A.M. Links: Obama Committed to Letting Bush Tax Cuts Expire, Boehner Limits Romney Enthusiasm to Family, Friends and Mormons, Assad Blames U.S. For Destabilization in Syria

|

  • not lovable?

    President Obama is "100% committed" to allowing the Bush era tax cuts to expire for those making more than $250,000 a year, according to Robert Gibbs. The president will apparently be asking for a partial one-year extension of the tax cuts.

  • John Boehner explained the landscape of the 2012 presidential election at a fundraiser in West Virginia: "The American people probably aren't going to fall in love with Mitt Romney. I'll tell you this: 95 percent of the people that show up to vote in November are going to show up in that voting booth, and they are going to vote for or against Barack Obama.  Mitt Romney has some friends, relatives and fellow Mormons … some people that are going to vote for him. But that's not what this election is about. This election is going to be a referendum on the president's failed economic policies."
  • Bashar Assad accused the United States of "destabilizing" Syria, apparently unaware that events in his country have been in the world news for the last year and a half.
  • It looks like third time's the charm as liberal parties may actually be looking at a victory over the Muslim Brotherhood in the first free elections in Libya.
  • A malware program believed to have spread to computers around the world is set to shut down Internet access to those computers today. Something to do with your DNS resolution, which can be checked here.
  • NASA scientists appear to have been wrong about finding arsenic-based life. The bacteria the study was based on apparently lives despite the arsenic in its cells, not because of it.

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

NEXT: Mexico's New President Peña Nieto Is Probably Not Going to End the Drug War

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. She should have known better than to hug a cop. Now she’s dead.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..s-him.html

    1. That is the fishiest thing I’ve read in some time. Some detail on the type of gun, type of holster, physical arrangement of the actors, etc. would be helpful. Alas, the Daily Fail lives up to its reputation for serious journalism once more.

      1. I’m thinking he got touched from behind, shot her on reflex, then worked with the union’s lawyer to concoct a story.

      2. How the hell could she be hit in the lungs? She must have been 5 feet or so?

      3. A Smith and Wesson – I assume an MP of some flavor.

        The story has to be bogus or very incomplete. No way a hug could discharge a modern pistol.

        1. DaveW, thou art vindicated!

    2. That is an absolute bullshit story.

      1. Sarcasmic’s take on this is probably right. Trigger-happy dipshit shoots girl without cause, “Oh shit” moment occurs, cover-up ensues.

      2. You’d think a New Professional could at least tell a better lie.

    3. Here’s the Detroit News’s story on it.

      The commentators know better than to buy the bullshit.

      1. I dunno. I can see it happening the way the cop said, provided: his weapon was a Glock (or similar pistol w/o a separate, external safety), his holster was a complete POS, and he negligently allowed crap to get into his holster. With all that, sure, maybe a hug can squeeze the holster enough to move the pistol enough to pull the trigger. It’s happened once or twice to airline pilots in the ‘pilots carrying handguns’ program. There, the problem was that they kept screwing with the pistol in the holster, plus IIRC, they cleverly mandated a cable through the trigger guard.

        So yeah, it could have happened this way. But I think it makes Baby Occam cry.

        1. And part of me was thinking of DaveW too, when I read the story, tarran. Blast from the past. Didn’t joe pile on too about the dangers of spontaneously exploding handguns, or was it MNG?

          1. Dunno. I only remember Dave W going on about guns that shoot went bumped, then again I filtered MNG for most of the past two years, so I have little idea of all the crazy stuff he threw out there.

        2. It’s certainly possible to have an ND in a “safe action” pistol while holstering. Holstering your shirt and/or finger into the trigger guard is a known hazard of pistols without independently operated mechanical safeties. This guy could have done so. If this was a shoulder holster and he had holstered his shirt or jacket or something else into the trigger guard, being hugged from behind could plausibly set off a trigger that was altready stressed.

        3. Also, she didn’t die from hugging the cop. The proximate cause may have been the hug, but the root causes would be carelessness on the cop’s part, poor training, possibly incompatibilities in equipment, et. None of these articles ever seems to get to the true root causes. More journalists should take root cause investigation training.

          1. More journalists should take root cause investigation training.

            But that would mean their access to the boys in blue would be limited. And any story, even if it’s just a press release, is better than being left out of the loop because of journalistic integrity.

  2. Don’t dance on the subway platform in NYC unless you want to be tackled, handcuffed, and arrested.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..tform.html

    1. The officers demanded their ID. When Ms Stern only had a credit car, the police ordered the couple to go with them.

      When Mr Hess pulled out a camera to start recording the incident, the officers called for backup and the situation turned nasty, the couple says.

      You know who else scoped out areas of New York City with cameras?

      1. The director of King Kong?

      2. Alfred Stieglitz?

  3. “So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state.” – Vladimir Lenin

    1. More evidence that the Soviet Union is the ultimate result of atheists and anarchists being in power.

      1. Cool story bro.

        1. It’s like S.E. Cupp said:

          The other part of it ? I like that there is a check, OK? That there’s a person in the office that doesn’t think he’s bigger than the state. I like religion being a check and knowing that my president goes home every night addressing someone above him and not thinking all the power resides right here? Atheists don’t have that.

          1. Oh! Well! If S.E. Cupp said that…

          2. SE Cupp and folks like her love to beat the “someone above him” drum, until that someone turns out to be something other than the god they believe in. Atheists don’t have Allah, either, telling them to kill the infidels.

            1. What if they’re people who live next to the infidels?

              1. those who see infidels in the first place tend to ask questions later.

            2. SE Cupp is an atheist.

              1. judging by the quote – if it is to believed – she is an atheist of convenience.

                1. More S.E. Cupp:

                  I am an atheist. I have been an atheist for fifteen years. … I believe … that Judeo-Christian values, religious tolerance, an objective press, the benevolence of Christianity, and civility and decency make for a better American democracy.

                2. She describes herself as an atheist who aspires to be religious some day.

      2. anarchism = totalitarianism

        totally

        1. Would you not outlaw the right of the people to collectively govern?

          1. Hahahahahhhahahah! Good one.

          2. outlaw it? Why? Every system involving human beings has some form of self-governance.

