A.M. Links: Mitt Romney's $100 Million Month, Mexico's Marred Election, "Man Made" Fukushima Disaster

|

  • times a million

    Mitt Romney's fundraising figures are hitting his net worth territory; the presidential candidate and the RNC raised a combined $100 million in June. The Obama campaign has not released its fundraising total yet but it raised less than the Romney campaign in May.

  • In Mexico, the ruling party's candidate has joined the leftist candidate Andres Lopez Obrador in questioning the just finished presidential campaign. Stopping short of challenging the legitimacy of the vote, she complained of campaign spending violations. Apparently Mexicans came out to grocery stores in droves after the election to cash in gift cards that allegedly came from the winning candidate's party.
  • An independent investigation in Japan blames government incompetency and cronyism for the disaster at Fukushima, calling it "man made." According to the report "the direct causes of the accident were all foreseeable prior to March 11, 2011."
  • Regulators in London may have been warned about manipulation of the LIBOR rate as early as 2007.
  • A state legislator in Louisiana is shocked a bill she supported to provide taxpayer subsidies to religious schools might be used for Muslim schools. "I liked the idea of giving parents the option of sending their children to a public school or a Christian school," the Republican legislator said.
  • According to this Mother Jones report, there are more than 3,000 times as many UFO sightings as there are cases of credible voter fraud. There are even less instances of super PACs buying an election.
  • Researchers suggest even small volcanoes can produce climate change given the right conditions. Ban them!
  • Publish something awesome between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012? Learn more about the Bastiat Prize for Journalism.

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

Reason.TV: "How Free Markets Will Beat Climate Change: Q&A with UCLA's Matthew Kahn

NEXT: Chip Bok on the ObamaCare Ruling

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. Researchers suggest even small volcanoes can produce climate change given the right conditions. Ban them!

    Ban researchers who suggest that? I’m sure they’re working on it.

    1. Climate change is a myth, a religion.
      Nothing to see here. Move along.

      1. Man-made Climate change is a myth, a religion.

        Fixed

      2. Thanks for sharing, Mary.

      3. The earth’s climate has been continuously changing for the last 4 billion or so years.

        AGW =/= climate change.

        AGW is a discredited theory.

        1. But right now it shouldn’t be changing in its current direction.

          Eh, never mind – if I turn out to be right, the increase in climate-related catastrophes and damage will cause people to flock to their governments anyway, and laissez-faire capitalism will degenerate into a barbarian struggle for resources.

          I kinda win either way, in the sense that neo-liberalism will self-destruct much like communism, but it is a shame it has to take so much down with it.

        2. No it is not.

          There is no doubt that the earth has warmed and plenty of evidence that much if not most (but probably not all) of that warming is a direct result of human activity. Where the AGW crowd has a problem is in their predictions how how bad it will get and how quickly it will get there.

          There are several reasons why this is a problem…

          First they assume that the net impact of feedback loops is positive (that is 1 degree of carbon induced warming produces 1 degree of actual warming) when the best fit to theory to the actual evidence is that they are negative (so enough carbon to warm the atmosphere by 1 degree will produce less than 1 degree of climate change).

          Second, they look at historical analogies where climate changed by n degrees over a short time period and what resulted from that then draw the paralleil that the same temperature differiential will cause the same result today even though there is no evidence for this in nature (changing the temperature from 67 to 72 degrees would barely be noticable, going from 120 to 125 is a much bigger difference).

          In the end AGW is something to be concerned about research and monitor, however there simply is not enough evidence that it represents any sort of societal problem that we need do anything about it in any of our lifetimes, we certainly should not be building policy around the alarmist theories being produced by the AGW crowd.

        3. Warming (or cooling, for that matter) is perfectly fine with libertarians, so long as it’s natural. If it’s man-made, then it’s obviously a hoax, a heresy, not to be tolerated by the collective.

          1. Watermelons know that the optimal global temperature was achieved on August 15, 1969. They can’t explain why, and they can’t be sure that any of their policies will get us back to that temperature. But they are sure that buying indulgences from Pope Algore cleanses you of original sin, and they are totally willing to fuckup the entire world economy just to show that they made an honest attempt to return to Eden.

    2. From what I can tell, the “small” volcano put out more SO2 in the year cited than the entire world. Mt. Pinatubo put out 10x that in one day. And people wonder why I think the anthropic effect is not a primary or even secondary effect.

      1. UNBELIEVER! BLASPHEMER!!

    3. Banning is not right. We need a more market oriented approach. Cap them and trade them to other planets.

      1. Io has several hundred active volcanoes. I bet the Iotians would like a few more.

        1. They’ve got a surplus. No one in government likes a surplus.

          1. Or they’re trying to corner the market in volcanoes.

  2. According to this Mother Jones report, there are more than 3,000 times as many UFO sightings as there are cases of credible voter fraud.

    So they’re saying it takes 3,000 aliens to cheat a single election?

    1. Don’t blame me, I voted for Kang!

    2. And infinitely more credible voter fraud cases than credible UFO sightings. Its like comparing Steve Smith sightings to responsible politician sightings.

      1. There are plenty of credible UFO sightings. That doesn’t mean that the UFOs were extraterrestrial, it just means credible people saw objects flying and were unable to identify them.

        1. C’mon. That’s not the way they are using it.

      2. Does it count as a UFO sighting when you see a plane or helicopter and are unable to determine the exact make and model?

    3. Forgive them. Since they’ve mastered interstellar travel they’ve clearly surrendered to government (how else would they be in space?), so they aren’t used to elections.

    4. I find it telling how little voter fraud comes to light. It’s absurd to think it doesn’t happen, especially given the stakes at the federal level.

      1. To be fair, this doesn’t prove it’s not happening. It just proves that if it is happening they are really good at it.

        1. Or it just gets ignored.

    5. I still don’t think the local ACLU has paid up on a bet they made.

      They promised $1000 for any proof of voter fraud here in Sunny Minnesota. The local group pushing for photo ID to vote promptly offered proof.

      This issue has real traction here because of a couple of local races that were super close (Franken vs. Coleman and our gubernatorial race last election).

      1. In the Franken race, they kept finding more bags of ballots and surprise! Every vote was for Franken.

        1. Thats alot like what happened here in Washington the first time Christine Gregoire got elected governor. She lost by a few hundred votes, demanded a recount, lost again by a few hundred votes. Then she demanded a HAND recount, and somone magically found 500+ ballots that allegedly got stuck in machines in King County and sealed her victory by a couple hundred votes.

  3. While you were eating your government mandated broccoli, Obama was chowing down on a burger and fries while admonishing others to do whatever their wives tell them.

    1. do whatever their wives tell them
      So Michelle is the puppetmaster equivalent to Dick Cheney?

      Seriously, O must have some serious passive aggressiveness built up if he’s that kind of man. Or maybe he’s really that kind of beta male?

    2. …while admonishing others to do whatever their wives tell them.

      So is he secretly married to Axelrod or Soros?

  4. No matter how Shrieking Idiot tries to spin things, it was another absolutely dismal month for the economy in June, as the official unemployment rate remains unchanged at 8.2%, and a mere pathetic 80,000 jobs were created.

    1. That’s less than what is required to keep pace with population growth. Hope and Change!

      1. Right, the unemployment rate should be trending up with employment growth under 100k a month.

      2. Optimistically, that’s about 1/3 the number of new jobs we need just to stay even with growth in the working age population.

        1. Need more death panels.

    2. Your comment doesn’t count if there’s no link.

      http://tinyurl.com/7s8ztem

    3. While not disagreeing with your statement about this year’s recovery summer, the Seasonal Adjustments substracted more than 1million jobs from the report. I take issue with the silly adjustments that pretend to provide data stability in abnormal times. No SA, no premature elation in the winter, no premature doom and gloom in the summer.

    4. From here:

      “Adults who have quit looking and left the labor force altogether are responsible for 99% of the reduction in the unemployment rate from 10% since October 2009.”

