big hot grid you had to walk around in the hall. My dad dropped a quarter down there once, and used a wad of bubblegum on a ruler to get it out. He had me chew the bubblegum. For whatever reason, my mother hated bubblegum and would never let me have any.

        So from then on, whenever I got a quarter, I threw it into the floor furnace.

        1. awesome.

        2. I marvel at these stories. I do wish you would write a novel, Saccharin Man. I’m dead serious about that. You could be this era’s Faulkner, Capote, and Burroughs all rolled into one. Throw in some Allan Ginsberg, too. I’d shill it harder than Doherty grinds his book.

        3. So much is explained.

    3. Duck tape? Thanks a lot; I can’t get the image of a psychotic mallard wrapped in duct tape out of my mind now.

      1. I’ve heard a plausible argument that “duck” is in fact correct when referring to cloth reinforced tape, with “duck” referring to the cotton fabric used in the tape.

        1. having encountered this argument more than once, I suggest a compromise:

          duckt.

          1. Or just make it one word “duktape”.

            1. absolutely not.

        2. Looks like a contrivance to me. Either that or I was using incredibly overly strengthened canvas back then.

      2. Duck is a brand name.

        Seriously.

    1. I can’t stand him. His band sucked. His book was overrated. Why do I know who he is? Couldn’t he have killed himself on smack back in the 1980s like every other self respecting crappy punk artist?

      1. You are a disgrace to your generation.

      2. Black Flag was great. Everything else since then has been varying degrees of suck. And he is legendarily an asshole in person.

        1. I preferred Dez Cadena over Rollins.

      3. His music was pretty bad, but he’s pretty funny in non-musical performances (I think so anyway). It would help if he’d just call it “stand up” instead of the obnoxiously pretentious “spoken word”.

        1. I lost a lot of respect for Rollins after I saw him do a spoken word bit just before the 2008 elections that was mostly him saying that it’s really really important that you need to get out and vote regardless of whether or not you have any idea what the fuck is going on at all.

          If he’d just burned an effigy of Bush onstage I’d have enjoyed it, but, nooo, he had to pussyfoot around with that vote or die horseshit.

          1. I’d love to see someone run an advertizing campaign that said something along the lines of

            If you don’t know the issues, and you don’t know the candidates, please stay home on election day.
            Don’t ruin it for the rest of us by casting a ballot on things you know nothing about.
            No one wants your opinion. You are an ignoramus.
            Stay home.
            Please.
            For the good of the country.
            Stay home.

          2. He is just a dick. I really don’t get why people like him so much.

      4. Once again, you are wrong. Plus, Henry no do drugs asshole. Fuck you and your terrible music collection.

  35. That jsut looks like its gonna be cool!

    http://www.Anon-not.tk

    1. But what do you think about Kim Dotcom?

    2. YigdaHig is Gihadgiy spelled backward. Pretty clever.

    1. Mrs. Suderman will be having a heckuva time attempting that, considering Tina Brown’s lack thereof.

    2. Man, it looks like Tina Brown really wanted to buy The Atlantic.

    1. She is hot. Too bad her husband is going to be a complete bust.

      1. Too bad for whom? She’s got half his signing bonus and is bouning around Miami. And the ‘Fins fans really should know better. Marino is about the only QB to avoid the FL curse. Maybe the old Griese, too. But just maybe.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.