            1. Anarchism and Libertarianism outlaws the right of the people to work together to achieve societies goals.

              1. Ahahahaha! Stop it! You’re killin’ me!

              2. bullshit. Libertarianism is all about your right to work with the people of your choosing to accomplish whatever you want, provided that neither the work nor the outcome infringe on the rights of those not participating.

                1. And if the people choose to accomplish health care for all?

                  1. I see you didn’t bother to read the part about not infringing on the rights of others.

                    1. How does granting the people a right to health care infringe on the rights of others?

                    2. By making the others pay and making the others work for less money.

                    3. How does granting the people the right to free helath care infringe on the rights of others?

                      Since there is no such thing as a free lunch (take some economics course when you go back to your fancy school), free health care requires the confiscation of wealth by the state from its productive members/entities of society.

                      That wealth, once confiscated, cannot be used by those productive members/entities of society for whatever they wish to use it for, be it investment, savings, or consumption (including health care).

                      The state has stolen from one segment of society to provide goods to another segment. This is not freedom.

                      Move away Stelios.

                    4. That wealth wasn’t earned. It’s just moving money around, writing things off, what did they actually produce?

                      Why not redirect that wealth back to the people who earned it in the form of providing them with health care?

                    5. The economy isn’t a zero-sum gain, non-growing pie that you slice up. Wel,, it is to economically and historically illiterate liberals like yourself.

                      Why give wealth to people/entities that don’t produce anything? Won’t that just reinforce poor behavior and malinvestment? But I ask a question you don’t have the courage to anwser honestly – so I know what you are going to say.

                      Move away, Stelios.

                    6. Exactly, so why give wealth to CEOs and others like that instead of rewarding the workers?

                    7. The workers are rewarded for there work with their wages. Just like the CEOs are.

                    8. But not their share of production.

                    9. They were rewarded their share of production with their wages – generated by the sale of thier production to consumers. See how easy it is?

                    10. And it’s not infringing on the rights of others to deny them health care?

                      You guys are so deep into false consciousness you can’t even realize that you’re letting the amoral capitalist elite hoodwink you into wage slavery.

                    11. And you, Stelios, are living within the fallacy that government confiscation of private property with intent to transfer to others is freedom. That is the actual slavery.

                      Everyone has to work, Stelios. Oh wait, you are Greek – no one works.

                      Move away, Stelios.

                    12. And it’s not infringing on the rights of others to deny them health care?

                      Not any more than denying them an Italian supercar or nice house on the beach. That is, no, not at all. You don’t have a right to the money or the labor of others.

                      As for wage slavery, I retired in my 40s but you keep on with your cliches.

                    13. So you’re rich, and don’t care about the rest of society. Pretty much confirming what the rest of us think about the 1%.

                    14. Waaahhhh – mommy and daddy told me I am perfect and handed me everything! Wahhhh – my professors gave me A’s so I must be really smart! Waahhh – why is everyone so mean to me, making me work for a living?? Waahhh – this isn’t fair!?!?

                      Runalong now, Stelios – let the grown-ups handle things for you.

                    15. No, I’m not rich, I just spend far less than I earned.

                      I do care about the rest of society. I don’t want them to have their money and work stolen by people who didn’t earn it to be given to people who didn’t earn it.

                      And I see that you use “think” in a very loose way. You should use “feel” instead; it would be much more accurate.

                    16. You care about society?

                      Yet you want to deny them health care? And a good job with a good wage? And free education?

                      Yeah, you really care about society.

                    17. So if I am unwilling to have my hard earned money confiscated in order to provide your birth control I am “denying” you health care? Can you not go out and pay for your own damn health care like I do?

                    18. society doesnt need health care, its a non-tangible construct. Individuals need health care and they can buy it and/or have it provided for them by others who freely give it.

                    19. You guys are so deep into false consciousness you can’t even realize that you’re letting the amoral capitalist elite hoodwink you into wage slavery.

                      7/10. You got a lot of people to feed you, friend.

                    20. What else is there to do this early on a Monday morning?

                    21. What else is there to do this early on a Monday morning?

                      Anal-bating sounds like more fun than interacting with this nitwit.

                    22. What else is there to do this early on a Monday morning?

                      Anal-bating sounds like more fun than interacting with this nitwit.

                    23. No one is denied health care. Everyone can buy as much as they can afford.

                  2. I always have to remember that with Martin and Lewis, it was Martin who was the straight man, but just the opposite with Rowan and Martin. It gets kinda confusing.

                  3. You can always recognize a confirmed statist by their sheer contempt for people voluntarily working towards a common goal (core-pour-ray-shuns!) and their unbound adoration of people being forcibly coerced into serving the majority (government).

                    1. looks like we have new sock puppet. That it uses a Greek name only pisses me off more.

                    2. I felt my first sexual stirrings watching Goldie Hawn dance in a bikini and body paint. Probably explains a lot.

                    3. This might bring back some of those “stirrings”.

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

                    4. wareagle, it may be Greek name but it is a one episode character from Family Guy. It’s just a hipster being ironical.

                    5. It is not. It’s from American Dad.

                    6. Even better! Seth’s diatribe to assuage his own sense of guilt from becoming so successful!

                      Your animation hero – what has he produced? Some silly comedy – a service! for which he has been handsomely rewarded!

                      What have you produced, Stelios? Ah, that’s right you are Greek – nothing.

                      The irony, it must burn!

                    7. hey hey hey, now — some Greek folk moved here to get away from what the place has become.

                    8. A-ha! Needs more Shrikefag!!

                    9. I fully support the people working towards equality.

                      You are the one who seems to be arguing against basic rights for the people.

                    10. Mr. Dumbfuckalopolos has spoken.

                    11. — Who’s for equality.

                      — That’s what I asked. Who’s for equality?

                      — Right!

                    12. Equality of outcomes and equality of opportunity isn’t the same thing. The first requires confiscation of private property by the government, the second doesn’t. The first is slavery, the second is freedom.

                      Move away, Stelios.

                    13. How can you measure equality of opportunity if outcomes are still unequal?

                      This is why libetarianism and conservatism makes no sense. Without the state to place us properly, what will?