      I’ve seen that number bandied around a few places, but I don’t know the source. If it’s true, it’s a devastating statistic as it means that essentially nothing has changed in the job market on net since 2009.

      1. Yep, the real labor force participation rate remained unchanged at an absolutely dismal 63.8%, which is still close to the lowest level in 30 years.

      2. essentially, nothing has changed since 2009 beyond the perception that the current situation is not going to be helped with four more years of Obama. That does not mean Mitt is the savior, just a belief that the slide may stop.

  5. “An independent investigation in Japan blames government incompetency and cronyism for the disaster”

    Goes together like pizza and beer.

    1. I’d love to see those independent investigators looking over a few things here in the USA.

    2. Or piss and shit.

      1. I was going to say “white and rice”, but that sounded racist.

        1. Oh, so rice can’t be brown then?

          RACIST!!!

          1. But can it be “blown”?

  6. According to this Mother Jones report, there are more than 3,000 times as many UFO sightings as there are cases of credible voter fraud.

    So you’re saying government drones have been programmed to vote.

  7. In just five months, the Obama administration has freed schools in more than half the nation from central provisions of the No Child Left Behind education law, raising the question of whether the decade-old federal program has been essentially nullified.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07…..wanted=all

    1. George Bush’s good friend and prime mover of the law, Ted Kennedy, could not be reached for comment.

      And why actually go and get the law changed or revoked, just exempt people from enforcement! Works for immigration too.

      1. And why actually go and get the law changed or revoked, just exempt people from enforcement! Works for immigration too.
        and Healthcare?

        1. but it doesn’t work for drugs for some reason.

          1. That’s cause drugs R bad, mm’kay?

            1. Sun must’ve come up this morning… shrike is polishing the Obama turd.

      2. Works for immigration too.

        1. morning squirrels — was gonna say, and health care judging from all the waivers given to favored constituencies.

    2. In a speech to the American Enterprise Institute this year, Representative John Kline, a Minnesota Republican and the chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Work Force, accused the administration of using waivers “in exchange for states adopting the policies he wants them to have.”

      Unfortunately it seems the article provides no further information about whether this accusation is correct or not. I’ll reserve my judgment on this for the time being. But I do like the hopeful result that Congress and the President are less chummy in the future.

      1. Its absolutely true. Medicaid waivers are given out as part of a package of doing what CMS wants you to do.

    3. Nullification? Isn’t that something that states’ rights racists and anti-government extremists on juries do?

    4. So you’re looking forward to when a Republican President does this for PPACA, right?

  8. Jennifer Aniston is still a total bitch.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..eroux.html

    Taylor Swift is still a total dork.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..-clan.html

    1. Holy shit, that kid looks just like his dad. So that’s what Arnold would look like if he was a total pussy.

      1. What’s up with his tiny head?

        1. Lack of steroidal inflation?

    2. She might be a bitch but she’s still hot.

      1. Yes she is. Good lord.

    3. Why is Taylor Swift at the world famous Kennedy Rape Compound?.

      KRC? – ‘We do Chicken Right!’

  9. It’s good to be Leo.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..erton.html

    1. Perhaps. But not because of that GF.

      1. Pretty charitable of him to date an albino Ethiopian.

    2. OMG, that douchetastic beard. Leo doesn’t do anything for me on a good day, but that beard is just… there aren’t even words.

      1. It’s the wrong beard for him. He could get by with a Johnny Depp sort of thing, maybe, but not that thing.

  10. Killing people is fun!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..n-Pie.html

    1. Fuck yeah it is. Why not enjoy your job?

    2. He’ll come home and join the cops.

  11. Apparently Mexicans came out to grocery stores in droves after the election to cash in gift cards that allegedly came from the winning candidate’s party.

    I truly wish that all that constituents wanted from their representative was a gift card per election.

    1. “Here’s your $50. See you again in a couple years.” *waves good-bye*

      That would be awesome.

  12. Hodges mistakenly assumed that “religious” meant “Christian.”

    “There may be more hidden things in the laws that we are not even aware of right now,”

    Lots of stupid in that Lousiana link.

    1. Can we add an amendment to codify the notion of separation of some church and state? Maybe a matrix of which churches and which state agencies are allowed to mingle?

      1. That is why I oppose vouchers. My tax dollars should not go to a madrassa (Christian or Muslim in nature).

        1. What about people who don’t want their tax dollars going to secular humanist liberal indoctrination centers (aka public schools)?

          Oh yeah.

          1. The Constitution is on our side – not yours.

            (see the Establishment Clause)

            1. Yes, a neutral voucher that can be used at any educational institution “establishes” state religion.

              Fuck,you’re stupid. But we knew this…

              PS SLD re: state-funded edumacationz…

              1. Look, I am against tax breaks for any religious institution.

                They are all for profit in the end.

                1. They are all for profit in the end.

                  Personally I am an atheist, yet I very much respect the charitable work that churches do in this country and around the world.

                  But I know why you despise them. What they do is voluntary. No force is used to extract the funds that they use to help people.

                  That must burn you up, people voluntarily helping each other.

                  Who do they think they are? Government?

                  1. But I know why you despise them. What they do is voluntary. No force is used to extract the funds that they use to help people.

                    To be fair, I think Shriek despises religions because his atheism is founded on his assessment of the consequences of religion, which he believes to be negative. And also to be fair, that’s a lousy foundation for atheism.

                  2. I’ll bet shrike mouthed the word “profit” while he was typing it, spittle dripping from his chinless features in the process.

            2. the EC has nothing to do with vouchers giving parents the option of getting their kids out of shitty schools. That this LA woman is stupid does not change the overall incompetence of the public school system.

            3. Secular humanism is a religion, dumbass.

              Which means you indeed support the establishment of a state religion, as long as it is your religion.

              1. “Secular humanism is a religion, dumbass.”

                A religion usually requires some sort of theology. I think. I’m not up on this because all religion is useless to humankind.

                1. I think.

                  Obviously not.

                2. Faith in the state is also a religion.

              2. Secular humanism is a religion, dumbass.

                This is why I’m against socialized education. Well that, and the fact that most public schools are horribly inefficient and crowd out good schooling.

            4. See how you dodged sarcasmic’s question.

            5. This is precisely the reason to support vouchers. Vouchers support minorities, as this one legislator found out to her dismay.

              The alternative in quite a lot of places is to have, e.g., the public schools effectively not teach evolution at all in order to avoid offending the majority or large plurality.

              For someone who claims to hate rednecks, shriek, you sure are intent on making people who want their kids to get taught science have to live with the curriculum decisions of the majority.

              Freedom is best for minorities of all kinds.

              1. “Rednecks” is a popular term among leftists, who define it as “anyone who is not a solid Democrat voter”.

        2. You realize, of course, that some people donate a portion of their SSI check to their church?

          If you oppose any transfer payment program where a portion of the proceeds may end up going to a church…poof. You now have to oppose ALL transfer payment programs.

          1. Oh, shrike’s all for THOSE kinds of transfer payments!

    2. The Law of Unintended Consquences is the first thing passed every session of the Legislature, yes?

    3. Yeah, in a fit of masochism I went and looked, and I could feel brain cells dying and synapses drying up the longer I read.

  13. How Stockton went broke.
    http://in.reuters.com/article/…..6L20120704
    Pensions, healthcare, boondoogles

    Many retirees are in a state of shock about that.
    “I believed the city would honor its commitments,” said Geri Ridge, 56.

    That’s the future of America – “I believed the country would honor its commitments.”

    1. The country will honor its committments, but with confiscated savings and worthless greenbacks.

    2. Oh, so *that’s* what that BELIEVE bumper sticker means.

    3. You shoulda believed in math, sweetie.

    4. …Median home prices in Stockton slumped to $110,000 in 2009, erasing nearly a decade’s gains worth of government induced distortions in the housing market….

      That’s better.

    5. I find it stunning that anyone would be so naive to believe that a burden so great (supporting overwhelmingly generous retirement/benefit packages) would not ultimately collapse upon itself. Take a look at the Greeks if you can’t figure out why these programs have failed. Not enough taxpayers (true earners) to support the slackers.