                    14. obvious troll is obvious

                    15. Shut up, Mary.

                    16. “Without the state to place us properly, what will?”

                      And liberals tell themselves they totally wouldn’t have been marching in lockstep with Mussolini.

                    17. While you’re supporting those working towards equality, here we have a tendancy to support those working toward fairness. Can you see the difference?

                      One should note also that those “supporting the people working for equality” are so quick to say “Somebody’s gotta do something!” Well, okay, then – do something! If you feel that the poor huddled unwashed masses deserve more than they’ve earned then go ahead and give it to them yourself. This is the most significant fallacy underlying the Equality Doctrine – that the only people who want things to be more equal are the ones who have nothing to offer in the first place. They just know that somebody else has stuff they can steal and then elect people who make them feel that that’s a moral stance. It’s not.

                      Stand down, Stelio.

                  4. And if the people choose to accomplish health care for all?

                    On a purely voluntary basis? By establishing a vast network of charity hospitals and clinics?

                    I got no problem with that. Which, oddly enough, is exactly what we have.

                    1. Uhhh no we don’t 40+ million Americans are without health insurance.

                      We should have a system where any American wants health care, they receive it. Why would anyone be opposed to this expansion of liberty?

                    2. Because, my naive young spoonfed troll, it has nothing to do with Liberty any more than giving everyone a car, or a house, or any other physical good/service has to do with Lberty.

                    3. We should have a system where anyone who wants Stelio’s house should be able to just take it. Why are you against liberty stelio?

                    4. Because it flies in the face of economic reality.

                    5. Why would anyone be opposed to this expansion of liberty?

                      I don’t think that word “liberty” means what you think it means.

                    6. Expanding the rights of the people?

                    7. Expanding the rights largess of the state the to some people at the expense of others?

                      Fixed.

                    8. Rights can neither be expanded nor contracted, those that exist always have existed and always will.

                      Someone doesnt understand the source of rights.

                    9. “We should have a system where any American wants health care a pony, they receive it.”

                      I want a pony.

                    10. Uhhh no we don’t 40+ million Americans are without health insurance.

                      Insurance is not a prerequisite for care. Focus, man, focus!

                      We should have a system where any American wants health care, they receive it.

                      Exactly the system we have! Mission accomplishes!

                    11. You’re ignoring the millions upon millions of people who cannot afford it.

                    12. They can afford as much as they can afford.

                    13. You’re ignoring the millions upon millions of people who cannot afford it.

                      You’re ignoring the fact that no one is denied care because they cannot afford it.

                      “Charity”. I suggest you familiarize yourself with concept, since I think you’re likely to need it.

                    14. I have a close friend who does not have health insurance, or disposable income. She was just diagnosed with breast cancer. Tomorrow, she is going to have the tumor removed, and she will begin chemotherapy. At Cedars Sinai, in Los Angeles. The MD’s and other staff have been so nice, and caring. Also, the surgery and follow-up treatment are free.

                      Top quality medical services. Not a penny out of her pocket. Crazy, huh?

              3. Tony?

          3. The words you use are English, but I have no idea of what you are saying.

            1. The words you use are English, but I have no idea of what you are saying.

              It seems anything he says can be interpreted to mean, “I want free stuff.”

    2. Who the hell is this guy?

      1. my vote is for new sock puppet. Sadly (for me, anyway), one that uses a Greek name. Bad enough watching the folks’ homeland self-immolate without this troll.

        1. All replies to young Stelios should be made with the handle Scott Anafas.

      2. I think it’s a regular that’s providing the anti-libertarian side so that visitors can see the pro-l arguments articulated very handily.

        At least, that’s what I hope it is. Otherwise, it’s just some dipshit with outstretched hand waiting for his Gov’t bread.

  4. If you can believe it, police actually return confiscated property! Guns even!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..olice.html

    1. Can you imagine the delirium and screeching disbelief of those British guys that researched and wrote this article? I’d pay money to see that shit.

  5. Jamie Oliver is still a douche.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..hting.html

    1. Better article about bullfighting:

      http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c…../index.htm

      I don’t know, I kind of feel that the cows getting the chance to assault their captors for 3 hours before being turned into delicious steak have it a bit better than the ones being led directly to the slaughterhouse.

      1. The bestest bullfighting photo in the whole wide world EVER:

        http://english.people.com.cn/9…..97298.html

        1. holy shit!

          1. holy shit!

            That’s what HE was saying. Of course, it probably sounded a little muffled . . .

        2. This one is pretty good as well.

          Ouch

          1. This one is pretty good as well.

            It’s hard to tell from that angle whether or not he’s actually being penetrated, but if he is, that’s horrific.

            1. Hahhahahaha.

            2. and after defeating the matador in honourable combat, he took his reward with a lovely senorita

        3. And THAT is why I have no problem with bullfighting.

  6. Violent offenders released after budget cuts to jail. I can only assume that nonviolent druggies remain behind bars serving their mandatory minimum

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

    1. Felonies with sentences over one year go to a state correctional facility. Looked through the first page or so of booking, none for drug possession.

      http://e-airs.org/eAirsInterne…..nList.aspx

      Lane County has some serious fucked up budgeting. They’ve been whining about budget cuts for the past 30 years and employing the Washington Monument strategy, meanwhile the pay and benefits growth is out of control along with type of positions and pet projects.

      A prime example:
      http://projects.registerguard……e.html.csp

      Not mentioned is that a lot of commercial space is vacant with several brand new buildings being built (with government subsidies) which will lead to further downward pressure on pricing. But whatever, I’m sure they’ll make great developers.

  7. Pro-anorexia website brands Kate Upton a ‘cannibal’
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..rcial.html

    1. I like her even more now. Sorry, all you jealous bitches.

    2. Bounce bounce bounce…

      Sorry, what?

    3. Do you not like Michelle Wie? I figured she’d be your body type (if a tad chubby for you).

      1. I wouldn’t kick her out of bed.

      2. I love the fact that hawt Koreans have taken over women’s golf, and I don’t even like golf.

      3. Women remind me of golf. If they hav’nt got hold of my wood, then they should have hold of an iron.

        – Lord Sauron, Daisy Street, Mordor East, 09/7/2012 14:46

        WINNING.

    4. Carl’s Jr. is. . .people?

    5. Pro-anorexia? Seriously? Trying to emulate the appearance of a Rwandan refugee is something idiots are pro- now?

      All fatties should look like Kate Upton.

  8. With ‘freedom’ in fashion, is libertarianism back?
    http://news.yahoo.com/freedom-…..34889.html

    Something’s going on in America this election year: a renaissance of an ideal as old as the nation itself ? that live-and-let-live, get-out-of-my-business, individualism vs. paternalism dogma that is the hallmark of libertarianism.

    Paul, the Texas congressman and GOP presidential hopeful who champions small government and individual liberty, is one manifestation of it. We saw that with his rising popularity during the Republican presidential primary season and, now, the recent “takeovers” of political conventions in Nevada, Minnesota, Maine, Louisiana and elsewhere that will result in a sizable faction of Paul delegates at the GOP convention come August.

    1. how sad, and how telling of how far we have fallen, that something like freedom has to be considered ‘in fashion.’

      1. Silly people! They actually believe that they should be allowed to act without first asking permission! They’ll learn soon enough that their place is to shut up and take orders or face the beating of their lifetime.

      2. Not to worry, just a passing fad… freedom, that is.

        1. On a long enough world-historical timeframe, its hard to avoid the conclusion that freedom has been a passing fad.

      3. It’s apparent to me that Americans pay lip service to “freedom” but don’t really care for it. That comes from my interactions with just my friends and family. Just having a conversation with these folks, I know that liberty is not ideal for them. They all want laws to ban things they don’t like.

        Me, I hate cigarette smoke, but I don’t want laws banning it restaurants and bars. If those establishments choose to allow it, I’ll simply opt out of going there. I don’t have a RIGHT to eat at Chili’s if they don’t want me there. That is apparently lost on most Americans I talk to.

        1. and mind you, all of these people are Republicans AFAIK

          1. SoCons = proggies. At least in terms of using the state to achieve their ends; only difference is the actual ends.

  9. Tale of a visit to a Scientology compound. Interesting read.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..uly-4.html

    1. Tale of a visit to a Scientology compound. Interesting read.

      The leaked photos from inside the Super Power Building are downright creepy. No other word for it.

    2. I take it you haven’t seen pics from the compound in Hemet?

  10. Drone pilots practice on US civilians. Who doubts that they would hesitate to kill you or me?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07…..wanted=all

    1. I do. Now, if you were an American driving in Yemen…you are toast.

      1. It’s a numbers issue.

        It would be difficult, in the United States, to put together an armored division full of men willing to fire on American civilians if so ordered. It’s just too many guys to reliably staff it. You might try to pick the right guys, and then order them to level Chicago, and discover that 40% of your guys refuse. And then you’re fucked.

        But drones? I bet I could come up with 50 guys to fly drones who’ll kill anyone I tell them to kill. Foreign, American, military, civilian, whatever.

        It doesn’t matter how exceptional America is. I can find 50 guys to do ANYTHING.

        The form of military power has always – ALWAYS – had a dramatic impact on liberty, historically.

        1. Oh, certainly – finding a group of complete powerwankers or psychopaths is unfortunately none too hard. I would hope that just lining them up and saying – “zorch that truck” without any push back from the folks in the chain of command, etc., would be a bit hard – in our military at least.

          The (possibly) violent nature of military service has always attracted some folks with really bad characteristics and screwed up personalities/minds. Just have to make sure they can’t act on it.

        2. Your 50 drone pilots wouldn’t be drawn from the military. The ATF, FBI, etc…, feel far less constrained to act against American civilians.

        3. You might try to pick the right guys, and then order them to level Chicago,

          Chicago? Maybe not the best hypothetical.

          1. Some of them might never have visited, so not want to destroy it.

            1. Roadtrip!

  11. Why U.S. economic policy is paralyzed
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ml?hpid=z2

    Wondering why government can’t restart the sluggish economy? Well, one reason is that we are still paying the price for the greatest blunder in domestic policy since World War II. This occurred a half-century ago and helps explain today’s policy paralysis. The history ? largely unrecognized ? is worth recalling.

    Until the 1960s, Americans generally believed in low inflation and balanced budgets. President John Kennedy shared the consensus but was persuaded to change his mind. His economic advisers argued that, through deficit spending and modest increases in inflation, government could raise economic growth, lower unemployment and smooth business cycles.

    1. low inflation and balanced budgets

      i.e., Bill Clinton.

      1. I take it you would support paring all government agencies back to their 1996 levels, including the salaries, and the elimination of all agencies and programs that have been implemented since then?

        1. Yeah, I do. If we could erase 2001-present this country would be much better off.

          1. Well, I’d actually say 2003 to the present.

          2. Buttplug found an acorn!

          3. Broken clock and all that.

            I can’t wait to tune in in 12 hours and see what the other intelligent thing you say today is.

            1. It’s the sifting through pigshit to find a pearl that gets me. It’s just not worth it.

          4. “If we could erase 2001-present”

            And yet, you still think Obama is the bestest president ever.

      2. Clinton only had a balanced budget according to Enron accounting standards.

        1. Simply not true. I’ve beat that wingnut meme into pulp so many times its not worth doing again.

          1. Bullshit. Federal budgeting doesn’t take into account the present value of future liabilities.

          2. Where “beating that wingnut meme into pulp” consists of continually reposting links that fail to prove your point.

            I do agree that it’s not worth doing again.

          3. I’ve beat that wingnut meme into pulp

            Interesting thing to name your penis.

  12. Democrats and the Tax Cliff
    Several Senators suggest they may not want to take the November leap.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..on_LEADTop

    President Obama has staked his re-election on the promise to raise taxes on anyone making more than $200,000 a year, but it’s going to be fascinating to see if he can hold other Democrats through Election Day. June marked the third month in a row of lousy job creation, and the economy is growing slowly even as the January 2013 tax cliff grows closer by the day.