      Sadly, why should anyone trust the government? When I joined the military they were promising free medical and dental for life; not a very large paycheck back then and the last troops were withdrawing from Viet Nam. Yes, I believed it but as I saw Congress slowly eroding those so-called benefits, my trust of government eroded with them.

  14. Apparently Mexicans came out to grocery stores in droves after the election to cash in gift cards that allegedly came from the winning candidate’s party.

    Before we condemn the PRI for this, it should be noted that the Democratic Party here in the U.S. does more or less the same thing.

    It’s just that here in the U.S., the gift cards are handed out by the government–they’re called EBT cards.

    You can read more about the program here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E…..t_Transfer

    1. Hah! It’s true because it’s funny!

      OK, not really funny at all. sigh

    2. Sir, I really don’t need to be enraged this morning – all you are doing is reminding me of most times I am at the grocery store picking out items quite frugally, while the EBT card waving hordes are loading up on the good stuff.

    3. EBT cards are most prevalent (by %) in Red States.

      1. Have you ever taken a class in formal logic or the like? If so, ask for a refund.

        1. Notice how shrike always stands up for leftists, and never for anyone else.

          1. I would love to see an individual breakdown of the folks waving their EBT cards around the stores I am in – I suspect they are not voting Libertarian or Team Red.

            1. Welfare-queen stereotype = racist!

              /snark

              1. I am an equal opportunity h8er – there are plenty of dudes whipping out the EBTs and loading up too.

            2. Kentucky is a deep red state outside of two metro areas (Fayette County and Jefferson County). 18.8% of Kentuckians are on food stamps. Fayette is 10% and Jefferson is 15%.

              A lot of TEAM RED voters are on SNAP.

              1. All of TEAM PURPLE is on a high horse.

              2. Them too, of course, but they’re not going to vote Team Blue just because they get SNAP cards.

                Virtually every other welfare-case, though, WILL vote Team Blue. Reliably.

              3. And what really pisses PB off is those votes were bought and paid for…

                How dare they vote for the other team.

      2. Of course, the Democrats have already won over the blue states.

      3. Can you buy your adult diapers on your EBT card, or do you rely on your whoring income?

        1. He gets some of them from the guys at the truck stops, more than likely.

      4. EBT cards are most prevalent (by %) in Red States.

        Even if they are [more] prevalent in Red States (because you say so?), how much you wanna bet they’re going disproportionately to Team Blue voters?

        There are two kinds of people in this country–working people and the parasites who feed on them.

        Team Blue is [more] prevalent (by %) in giving the hard earned money of working people over to parasites.

        That’s their reason for existence. It’s who they are. It’s what they do.

        1. There are two kinds of people in this country–working people and the parasites who feed on them.

          Producerist, much?

          Team Blue is [more] prevalent (by %) in giving the hard earned money of working people over to parasites.

          Really? You mean the ‘establishment’ GOP isn’t full of ‘hands off my Medicare’ and keep the Brown hordes from coming to my neighborhood what with their Islam and hippity-hop music and “the Pot” old people?

          Nigga, please!

          1. The GOP was spectacular at giving working people’s money away…

            My original comment was in regards to one party giving away free grocery cards in return for votes.

            The PRI and Mexico are not unique in that regard–and the Democratic Party here in the U.S. effectively engages in the same behavior.

            No need to be distracted by Shrike. The point stands.

      5. EBT cards are most prevalent (by %) in Red States.

        so, what you are saying, is that you are against them too? right? And you just can’t help being an asshole while you agree with us?

    1. Silly, Cisco, the Internet is for porn!

      1. I had a terrible vision of the Trix Rabbit being admonished by Larry Flint with just those words – thanks for that, Brett.

        1. Original Broadway cast version.

    2. Fuck. I’ve got a Cisco router.

      If I have to go in and get rid of their stupid default cloud service, I will be pissed, and sharing the pain.

      Am I the only one who sees cloud computing as a giant opportunity for disaster, whether security or operations?

      1. Am I the only one who sees cloud computing as a giant opportunity for disaster, whether security or operations?

        No. I turn that shit off whenever I come across it.

      2. Pretty much. Especially with all of the data centers geographically clustered in either the Central Atlantic or Pacific NW.

    3. They should be ashamed at such poor reporting. You can look at all of the porn you want, but you just can’t store it to Cisco’s (entirely optional) cloud service. John Chambers just wants to be sure that he’s not the next Kim Dotcom.

  15. Japan blames government incompetency

    Incompetence means the same thing, while being one syllable shorter.

    1. The incompetencyness of the writer is on display for all to see.

      1. It’s truly incompetencynessive.

    2. Government always uses extra resources (syllables) when available.

    3. Hey, we’re not blaming Reason inelegance here.

    4. I am actually kind of curious if we’ll see Japanese politicians flinging themselves off rooftops over this. “Face” is still very much a viable concept there.

      1. I am more a participatory democracy guy (ie. the Defenestration of Prague).

  16. http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimbal…..-tomatoes/

    Atheists Muslims and Jews, beware of Christian tomatoes.

    1. I knew there was a reason why I’m allergic.

    2. Sheesh. I suppose Muslims may not eat figs, then?

    3. Atheists Muslims and Jews, beware of Christian tomatoes.

      Needs more commas to make sense.

      Jus’ sayin’

      1. You make sense out of it how you want to, and I’ll make sense of it how I want to.

  17. I am not one of the crazed Voter ID people, but the absence of evidence of voter fraud doesn’t impress me.

    The way things are set up now, there’s no feasible way to detect or prosecute voter fraud, no matter what scale it’s happening on.

    Saying there’s no proven voter fraud when we’ve got no way to detect it would be like scrapping the IRS’ ability to audit returns and then turning around and announcing that there was no evidence anyone cheated on their taxes.

    1. “The way things are set up now, there’s no feasible way to detect or prosecute voter fraud, no matter what scale it’s happening on.”

      So naturally, use voter purging slanted against your political opponents because you’d rather be safe than sorry?

      I know libertarians don’t value democracy, but at least try to put on appearances.

      1. Thanks for sharing, Mary.

      2. So if enforcing the law hurts one side because they can’t have their ineligible supporters vote anymore, we should not do it?

        Lay off the bath salts and take your med Mary.

        1. “So if enforcing the law hurts one side because they can’t have their ineligible supporters vote anymore”

          There are perfectly eligible voters that don’t have voter ID, can’t take the time to vote without taking a noticeable income hit etc. Like I said – libertarians despise democracy, but they usually try to put on airs.

          1. It’s illegal for an employer to penalize an employee for taking time necessary to vote. Are you aware of this, or just casting forth a strawman?

            1. Who said anything about penalties?

              1. …can’t take the time to vote without taking a noticeable income hit etc…

                You did.

                1. Most states don’t require employers giving employees the time to vote.

                  1. Most polls are open longer than 9-5.

                    1. Many people work two jobs.

                    2. So fine then. Set up this thing called a website. You code your vote, along with your Social Security Number. Once your SSN is used, it gets locked until next election day.

                    3. But Social Security numbers aren’t supposed to be used for identification purposes.

          2. Everyone has an ID dipshit. The only way not to have an ID is to completely drop off the map. You can’t even get welfare without an ID.

            Try again Mary, and stop self medicating before you do.

            1. Some ID is valid for welfare, but can be made ineligible for voting.

              What is happening here is that you are happily swallowing what some politicians are saying about other people in order to scare you into accepting rank political abuse against fellow people, and you are pretending fraud is a problem and voter ID is not an imposition to hide the fact that you are exhibiting fascist tendencies.

              1. you need ID to: buy beer, cash a check, rent a hotel room, sometimes to get into an R-rated movie, board a plane, and do a thousand other things but requiring it for voting constitutes an imposition? Please. That is weapons grade silly.

                1. Read between the lines wareagle.

                  They’re saying that minorities are too fucking stupid to get a picture id.