    Already, as many as six Democratic Senators are hedging their bets as the economy looks worse. That list includes Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Jon Tester of Montana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Bill Nelson of Florida, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jim Webb of Virginia. The first four are running for re-election this year, while the last two are leaving the Senate. They haven’t all declared outright support for postponing the tax hikes, but they have expressed a willingness to negotiate a deal with Republicans that would avoid raising taxes on anyone next year.

    1. McCaskill is in trouble. her numbers suck.

      1. That is too bad. She is a “good” Dem like Scott Brown is a good Republican – someone who is not so mired in PartyThink with an independent brain.

        1. You know she says that, but she’s fallen in line with team blue for every big vote when it counts.

          I am a little upset with Webb leaving though. He at least actually cares about reforming the fucked up criminal justice system, and seems to not like party leadership at all.

          1. Now its either going to be Allen, a team red hack or Kaine, a team blue hack.

    2. I’m still mad at Team Red for making these things with Sunset provisions. What a bunch of fucking assholes.

  13. The president will apparently be asking for a partial one-year extension of the tax cuts.

    [Obama scratching the imagined ants off his arms]
    “Come on, man, I just need a little, man. Just to get me past the election. Help me out, man.”

  14. liberal parties may actually be looking at a victory over the Muslim Brotherhood

    Fox News has been telling their mouth-breathers that the Muslim Brohood is some sort of liberal Obama ally instead of the backwards conservative assholes they really are (and its been repeated by the peanut gallery here).

    1. this administration supported the ouster of Mubarak knowing full well the MB would be the electoral outcome. Did the same in Libya, again knowing full well that something even more hostile than Qaddafi will result. And now it’s banging the drum for Syria.

      No, Fox HAS NOT painted the MB as liberal, and neither has everyone else, but most folks with a pulse seem to know who/what the group is. Only the Obama dogwashing brigade pretends the “Arab Spring” is even remotely connected to its Prague ancestor.

      1. Any true election in the Middle East will result in a Sharia government (see Iraq). You know damn well if the Muslim Brohood didn’t have a scary name it would never be mentioned by the spinmeisters at Fox News and AM radio.

        1. Needz moar Abdulhakim Belhajz.

        2. doesn’t need a scary name. You could call it Cairo Friendship Club and it would not change who the group is or what it seeks. Your guy did this knowing what the outcome would be. Turn off the MSNBC and do your own research. The MB is not a warm fuzzy bunch.

          1. The evil government agency in C.S. Lewis’ *That Hideous Strength* was called N.I.C.E.

  15. And the most important event this weekend: Roger Federer wins Wimbledon, regains #1 ranking.

    1. Wimbledon … Is that that sport where white people hit a little ball back and forth over a waist high barrier. Yeah, that sounds important. At least you’re not going on about that one where white people hit a tiny ball in a little hole in the ground.

      1. There are some black people that hit the ball back and forth as well.

        Sometimes (like every other year) they do it well enough that they get an award.

  16. President Obama is “100% committed” to allowing the Bush era tax cuts to expire for those making more than $250,000 a year

    because it’s not their money; it is the govt’s. Did you ever notice that you never hear a Dem/liberal/progressive talking head consider the notion of less govt spending.

    1. Of course, less on Defense!

      1. true, but that’s to free up money for something else. There is never an overall reduction from the left. The right doesn’t necessarily do it, either, but it sometimes talks a good game.

        1. I thought they’d dropped the whole idea of a $250,000 cut-off. They won in court by claiming the health-care penalty is actually a tax, and of course people below $250,000 will be paying it.

          So why not just explain that he’s “evolved” on the $250,000 cut-off and simply wants to raise taxes across the board.

          1. can’t have class warfare that way, and you can’t bang the drum about getting those evil filthy putrid rich to finally pay their fare share. Like I have said before – liberalism cannot survive without a massively uninformed population.

        2. Ah, you are, of course, correct.

  17. The United States’ chance for a do-over with Egypt
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    The Obama administration’s first two steps in this acrobacy managed to alienate and confuse all sides. First, in March, it waived congressional conditions on this year’s military aid that required the generals to complete a democratic transition ? something that may have encouraged the military’s subsequent dismissal of the elected Congress and usurpation of the new president’s powers. Egyptian democrats felt betrayed.

  18. Cherokee conspiracy
    The perils of ‘Indian’ Liz Warren
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/o…..fMO3RRFjJM

    A couple of weeks ago, several Cherokee who had been most critical of Warren’s scam arrived in Massachusetts to confront her. A perfect opportunity for Liz to meet people like her! But she snubbed the real Indians, claiming they were part of a vast right-wing Cherokee conspiracy. The Native Americans couldn’t even arrange a powwow with one of Warren’s whitebread campaign staffers.

    Finally they returned home, and Twila Barnes, an indefatigable Cherokee genealogist, went back to her digging ? and came up with the 1999 death certificate of Aunt Bee Veneck, who imparted the “family lore” to young Lizzy about her proud high-cheekbone heritage. The form offered as choices for race: Native American, white and black ? and the family member who supplied that information listed Aunt Bee as white.

  19. Something to do with your DNS resolution, which can be checked here.

    I never use that url shit. Only IP addies for me. Hardcore old school.

    1. Did you get your TCP/IP addresses from the IP Beacon of Castle Anthrax?

      1. Wait, was that the wrong thing to do? Shit…

      2. No, he wasn’t strong enough to fight the peril.

          1. Oh, come on. Let me face a little peril.

    2. That line cracked me up also. You can tell Ed has no clue about them computers and their fancy-smancy DNS look ups.

  20. Hill Poll: Majority feel Obama has changed country for worse
    http://thehill.com/polls/23662…..-for-worse

    A new poll for The Hill found 56 percent of likely voters believe Obama’s first term has transformed the nation in a negative way, compared to 35 percent who believe the country has changed for the better under his leadership.

    The results signal broad voter unease with the direction the nation has taken under Obama’s leadership and present a major challenge for the incumbent Democrat as he seeks reelection this fall.

    1. But, but, but..he is personally popular!1!11

    2. judging by the 56%, Obama has been successful. Sorry, but it is long past time to stop using traditional methodology in analyzing this group. What most folks would see as bad outcomes, this WH regards as goals. But no one wants to say that out loud.

      1. Some of us have been saying this out loud pretty much from day one, but for some reason a lot of people are still in this weird state of denial and don’t want to believe that the guy in the White House is a malevolent POS.

        1. true Mike. I keep hearing things like “failed policies”, “wrong approach”, and the usual. No, not failed or wrong; they are intentional. He’s not Clinton or some other Dem; he’s a leftist. But it’s like there is a cognitive dissonance that stops people from seeing reality.

          1. Then Reagan is a leftist. More tax increases than Obama, illegal amnesty, and a bigger healthcare mandate (EMTALA).

            1. and a big fat cut on income tax rates that triggered a two-decades long boom. You are wrong on amnesty – the quid of letting them in was supposed to have a quo of enhanced security but the Dems reneged on that. Shocking.

              But if Reagan is, as you describe, a leftist, why doesn’t Obama follow his script instead of doing the opposite? Unless what The Obama wants is opposite results –

              1. Obama is doing the same. Tax cuts while ignoring large deficits (17 small business cuts/credits).

                Dumbya and Cheney proved we’re all Keynesians now.

                1. tax credits do not equal tax cuts, and gimmicks like the payroll tax cut – AKA the Social Security Defunding Act – are just that. Obama seems your money as his, and your deficit comparison is too weak to even be considered laughable. As it was, revenue went UP during Reagan; for some reason, it refuses to do that for The Obama.

        2. Which POS in the White House are you talking about? There have been so many.

    3. Well, if the election was held today, Obama would win (unless the polls are wildly off in the swing states).

      Weep for your country, my friends. Its going to get the President it wants and deserves, good and hard.

      And the first thing cut in the New Austerity will be the lube.

  21. Off-duty cops in Philly kill teen over allegedly stolen pizza. They are finally charged, but it took four years and a grand jury.

  22. Octomum’s dad reveals she is moving to Australia

    http://womansday.ninemsn.com.a…..-australia

    Don’t get your hopes up my friends – we probably won’t take her

    1. wait, I thought she was broke. I thought getting into Oz was semi/fairly difficult…?

      1. yep, we usually don’t take bankrupts or people whose kids might be a drain on our purse. There’s a family reunion program but I don’t think crazy loser nieces with failed porn careers count

        1. Um, think of it as a diversity enhancement! Oz cannot have too many octuplet bearing failed pron stars, can it? Just do us one little favor and take her?!

      2. From reading Tim Blair’s blog, its trivially easy to move to Australia and get “asylum”.

        All you have to do is show up with no paperwork. Bang! Labor Government gives you asylum and puts you on the dole.

        1. I need asylum from the American government which is othering me. Also, Aussie wenches.

        2. It seems it’s roughly a 1 in 2 chance – the latest stats on the numbers of seekers vs grants are here

          1. 50 – 50? Not bad.

            1. Yeah, hell – at worst you get put back on a plane in the opposite direct, non? 50-50 seems like good odds of you’re desperate.

              I’d prefer New Zealand, though. Better skiing.

  23. Mitt Romney has some friends, relatives and fellow Mormons … some people that are going to vote for him. But that’s not what this election is about. This election is going to be a referendum on the president’s failed economic policies.

    So you see, your vote for Mitt Romney isn’t really a vote for Mitt Romney. It’s actually a vote against Barack Obama. Now you don’t have to feel so bad when you go to vote.

    1. That is probably the most honest thing I have heard from a high level politician in a while.

    2. If only they could print the ballots to offer “Barack Obama” and “NOT Barack Obama” as the two choices for President…

      1. If they only did like in Russia (or used to do in Russia, when it still had real elections) and let you cross of the names of the candidates you can’t stand, without sullying yourself by voting *for* any candidate.

        1. When the hell did Russia ever have real elections?

    3. Very revealing comment about Boehner and his view of the GOP voter, because, obviously, only Mormons would vote for a Mormon.

      Boehner would probably say something similar about Cantor (if Cantor was the nominee but that won’t happen because Eric doesn’t believe in Jesus) so I don’t feel as bad for Romney as I do for the LDS in general. They take a lot of shit for religious beliefs that aren’t any more ridiculous than those of other Christians.

      1. They take a lot of shit for religious beliefs that aren’t any more ridiculous than those of other Christians.

        Some of their beliefs are fucking wacky as shit. It really would be difficult for the average evangelical Christian to accept the beliefs of the LDS. It shouldn’t preclude Romney from being Prez, though.

  24. In 2010, influenced by the Tea Party and its focus on fiscal issues, 17 states elected Republican governors. And, according to an Examiner.com analysis, every one of those states saw a drop in their unemployment rates since January of 2011.
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G…..ov-In-2010

    1. Fine, rub it in why dontcha? Here in IL we still languish under the Team Blue thieves.

    2. So? 49 out of 50 states saw a drop in the UE rate during that time period.

      1. and that state elected a Dem. Probably coincidence.

        1. A cost cutting “austerity” Dem – Cuomo. What did he do wrong?

          1. right…because Cuomo and austerity are synonyms.

      2. sometimes it helps to read further:

        “On average, states that elected Republican governors in 2010 saw their unemployment rates decrease at a faster clip than states that elected Democrats and the unemployment rate at the national level did.”

        1. That’s because people left those Republican states to get jobs in progressive Dem states – duh!

          1. That’s because people left those Republican states to [collect unemployment] in progressive Dem states – duh!

            FIFY

        2. Be nice to Shreek. He is functionally retarded and generally demonic. So reading the article is just not how he rolls.

        3. “You changed the metric!”

          /shriek

    3. unemployment rates since January of 2011.

      Doesn’t really tell us anything. I’d like to see net interstate immigration and U6 changes during the same period instead.

    4. Well, the truth is that the biggest reason why the unemployment rate has dropped so much over the last 18 months is because of the massive number of people who have given up and dropped out of the workforce.

      The Labor Force Participation Rate has been undergoing a steady decline (with a couple of tiny and insignificant upticks) since the day that Block Yomomma took office, and is close to the lowest it has been in thirty years.