                2. Only because it stops illegals from voting, or fraud. Oh, voting for the right person that is. If it was the situation all around like the turn of the 20th Century, corrupt KC Repub machine in place – DoJ would be all over it yelling “IDS FOR ALL VOTING!!1! PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF VOTING! VOTE FRAUD DISENFRANCHISES MINORITIES!11!”

                3. Photo ID.

                4. you need ID to: buy beer, cash a check, rent a hotel room, sometimes to get into an R-rated movie, board a plane, and do a thousand other things but requiring it for voting constitutes an imposition?

                  You don’t know the difference between public and private?

                  As much as it pains me to agree with Mary, voter ID is just a prequel to National ID.

              2. Is it rank political abuse to require ID to get into the Department of Justice?

                1. How about requiring an ID to get assistance from a food shelf?

                  If poor people can come up with an ID to get free food, I’d think they can come up with an ID to vote.

            2. The only way not to have an ID is to completely drop off the map.

              And last time I checked, people in America still have that right.

          3. Lay off the stupid pills. Seriously. Any more and you’ll overdose.

          4. Pray, explain this inability to get a voter ID – where, when and to whom this has happened. Links are appreciated!

            1. If you link me to evidence of fraud being a problem.

              1. Your assertion – it has no basis, while the assertion that voter fraud is hard to detect has a logical basis. If you simply want to admit you made an untrue assertion, it would be a healthy thing.

                1. “Your assertion – it has no basis, while the assertion that voter fraud is hard to detect has a logical basis”

                  So since it hard to detect, there is some and you’d better be safe than sorry?

                  How many eligible voters purged is acceptable collateral damage?

                  Libertarians don’t want people to vote unless it is for libertarians, but it’s another to side with republicans trying to target particular demographics.

                  1. Where are these collateral, eligible voters being purged? FL was removing foreigners and dead people – you want them left on?

                    1. Just come out and say it “Team Blue stands to benefit, so I want the status quo – damn the integrity of the system!”

                    2. Florida also provides ID cards to low income individuals at no charge. We (Florida) aren’t targeting any particular demographic. The ID requirements are the same for my 83 year old Republican mother as they are for the twenty-something year old Hispanic across the street. The idea that Florida is somehow disenfranchising any particular group is ridiculous to the point of dishonesty.

              2. Well you see in 1995 we all know that there were no Steroids in Baseball because obviously no one had ever tested positive for using them. Therefore it is obviously true that testing ballplayers for steroids is an unnecessary imposition on them designed to fix a non existant problem.

                1. The ink shows two cases–one in Miami, the other in Hialeah. Both used the names of dead people who were still on the rolls.

          5. There are perfectly eligible voters that don’t have voter ID, can’t take the time to vote without taking a noticeable income hit etc.

            What does voter ID have to do with this? If they can’t take off work to vote, why would having (or not) a photo ID make a difference?

            1. You have to have valid ID to get a job. It’s required by form I9:

              http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf

              1. ya, get rid of this and we’ll talk.

          6. There are perfectly eligible voters that don’t have voter ID

            Bull Fucking Shit.

            My mother in law is a 90 yo Russian immigrant that speaks almost no english and still has a picture id.

            1. “My mother in law is a 90 yo Russian immigrant that speaks almost no english and still has a picture id.”

              My anecdote is better at sports than your anecdote.

              1. So who are these retarded minorities that can’t figure out how to get picture ids and don’t have anyone to help them?

              2. Um, the I9 anectdote above is the 5 of a kind to your king high hand.

                You need a valid state issued photo id to be able to get a job in America and have needed one since the late 1980’s.

                Why is it that we cannot put the same id restrictions on voting that we place on employment?

              3. It’s funny that they’re so busy that they can’t take time off work to go vote or get an ID, yet they have to have an ID to get the job that makes them too busy to have enough time to get an ID to vote.

                You have to have an ID to get the job that makes you too busy in the first place, dumbass. Unless, of course, you are not eligible to work in this country (different argument, I know) and are working illegally, which would preclude your ability to vote anyway.

      3. I didn’t make a policy recommendation.

        I am merely commenting on the “There’s no proof voter fraud is occurring” meme out there.

        How could there be proof?

        If I had 20 guys driving around all day voting all over the state in, say, Massachusetts, sticking to high-population precincts, giving the names of people they know are either dead or have moved from the state, they could vote scores of times each and never be caught.

        There’s no mechanism by which they could be caught.

        The only way such a scheme could ever come to light is if one of the participants decided to publicize it, implicating themselves.

        Voter fraud is so easy that we should expect there to be no evidence of it.

        That being said, I think that while it’s pretty easy to do in individual cases (I’m absolutely sure I could vote one or two additional times in any election I chose), it’s probably very difficult to do on a scale that would impact elections in a dramatic way. So it’s a “problem” that is simultaneously outrageous, but trivial. And in such a circumstance I’m not sure I want to continue to feed the growth of the “Papers, please!” trend in our society to solve a trivial problem.

        1. The biggest hole we’ve blown in our election integrity is having the polls open multiple days.

          Its a force multiplier for fraud, and hasn’t noticeably increased participation rates, as far as I know.

          Photo ID, one day of polling, and you have to show up in person and show ID to get an absentee ballot, and we could stop worrying about retail vote fraud, and move on to wholesale counting fraud.

          1. How did these people who want to vote without ID get to be registered voters in the first place?

            And if we aren’t going to ID people to vote because it’s too much work for them to get ID, shouldn’t we get rid of registration as well?

            1. I can understand (at all) the claim that requiring IDs is trying to suppress voters. If you’ve got to be a US citizen and a resident of the area you are voting in and the correct age to vote, isn’t it logical to check all that before letting someone vote?

              1. “can’t”. Stupid preview. Can’t we get an edit button now that we’ve got registration?

              2. “I can understand (at all) the claim that requiring IDs is trying to suppress voters.”

                You probably can’t understand why some people queue for hours in advance to get into temporary free dental clinics either. Most libertarians are very sheltered like that.

                1. Did you just high five yourself after that cutting remark?

        2. In general I don’t approve of ID’s being required everywhere, but if there is one place it should be, that would be voting.

          …though I actually voted in the primaries this year by having my mother show up to get an absentee ballot then telling her who to check off and return.

        3. So it’s a “problem” that is simultaneously outrageous, but trivial. And in such a circumstance I’m not sure I want to continue to feed the growth of the “Papers, please!” trend in our society to solve a trivial problem.

          But, but, but…. Brietbart said it was a problem!

        4. Actually the issue with voter fraud is, as I alluded to above with my baseball steroids analogy, that we really don’t have any idea how much of it is happening. It could be a very large problem in some places, more than enough to swing close elections but until we actually start putting some measures in place to be able to catch it we reallt don’t have any clue how big of a problem it is.

          See what you are saying here is essentially the same thing Baseball Leadership (the teams, the union, the league, all of them) was saying about Steroids right up through the Mitchell report, “Oh there are some players using but they are the exception”, except we have now found out that it wasn’t just “some” players it is a very significant percentage of them including nearly all of the biggest names in the game.

          Well we are in the same place now, we know voter fraud is happening because there have been a few people caught, and a few elections where the numbers don’t add up, what we don’t know is whether the fraud accounts for under 1% of all ballots cast or over 5%, and more importantly we don’t know if there are places where the levels of fraud are so bad that they make the entire electoral process meaningless (Chicago is a prime candidate).

          Saying the problem is trivial is just too premature as of this time, especially given how partaisan the electorate has gotten and how many really close high profile elections we have had lately (and we are very likely to have another this year).

      4. Are you afraid to have potentially undocumented/illegally registered voters discounted? Wow, that would really mess up the system, huh?

    2. Maybe I’ve missed something, and I didn’t RTFA, but haven’t there been plenty of stories of fraud, such as in Houston, Chicago, and the like?

      I know I’ve seen news reports of voter rolls that included dead people apparently voting and whatnot…Was none of that true?

  18. Real middle class tax rate 75%

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..ax-rate-75

    1. You’re going to make me change my handle to Extremely Bitter Taxpayer.

    2. We pay over $12,000 annually for barebones healthcare insurance

      I pay $135 per month. I dont think he is really buying a bare bones plan.

      1. You might be paying for health insurance, which insures your assets against a sudden and unexpected health expense. He is paying for healthcare insurance, which guarantees he’ll pay too much for healthcare unless he has a sudden and unexpected health expense.

        1. Brilliant.

        2. You might be paying for health insurance, which insures your assets against a sudden and unexpected health expense.

          Yep, mine is an HSA, so the first $2500 is out of pocket (although pre-tax if I first funnel the money thru my HSA account).

          Im well protected against a huge medical bill.

          1. I have it on good authority that doesn’t really count since you have to (gasp) pay for going to the doctor.

          2. I do the same. Mine is slightly more expensive, but that could just be the state coverage differences.

            1. Mine doesnt cover maternity (duh).

              If I were female or it was a family plan, it still wouldnt cover maternity. I was kind of surprised that was mandated.

              Friends of mine recently discovered that and have switched plans, because they have to be on the new one for a year before maternity coverage kicks in.

              1. Surprised that WASNT mandated.

              2. Well maternity shouldn’t be a sudden and unexpected expense. I have some friends who did the whole thing cash on the table for $5000 plus the anesthesia (which was at least that much). Which comes out to about $1000/month. Call it $1500 if you’re late getting around to it.

                1. Women don’t have a choice in having a child! They shouldn’t be held responsible for the costs of having one, even if they have access to abstinence, birth control, adoption, or abortion.

    3. Of course taxes are too damn high, but counting health insurance as a “tax” because other countries give it to you for “free” (as they did in the calculation) is laughable.

      1. Agreed. Especially when you consider that he is voluntarily paying about 10x what he needs to be paying (although he used the term “we”, so maybe its a family plan — which lowers the x a bit).

      2. Even if you cut that out, the percentage is still over 50% which is outrageous.

        1. Yes, it is. I’m recently out of college, and made 29K last year, the first year I ever made enough to pay taxes, and it was a shock how much I owed after getting a refund in previous less-earning years. How the hell nearly half the country doesn’t pay any taxes I can’t imagine.

          1. because the tax code is full of social engineering. Just wait till you can claim some dependents – get married, a couple of kids, a few other things. That’s how folks wind up with zero liability.

          2. You need more snot factories running around. They are giant income sinks, but they shield against taxes pretty well, too.

            1. Its not a very good trade, dollar-wise. They are always wanting to be fed, clothed, shelterd, take music lessons and such.
              If I wouldn’t need them to wheel me up the ramp into the Old Soldier’s Home someday, I’d consider cuttin’ ’em off.

              1. “Orphan: Daddy Bender, we’re hungry.

                Bender: What’s with you kids? Every other day it’s food, food, food… Alright, I’ll get you some stupid food.

                Orphan: Can we have Bender Burgers again?

                Bender: No! The cat shelter’s on to me.”

          3. Hey, all of the north FL people (that I know of) in one post.

            1. strength in numbers, man. 🙂

      3. Yeah, I usually like their stuff, but I just quit reading at that point.

    4. Extremely deceitful article. To take one example, the author’s comparison of average property taxes (in high tax states) with median household income (which I assume he’s doing but it’s hard to tell) is non-sensical and would only be done by the stupid or the mendacious.

      John, you need some serious help understanding your own finances if you think the article isn’t deceitful. I don’t know how much the taxpayers pay you, but I’m pretty sure that you don’t wind up living on only 25% of it. The fact you would believe someone who claims as much makes me fear for the future of the republic.

    5. Counting private medical insurance as a tax might serve to pad the numbers, but it’s bullshit. Drop that, and it’s 60%, per the article.

    6. While his point that the actual middle class tax rate is higher than most realize nowhere does it approach 75% and I don’t care how he chooses to slice it no amount of word play can turn Health Insurance into a tax, not even after Obamacare. Hell if he is going to use that line then housing and food are taxes too as they are far more manditory than healthcare insurance.

      Further he confuses the top marginal rate that a household would pay with their effective tax rate, just because I may be in the 25% bracket does not mean I am paying 25% of my income in Taxes, depending on the specifics of my household the effective rate would end up averaging far closer to 5 – 15%.

      That said what he missis are things like erosion of asset value thanks to inflation and embedded corporate taxes (wait, you didn’t think those stockholders paid those taxes did you? No they make sure the CFO very carefully structures things so that tax costs are either borne by the workers or by the customers) which is on average 22% of every dollar spent (for most middle income households means their entire income).

      In the end that is going to put middle income households paying a total effective tax rate of somewhere between 35% and 65% depending on family size, actual income level, spending/saving paterns, whether they are a homeowner or not, and a hundred other factors but it will not be anywhere near 75% for more than a very tiny percentage and it is not that high because of non tax “necessities”.

  19. Can I reiterate my earlier position that Evangelical Christians are responsible for Bush, who begat Obama (by being a miserable failure), and begat Roberts (by appointing him), who together begat ObamaTax?

    This is why the collapse of religious building construction is the only thing giving me hope. We won’t be politically free until the death cult of the Baby Jeebus goes the way of Zeus worship.

    Fuck Jesus with Satan’s dick.

    1. Read the fucking article. It is the collapse of a bubble from the mid 00s.

      Sorry dude you are fucked. You will always be a loathed minority. But it could be worse, you could be a Jew and know everyone wants to kill you. As it is, people will just find you annoying.

      1. Buh Buy, Jeebus:

        Religion Among the Millennials
        By some key measures, Americans ages 18 to 29 are considerably less religious than older Americans. Fewer young adults belong to any particular faith than older people do today. They also are less likely to be affiliated than their parents’ and grandparents’ generations were when they were young. Fully one-in-four members of the Millennial generation – so called because they were born after 1980 and began to come of age around the year 2000 – are unaffiliated with any particular faith. Indeed, Millennials are significantly more unaffiliated than members of Generation X were at a comparable point in their life cycle (20% in the late 1990s) and twice as unaffiliated as Baby Boomers were as young adults (13% in the late 1970s). Young adults also attend religious services less often than older Americans today. And compared with their elders today, fewer young people say that religion is very important in their lives….

        1. You have one small generation in one country. I have the entire African continent and a lot of Asia that says otherwise. Religion isn’t going anywhere. Boring American Protestantism may be dying. But “religion” be it Islam, Hindu, Catholic or Orthodox or whatever, isn’t going anywhere.

          And when nice tolerant American Protestantism dies, I think you are going to miss it a lot because the rest of the world isn’t so tolerant.

        2. Cycles.

          This has happened, what 4-5 times in US history?

        3. and your point is? Younger people tend to be less religious than older folks, and the makeup of the US is markedly different from what the Millenials’ grandparents grew up in.

          By the way, “unaffiliated” does not mean unreligious; it just means they don’t go to a particular church. Maybe some are atheists or agnostics, but that is left up in the air. Also, simple math shows that 75% ARE affiliated.

        4. You saw this in the Museum of the Anti-God, or was it written by someone holding a Chair in Scientific Atheism? Oh, wait, that was the late 1800s when God died…

        5. I’m thinking some sort of X-Box interactive Bible, you get to first person fight your way through the old testament, level up your Moses or you won’t be able to part the Red Sea. Practice your slinging on a shit load of Phillistines because Goliath is the Boss monster for the 900 BC level…

          1. Sneak your sommandos into Jericho, hook up with some whores to accomplish your mission. Much like Grand Theft Auto. The kids would flock back to religion.

            1. Grand Demolition Jericho?

            2. Make sure to aquire the +3 Jawbone of Ass before you enter the Philistine level.

        6. Going areligious seems to be doing wonders for Europe. And I say that as an agnostic.

          Symptom, or cause, of course, is hard to figure out.