      1. It peaked in the late 1990s. I guess you’re going to praise Clinton and bash Bush.

        1. Well yeah, Clinton is like George Washington compared to the crap we’ve had to suffer through over the last decade!

          Clinton started off rather poorly, but once he got the shit kicked out of him in the midterm he wisely changed course, to the great benefit of the nation. Obama by contrast has decided to pretend that 2010 and everything that has happened since never really happened.

          Clinton has a real functioning brain in his head, whereas Obama is a fucking ignoramus who knows nothing and thinks he knows everything.

  25. Organisers of a public relations event at a German gun club were left red-faced on Sunday, after a woman accidentally shot a man in the foot.

    http://www.thelocal.de/society/20120709-43639.html

    Who’s running this, Jeffrey Lee Pierce?

    1. What part of Nicht Schiessen! Don’t you verstehen?

  26. But, but, but…guns are outlawed here. How can there be shootings?

    1. Heh, there was a massive gun buyback here in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre. Swiftly followed by the biggest wave of gangland shootings in Australian history

    2. Retarded, harmful hoplophobia — it’s what’s for breakfast. Gaia bless SF!

  27. What’s the over-under on how long it takes Boehner to either deny that he said that or to otherwise walk it back?

    1. Why would he take back something that’s so self-evidently true?

      1. Because the general Washington definition of a gaffe is accidentally saying something that’s self-evidently true but just isn’t said.

        I agree, it is unambiguously true.

      2. Change “Romney” to “Cantor” and “Mormons” to “Jews” and I think you’ll understand why it might have been a rude thing to say.

        I have my doubts whether he’ll get called on it. Most Christians seem to resent the LDS. Maybe it’s for having the latest revelation?

  28. An 81-year-old Gold Coast woman who allegedly led police on a high-speed chase, struck an officer with her car and was abusive when caught has been warned she could go to jail.

    Ailsa May Locke claims she thought the officer trying to flag her down on Oxley Drive at Coombabah in April was ‘a hooligan with a stick’.

    http://www.news.com.au/nationa…..6421804172

    1. Good on ‘er.

  29. From what I can tell, internet Libertarianism is all about stealing from the people to enrich yourselves.

    Meanwhile hundreds of thousands starve despite ample resources, but it’s not “your problem” because you have privilege.

    Get back to me when you’re the ones sweeping the floor for five cents an hour.

    1. yep, you finally figured us out. Thanks for stopping by, but please leave a number where we can reach you once we have mended our evil ways.

    2. Does anything serve to refresh the tree of liberty quite so effectively as the putrid blood of a progressive slavemaker?

      1. I think it is perfect proof of the Lenin quote above. He wanted to established by dictatorial fiat his atheist anarchist society, and when he couldn’t he turned even more into totalitarianism. The result being Stalinist purges.

        And yet, here all you people are, clamoring for more violent butchering of those who resist your “central plan” for society.

        1. short stelio,
          try something different, like basic comprehension or logic rather than sophistry. No one here has clamored for anything other than less govt intrusion in our lives.

          1. Yeah, but less government intrusion in our lives means less free shit for parasites. Won’t you think of the chiladrens?

          2. And less government will only lead to corporate takeover.

            Then you’ll really have an opportunity to whine about precious “liberties” because you won’t have any at all. You’ll only have whatever the corporate masters grant you instead of what the people defend through democracy.

            1. keep at stelio….those authoritarian boots are not going to lick themselves.

            2. And less government will only lead to corporate takeover.

              Because corporations would never co-opt the government. LOL

              1. Not if there are proper controls, something which Citizen United removed.

                1. Not if there are proper controls, something which Citizen United removed.

                  That is why the banks stole a couple of trillion dollars under TARP, because those pre Citizens United controls were so effective.

                  Lay off the bath salts Mary.

                  1. Maybe if the banks were nationalized they wouldn’t have done this? More market failures.

              2. Why is it so hard for liberals to figure out that corporate take overs of things only grow as government grows? Do they not realize that they are the corporate pawns?

            3. And less government will only lead to corporate takeover.

              Corporate takeover is only possible with the aid of the state.

              1. And without the state who will protect you from the multinational corporations?

                1. Seriously, why do we still have to put up with this psychotic bitch endlessly trolling the site under a dozen different user names? I thought that the registration system was specifically put in place in order to prevent this.

                  1. Mike,

                    It used to be far worse. This is manageable. Just use chrome and install the reasonable extension.

                    1. And the so-called libertarians run to censorship!

                    2. Unfortunately I can’t use Chrome with reason anymore. I keep getting one of those oh-so-helpful “Aw Snap!” errors and the techies at Google are completely helpless in the face of their own browser errors, despite my providing them with excruciating detail.

                      So I’m stuck here scrolling and scrolling to find something entertaining or thought-provoking or otherwise useful among the cow shit. And that includes those of you feeding it.

                    3. What OS are you using?

                    4. Mac

                    5. Did these google guys tell you to follow the steps on this page?

                      http://www.chromium.org/for-testers/enable-logging

                    6. They asked me to send them crash IDs or whatever they’re called. I sent them about 4 or 5, each one for a different site. That’s when they suddenly stopped responding to the thread on the support forums.

                    7. That’s when they suddenly stopped responding to the thread on the support forums.

                      Which means that they had no good answer.

                      It still might be helpful to turn on the logging as described in that link.

                      Then try to go to reason.com. After the “Oh Snap” thing comes on, close chrome and look at the log. It should give you a better idea of what broke.

                    8. Alrighty – I’ll give it a whirl.

                    9. No dice – I kept getting errors on the Terminal. I suspect this is because it is a work computer and my admin rights are fairly limited. It works fine on my Windows 7 machine at home.

                    10. That sucks.

                      That also might be the source of your troubles. It’s possible that some library chrome needs is not getting properly installed.

                      And since the designers approach to the relationship of a Mac with its user seems to be based on the paradigm that the user is to be treated as an anorexic mushroom (fed a minuscule amount of shit, if any, and kept in the dark), good luck finding out exactly what went wrong.

                      Yes, I’m a bitter provider of tech support to Mac owning family members…

        2. Try harder. You’re a little transparent right now.

          1. What’s for liberty.

            Right!