        7. Atheists don’t have babies.

    2. Yes, that is why I am anti-GOP until they clean house (not hopeful).

      1. You are mindless fucking hack who would vote Dem even if it meant being sent to the camps. Shut the fuck up you demonic little bastard. And last I looked the Dems were full of religious people. Jesus fucking Christ all of the mainline protestant denominations are totally leftist you ignorant little troll.

        1. “You are mindless fucking hack who would vote Dem even if it meant being sent to the camps.”

          Did you know Orwell was a firm believer in the welfare state?

          You know – if we had back-to-back democratic presidents and congress majorities over the next 24 years, I don’t think a single person would be sent to any camp?

          Sure, some psychotic white trash sperglord might pull another Waco and get got, but seriously.

          1. Go fuck yourself Mary. Everyone here hates you even more than Shrike.

            And if you don’t have a serious point to make, which you never do and never will, spare us.

            1. “Go fuck yourself Mary.”

              See now you get sent to the camps *first* once our statist plan conquers America.

              Because since I am not a libertarian, I am obviously more prone to fascist, evil behavior. If only I had read bodice-ripping novels by Rand when I was younger, I would be a less degenerate and more ethically developed human.

              1. Calling you a fascist is an insult to fascist. You are too stupid even for that. You are just a mindless idiot who likes to shit on things.

                1. Why the fuck are you here, “shitheel”? You have no friends here, your arguments are vapid and will never win anyone over, and you’re just fucking unpleasant.

                  So… why are you here?

          2. 1. Even Orwell – brilliant though he was – was still capable of making mistakes.

            2. Only a blindly-trusting person would fail to be skeptical of the ability of Democrats to turn this country into a police state – they are just as capable of that as Team Red.

            3. shrike is lying when he claims to be a fan of Barry Goldwater.

            1. Orwell was a socialist but an anti-communist.

              A socialist is a believer in the welfare state? Shock!

              1. Degrees of separation; socialism is the red-headed step-cousin of communism.

                1. Agreed, it was an insane position for Orwell to take, I was adding to your “capable of making mistakes” point. As that is a huge one.

                  But why Mary thought we would care about some socialists position on welfare is beyond me.

                  1. Welfare programs are the bait, rob. They get the poor and gullible to bite, thus increasing the leftist voter base.

                    And that’s how babies are made.

          3. Did you know Orwell was a firm believer in the welfare state?

            Which demonstrates how pernicious the religious faith of socialism is.

            Even the believers that realize that it’ss a failure and trends towards tyranny can’t let got of it.

            1. But… but… FINLAND!!!

              /stupid troll named “Nick”

            2. But…but…but…if only the “right people” were in charge, then socialism would work just dandily! Top. Men. Dontchya know.

              1. If Obamacare covered lobotomies, Team Red could have a 100% lock on the vote!

    3. Right, because that causality is so direct… on or two more steps and you could’ve linked Kevin Bacon. If Christians simply didn’t worship Jesus, statism would disappear from the Earth!

      1. It’s a big part of statism in the US right now.

        1. See: USSR, circa 1941-1953.

          See: PRC, circa 1949-1976

        2. that’s ridiculous. The bulk of statism emanates from the left, which goes out of its way to promote secularism at all turns. Yes, the so-cons can at times be just as annoying as the liberals with their notions of “defending” marriage and fretting over “under god” being in or out of the Pledge.

          Just admit this is a blind spot for you. You choose to not believe; I have no issue with that. Your system is just as valid under the Constitution as is that of the faithful.

          1. Statism is neither left or right. Neither is libertarianism.

            Two dimensional, not linear.

        3. Statism comes in many forms. Religous zealotry can be one of those forms. That said, atheistic zealotry was part of the worst forms of statism in the 20th century, so I’m not sure eliminating religion would go very far to eliminating statism.

          1. When rulers believe in a power greater than themselves, then there is a chance that they may use restraint.
            When they see themselves as the ultimate higher power, there is nothing to restrain their evil deeds.

        4. Religion, or the lack of it, plays little part in freedom, or the lack of it. Nominally atheistic societies as well as heavily theocratic societies have been and continue to be oppressive. Urging people to abandon religion is stupid, because people are much less likely to change their religious beliefs than they are to change their political beliefs. It would be much better to find religious leaders who believe in freedom, and could make a religious case for it.

          1. People are going to do what they are going to do. You can take anything and use it as a rationalization to stick it to the other guy.

          2. people are much less likely to change their religious beliefs than they are to change their political beliefs.

            Im agreeing with the rest of your post, but actually wonder about this.

            Im thinking its much closer than you think. My view may be biased, as my church grew mostly thru conversion. However, notice the past tense in the previous sentence.

            1. robc, did they become Baptists (IIRC) after being atheists, agnostics, Deists, or from some other flavor of Christianity? Because there’s a pretty wide spectrum there, and the ‘spiritual distance’ traveled is far greater for some than others.

              My own ‘conversion’ if you will, was going from being an atheist disdainful of religion to an atheist who realized a free society will/would be much better off with private institutions such as churches and temples.

              1. A bit of all of them.

                My family came from a methodist church. Lots of movement from other denominations but also lots coming from the non-believing (who knows what the described themselves as, assuming they even did). And even those that came from another denomination were often “nominal”. Is a nominal non-attending catholic converting from one christian denomination to another or coming from the non-believing group?

        5. Not so sure about that. It seems like a good deal of the statist impulse is a redirection of the theistic impulse into secular pursuits. Sort of “if God doesn’t exist, then we shall have to create him.” With the religious statists, it’s more “if God doesn’t act, then we should act ourselves.” Either way, it seems rooted in the need for an all-powerful, morally perfect authority to exist and rule, and a lack of faith that the divine one does so.

          If you can’t actually get rid of the religious impulses in people, it’s probably better for society for them to belong to a religion that isn’t too bad.

    4. Personally, I think if more people tried to live by the teachings of Christ, the world would be a better place. I try to do this, but in no way beleive it is my duty to force others to do the same.

      1. Personally, I think if more people tried to live by the teachings of Christ Lao Tzu, the world would be a better place. I try to do this, but in no way beleive it is my duty to force others to do the same.

    5. Can I reiterate my earlier position that Evangelical Christians are responsible for Bush

      I voted for Browne and Badnarik, so, no, you cant.

    6. you can restate your position, but repetition does not make it less incorrect than it was. The evangelical vote would have gone to whomever the Repub nominee had been; Bush just happened to be it. What followed had nothing to do with jesus, zeus, buddha, mohammed, or outer space aliens.

      1. The evangelical vote is not monolithic. Even ignoring the example of me, and the other libertarian evangelicals, you have all of the black evangelicals as a freakin’ obvious example.

        1. I don’t even factor religion in with blacks. They will vote Dem regardless. They had some heartburn over Obie’s “evolution” on gay marriage, but they’re not going to vote Repub. For the most part, white evangelicals tend to vote Repub.

          1. For the most part, white evangelicals tend to vote Repub.

            For the most part, black evangelicals tend to vote Dem.

            1. blacks vote Dem almost exclusively; religion has virtually no connection to that. White evangelicals vote Repub because of religious belief.

              1. religion has virtually no connection to that.

                I think you are wrong there.

                Evangelicals are all over the map politically. I know plenty of white leftist evangelicals. Most arent, but they arent primarily voting GOP because of religious belief but because political belief lines up.

                1. You may be right on white evangelicals. But, blacks put party faaaar ahead of religion.

                  1. I’ll jump in here. Here is my line of reasoning (Logical? Provable? Assumptive?)

                    The reason I’m not a Republican (by and large) is they are anti social freedom. The group most likely to disagree with social liberty, those who consider such liberties immoral (homosexuality, gambling, prostitution…), is the religious right. I can easily replace “religious right” with “evangelical” (rightly or wrongly).

                    Conclusion:

                    I’m not a republican because evangelicals (not all, but the majority) want to dictate to me how I choose to interact with society. And a good many of them want to do it by force of law.

                    1. Leftists also want to dictate to us how we choose to interact with society.

                      Just need to point that out in these kinds of conversations.

                    2. Completely agree. Funny how the lines get blurred when you have no guiding principles. I was speaking historically (?) of a time when the left took a liberal stance on things like free speech. Now they are free speech only when they agree upon what’s said. Same can be said about the right on fiscal issues.

                      They confuse issues with principles.

                    3. “What followed had nothing to do with jesus, zeus, buddha, mohammed, or outer space aliens.”

                      Hey, wait a minute, the article above proved conclusively that Outer Space Aliens are 3000 times more likely to vote for Obama than dead people from Chicago.

                      That was the point of the article, right?

  20. President tells bar patrons to turn off Fox News. Politics aside, Obama is just a thin skinned unpleasant asshole. Who does such a thing?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..ax-rate-75

      1. While at Ziggy’s, which has a wi-fi network with the password “DRINKBEER,” the president enjoyed a few brews. According to the pool, his beverages of choice were Miller Lite and Bud Lite.

        Hahahahah! He drinks piss water, too!

        1. I wonder if the secret service seized the bottle openers before his entrance.

    1. But he’s an articulate, clean, thin-skinned, unpleasant asshole.

      1. “thin-skinned”

        Racist!

    2. Didn’t we used to want our leaders to be strong men? I guess to be fair, Fox News doesn’t guess about how eloquent he is when he’s giving a yell, I mean speech. That’s got to be pretty hard to take.

      The pool report did not specify whether Mr. Hawks followed through with the president’s suggestion.

      I really hope not. The proper response to this would be to turn all the TVs to Fox News at maximum volume.

      While at Ziggy’s, which has a wi-fi network with the password “DRINKBEER,” the president enjoyed a few brews. According to the pool, his beverages of choice were Miller Lite and Bud Lite.

      Don’t we at least want them to be men (if they are male)?

    3. “Who does such a thing?”

      People that are easily distracted by mindless shit?

      “Obama is just a thin skinned unpleasant asshole.”

      Like everyone that watches Fox News?

      1. Who does it? Noxious assholes who think no one else should even have a voice or any freedom. In other words people like you Mary.

        1. Watching Ed Schultz’s MSNBC show sure has lasting effects, that’s for true.

    4. According to the pool, his beverages of choice were Miller Lite and Bud Lite.

      I wonder, does he have no taste, or do his advisors tell him to pretend like he has no taste in order to fit in with the rubes?

      1. His advisors suggest he drink beer to fit in with Joe Six Pack.

        His wife tells him to drink light beer to appear healthy.

        People who appreciate beer rightfully mock him for drinking grain-filtered water.

      2. I’d say number two.

      3. You think he would political enough to drink American Beer, instead of British and Belgian beer, respectively.

  21. Mitt Romney’s fundraising figures are hitting his net worth territory; the presidential candidate and the RNC raised a combined $100 million in June. The Obama campaign has not released its fundraising total yet but it raised less than the Romney campaign in May.

    See, this just proves that the Romney campaign is being bought by evil special interests, not at all like the historically well funded Obama campaign of 08, which just proved how much the people were behind him.

    1. “See, this just proves that the Romney campaign is being bought by evil special interests, not at all like the historically well funded Obama campaign of 08, which just proved how much the people were behind him.”

      You can’t recall any SCOTUS decision between 2008 and this year?

      1. you mean the one that let unions and other organizations contribute right along with those evil corporations? You folks ought to try being less dishonest about Citizens United.

      2. You’re right. Thank goodness for the SC allowing people to spend their money how they want so that their voices can be heard, or Obama would be even further behind!

        1. Apparently a “shitheel” can’t be bothered to be honest, wareagle.

  22. I am increasingly confident that Romney wins in a landslide.

    1. See, I am increasingly certain that only Romney could lose to Obama.

      1. Me too.

      2. ^This

    2. All of the whinning this week from the Right I think is misplaced. They want Romney too attack Obama more for his corruption and various ties to the hard left. But I think that would be foolish. It would turn Romney into Dole wondering where is the outrage. Just keep hammering the economy.

      1. the right remains butthurt, to an extent, that one of its chosen by-gawd “true conservatives” didn’t win and they are stuck with the Mormon. It has been nauseating to watch. Maybe if the righties had not been such flawed candidates, the outcome would have been different. I’ll take Romney over Noot or Ricky from PA.

        1. I’ll take Romney over Noot or Ricky from PA.

          There wasn’t a viable candidate in the lot, except Romney, and he only because he is a milquetoast and thus relatively inoffensive.

          1. That is all he needs to be because Obama is proving himself to be plenty offensive.

          2. then the right’s whining is even more misplaced. It’s like going to steak house and bitching about the fish options on the menu.

            All you heard from the conservative commentariat and strategists even before IA was how badly needed a true conservative was, a modern-day Reagan, etc etc. Well, either such a candidate does not exist or that person chose not to run, so they pushed everyone but Romney as the “conservative” alternative, which was bullshit. Anyone on the right upset that Mitt is the nominee needs to look at his/her own side.

            1. Of course they forget that Reagan wasn’t a SOCON and that his election campaign was designed to reassure voters that he wasn’t as right wing as Carter said he was. The pivotal point of the election was the “there you go again” Reagan quip during the debate. That was when people realized Reagan wasn’t a nut and they were free to vote against Carter.

              1. Reagan also wasn’t a Mormon which remains an unspoken sticking point for a lot of righty talking heads. And, Carter worked in a different media culture, one that could not be as overtly in-the-tank as it is for Obama. I’m not sure those voices knocking Romney today wouldn’t be saying the same about Reagan.

                1. Romney’s a twat. Does that mean I’m a leftist?

                  1. I’m sure there are plenty of reasons for that which have nothing to do with Romney. Come on, man; that was too easy. 🙂

      2. Just keep hammering the economy.

        I don’t think giving the same speech three times a day between now and November is going to win it.

        Tie the economic failures to cronyism (green energy boondoggles)and incompetence (stimulus failure).

        And for fuck’s sake, when was the last time you heard Romney headline the debt, deficit, and spending?

        1. Look at the electoral map, and the swing states. If the election were held today and they broke the way the polls show, Romney loses.

          http://electoral-vote.com/

          http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..e_map.html

          1. No Obama would be ahead. The tossup states would give either the win. and those are based on polls that probably don’t accurately reflect the make up of the electorate. Republicans nearly always out perform the polls.

          2. Romney is going to beat Obama in Virginia. Bookmark that.

            1. Isn’t DC the only (geographical) part of the economy that Obama has helped?

        2. Tie the economic failures to cronyism

          Since that’s a mud-pile Republican politicans love wallowing in they will *not* be making that a central part of their campaign.

  23. Biggest drought on (12 year drought survey) record in US!!

    Just under 56 percent of the contiguous United States is in drought conditions, the most extensive area in the 12-year history of the U.S. Drought Monitor. The previous drought records occurred on Aug. 26, 2003, when 54.79 percent of the lower 48 were in drought and on Sept 10, 2002, when drought extended across 54.63 percent of this area.

    So about 1/3rd of the time somewhere between 54 and 56 percent of the US is under drought-like conditions.

    1. But this time it’s up to 56 percent. AGW!

    2. More disturbing stats:

      Sun gone from sky almost 50% of the time.

  24. I see the trolls are going to bed tonight with full bellies.

    1. “Feed the birds, tuppence a bag
      Tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag”

      http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics…..ebirds.htm

    2. I plead guilty for my part. I shall do a silent penance.

      1. I enjoy kicking them around too. The real problem is that one (or, most likely, two or three) of them is an obsessed psychopath that has a tendency to come after you in real life if you piss her off.

        1. Thanks for the heads up. Would not do to have survived the Talib, AQ, HIG and JAM’s best efforts to harm me and come a cropper by a leftie phanatique back here in the US.

  25. Scientology directs its minions on how to report people who say mean things about their ‘religion’ on the internet:

    [When] people start to bring our religion into the middle and a bunch of uninformed people start to spread false datum, rumors and defame our religion it became a matter that does affect my Dynamics and I believe that affects yours as well.

    Well, I am not somebody that I am going to simply stand and watch a bunch of uninformed people putting my religion under the carpet. So here is a simple hatting on how you can causative fight back and at the same time stand up and defend our religion on the internet. Microsoft or Google or any of these big online company require that each person when create an account with them follow a Code of Conduct when they are on the internet. If there are abuse of such Code of Conduct, those website do actually invite you to report the matter to the Moderator ? in other word, write the matter to Ethics.

    Once you got the hang of it it get pretty fast and in one hour you can report of lots of these nonsense comment!

    Ok ? there you have it!! This simple hatting is something that you can use now for this or similar situations that may happen in the future.

    Yep, policing comments on CNN articles is such a great use of one’s time… snicker

    1. “hatting”?

      1. Special hats that suppress your Thetans.

        1. My Thetans don’t need suppressing, though a thorough emptying now and then does keep the pipes clean.

          1. Thetans? I though it was Cretins…

        2. I thought the special hats causative fight back against Episiarch’s hegemony?

          1. Did you think those aren’t the same function. Episiarch is an escaped Thetan.

            1. So if Episiarch shows up, we are supposed to pursue with a handful of L. Ron Hubbard books?

              Stay Back! I have a hardcover of “Battlefield Earth” and I’ll use it!”

              1. Yes. Be merciless. He is after all only the ghost of an alien killed millions of years ago by a volcano triggered with a thermonuclear weapon.

        3. It took me a minute to realize you were joking.

          hat: a Scientology slang term for a particular job, taken from the fact that in many professions, such as railroading, the type of hat worn is the badge of the job. The term hat is also used to describe the write-ups, checksheets and packs that outline the purposes, know-how and duties of a job in a Scientology organization.
          hatting: the training given to a person so that he or she can successfully perform the functions and produce the products of a specific job, duty or activity. See also hat in this glossary.

          So apparently he’s even using molespeak incorrectly.

          1. Actually “This simple training is something that you can use now for this or similar situations that may happen in the future.” makes perfect sense.

            Parsing the language of the crazy is difficult.

            1. He’s not talking about training, he’s talking about performing a job. So now you’re the one who’s failing.

              1. hatting: the training given to a person so that he or she can successfully perform the functions and produce the products of a specific job

                Learn to read, you muscle-bound goon.

                  1. I wish my fatceps were that doughy. 🙁 🙁 🙁

                1. Yes, you fleshy twink, and he’s still not talking about training.

          2. Yikes. Scientology fucks people UP, yo.

      2. At times it’s hard to distinguish the author’s atrociously poor grammar from the usages of Scientology pigdin.

        1. I’ve heard that Scientologists who leave the cult often need to study what words mean in English, because their usage is so bizarre.

          Also, I recently moved to the belly of the beast, so to speak. There are a few large temples, or whatever the fuck they call them, around here.

          1. Joking aside, I believe that’s intentional. They’ve adopted the idea behind newspeak to make it difficult for members to express and possibly even think skeptical thoughts.

          2. Clearwater? Its my argument that ElRon and Heinlein had a bet that Elron couldn’t make a religion partially because Scientology’s East Coast HQ happens to be the same place that the climax of Stranger in a Strange Land took place.

            1. Yeah, Pinellas County is lousy with ’em.

              It seems strange that Heinlein could have been friends with Hubbard. I imagine Heinlein writing him – ‘Keep on writing, L Ron, your moxie more than makes up for your lack of talent. Robert.’

              1. Science fiction was a very small community at first. It was hard not to know everyone. And it looks like they had something in common in that they both made up complex “religions” out of whole cloth. One published it as a novel, the other hoodwinked thousands of gullible fops.

                1. While Heinlein never had anything to do with them beyond refusing to condemn them there are some people out there who took Heinleins Novel to heart and founded a religion based on it as well.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_All_Worlds

                  There probably aren’t more than a couple hundred followers around the country and as with most neopagan churches it’s history is rather rocky but I have known more than a handful of it’s members over the years and they are generally good people (and very libertarian if somewhat more to the leftist side of the belief system) and yes, at least most of them do organize their nest as either an open group marriage or sexual network.

              2. Heinlein at the start of his career was a protege of Carpenter, who was also buddies with Hubbard. My understanding is that in the run up to WW-II, they spent a year socializing, playing card weekly and having big shoot the shit sessions.

                After the war was over, Hubbard was on a downward arc (his war-time service record is a frightening history of fuckups and histrionics including attacking Mexico) of addiction and scams, while Heinlein hit his stride and started cranking out good book after good book.

                I vaguely recall that Heinlein wrote that he and Hubbard did, in one of their card games have a huge conversation about creating a religion as a money-making scam, with Heinlein claiming that he came up with the idea based on the evangelists he had interacted with in his youth. Heinlein admitted that that session inspired the religion in Stranger in a Strange Land. Hubbard, on the other hand, claimed that he was a scientist uniquely endowed to teach humans the one true religion and pretended the conversations with Heinlein never happened.

              3. Yes, well they also spent a good bit of time together during the end of WWII. There’s a great forward to one of Ted Sturgeon’s short story collections written by Heinlein about Bob, Ron, L. Sprague de Camp, Asimov, Sturgeon and several others getting together in Bob’s apartment with his first wife. They were all buddies.

    2. Better that than some of the other things those nitwits spend their time doing.

    3. a bunch of uninformed people start to spread false datum

      There’s nothing like a retard trying to look smart by using fancy words, and failing miserably. DELICIOUS.

      1. “how you can causative fight back” is going to make me snicker for a while today.

        1. I also am a big fan of the mixing of present and past tenses.

      2. a false datum, false data.

        1. Shut up, vaginum.

          1. Only a dork would be so ignorant of vagintrivia, Warty.

            Vagina is a first declension feminine Latin Noun. The plural would be vaginaae.

            1. I’ll be dead in the cold, cold ground before I recognize your ligatures.

          2. I will admit that in America ‘data’ has become like ‘moose’. But if you’re going to use the word datum, use it as the singular of data.

            1. Actually, data can be singular in English: eg. “the data shows”

              It depends on whether one is speaking of properties that apply to all the data or to a subset.

              1. Sure, it can be singular if you’re a moron, which you are. The datum proves it.

              2. Several of my professors would have docked me a point for writing “the data shows” rather than “the data show” in a lab report. But they were sticklers. However, using the words “this data point” was okay, rather than “this datum”. So I concede that datum is antiquated.

                1. However, using the words “this data point” was okay

                  Sure, it’s ok, because “this” is referring to the singular noun “point” which is modified by the adjective “data”.

                  But yes, I usually say “this data” because my command of English is degraded and backwoodsy.

                2. Several of my professors would have docked me a point for writing “the data shows” rather than “the data show” in a lab report.

                  were they fucking limeys or something? They never seem to be able to verb-noun agreement straight.

      3. Scientolology has been gotten amongst the most preficient of thinkers in the modern times. It is a savient philosophy that truly underlays a butificent religion.

        Therefore, Scientolologists should intolerate abuse and demigration of there butificent religion on the internet.

    4. CNN is entheta, yo. Brother’s just trying to get his stats up.

  26. Missouri mother urges small children to fight: ‘Ball up some fists,’ ‘hit back’ [VIDEO]

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/07…..z1zqyc0Z9I

  27. Wow. Judge questions software patents as viable IP.

    God I hope he shoots them down. That would be an epic victory. It might actually allow for a competitive environment.

    1. This seems like it could be a big deal. I hopez I hopez I hopez.

    2. Surprising, given some of his previous legal thinking.

      1. Reading the whole article, it seems like a mismash of good decisions arrived at by questionable reasoning. Tossing an injunction against a smartphone because it can stream video via someone else’s patented method is unquestionably the right decision. As was barring a counter-injunction.

        1. At least going just from what is in the article, I agree. Just seems like a bunch utilitarian opinions. Nothing principled at all about why maybe software should be considered different, with respect to patent-ability.

  28. Fewer instances. Fewer.

    1. +1

      You’re on the list now, Krayewski.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.