            1. The only real freedom is living under tight government control.

        3. the Straw Man looms large! make that LARGE!

        4. And yet, here all you people are, clamoring for more violent butchering of those who resist your “central plan” for society.

          Again, progressivism.

          Libertarians don’t believe in any central plan for society and are against the violent butchering of anyone.

          1. Yet Libertarians want to impose their utopian view where people can’t work together on everyone. How else will they do this other than by force?

            1. No libertarians want to prevent you and your cousin from deciding what I will do.

              You and it are still free to decide what you will do but you lose the power to force me to go along with it.

            2. Shorter Stelio: Freedom is slavery.

    3. Not taking equals giving.
      Not giving equals taking.
      Inaction is action.
      Profit is theft.

      Tony has spoken.

    4. Dude, if you are going to troll, you have to keep your arguments to ones that a sane person might plausably make, or your somment becomes griefing, which is a type of comment that wears a hockey helment and rides the special bus.

      In your case, that comment is pathetic even by griefing standards.

      I award you the worst possible grade: an A minus minus!

      1. Yet, all you libertarians.

        Market failure!

      2. Is a B++ better than an A–? This wasn’t covered in the syllabus.

        1. Stelios’ professor only give him A’s, this is why he is so smart. Plus, he doesn’t have to do any actual work, so why should anyone else have to work to get anything?

          Move away, Stelios. You are an unoriginal and wholly obvious troll.

      3. Any hope of being upgraded to an A plus minus?

    5. Get back to me when you’re the ones sweeping the floor for five cents an hour.

      I’m sorry your lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills left you with no better prospects. But dedicate yourself to being the best floorsweeper you can be, quit spouting retarded nonsense on the internet, and maybe you’ll get a 20% raise. That extra cent an hour should boost your standard of living immensely.

      1. Or we can do the civilized thing and provide everyone with a living wage instead of punishing them for existing.

        1. This is some of the finest parody I have seen in years…wait, what?

        2. See when you say ‘we’ you include me in that. What if I don’t feel the need to give my earnings to someone who has done nothing to earn them? Maybe you should try to engage your brain a little bit before continuing.

          1. In other words you want to hoard whatever you can get your grubby mutts on.

            Rather than be a part of society and provide a pittance to make sure we all have the opportunity you did.

            1. Yes, you are correct. And taking my stuff away infringes on my rights. I have every right to hoard my stuff because it’s MINE.

              1. I have every right to hoard my stuff because it’s MINE.

                You don’t understand. The purpose of government is to protect your right to private property while also protecting the right of other people to use your private property.
                There is no contradiction there.
                Government can give others the right to use your private property while also giving you exclusive claim to your private property.
                See?
                What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine.
                No contradiction.

            2. In other words you want to hoard whatever you can get your grubby mutts on.

              I just want an acknowledgement that my mind and my effort belong to me, by right.

              Maybe once that acknowledgement is made, I’ll hoard. Maybe not.

              1. You’re trapped by false consciousness, you think these things only because of the current capitalist enforced system. In a real system where you’re freed, you’ll recognize your desire to work for the betterment of society.

                1. In a real system where you’re freed, you’ll recognize your desire to work for the betterment of society.

                  And if I still don’t give a shit about society and want to work for my own betterment?

                2. ” you’ll recognize your desire to work for the betterment of society.”

                  And if not, off to the gulag for you!

                3. How do we know it’s not your consciousness that’s false? If you’re going to toss around accusations of falsity, you need to be provably true before you can assert something else is false. Remember to show your work.

            3. Make that living wage proposition a voluntary one (we can call it “charity”) and I bet you’ll find a good number of libertarians pitching in for many cases of misfortune.

            4. Absoutely freaking correct. I’ve busted my ass to have what I’ve got. I don’t envy those who have more and I sure as hell don’t pity lazy ass whiners who have less. Holy Jack and Diane, grow up.

        3. Or we can do the civilized thing and provide everyone with a living wage instead of punishing them for existing.

          Shut up, Mary.

          Edgar the Exploiter

        4. Or we can do the civilized thing and provide everyone with a living wage instead of punishing them for existing.

          Good idea.

          You can start by providing my living wage.

          Pay Up Sukka.

          1. In a proper society, everyone would have a living wage, not just you. Stop being a selfish libertarian.

    6. From what I can tell, internet Libertarianism is all about stealing from the people to enrich yourselves.

      No,

      That what’s progressivism is all about.

      Libertarianism is leaving people alone and doing your own thing.

      1. Remember, freedom = slavery.

      2. Except when it comes to begging others for money to pay for police, courts, national defense, and other collective uses of resources you deem legitimate.

        1. Begging is a far, far different thing than collecting by force.

          Begging has more moral legitimacy, for one thing.

        2. This strawman of yours is getting kind of stale. It doesn’t have that fresh scent of an original strawman. Don’t you have any other strawmen?

          1. You don’t know what that term means so it would behoove you to stop using it.

            Do libertarians believe in collectivizing resources for certain purposes, or are you anarchists? If you do believe in collectivizing some resources, then how do you make a cogent moral case against collectivizing them for other purposes?

            1. Libertarians favor jailing murderers. So how do they make a cogent moral case against jailing everyone?

            2. If part of one’s resources is collectivized for, say, national defense, one has at least the theoretical benefit of a secure nation.

              If part of one’s resources is collectivized for, say, birth control for someone else, one has… just less resources with no benefit.

              There’s a name for a related phenomenon. JR Rider? No, that’s not it. CC Ryder? It’s something like that. Something about someone who rides cheaply or even for free. Damn my fading memory.

            3. I don’t know any Libertarian or anyone here that has argued there isn’t a role for government to perform necessary, minimal services, including police, firefighters, and the common defense.

              Your arguement is strawman meant to conflate necessary and proper with everything – and is hence a strawman.

              1. But what distinguishes the necessary and proper from the morally impermissible? I think universal healthcare is necessary and proper. Now either whip out a deity to adjudicate the matter or just agree to disagree.

                1. Now either whip out a deity to adjudicate the matter or just agree to disagree.

                  Dude, we’d be happy to agree to disagree. It’s just that you and your friends are pointing guns at us and threatening to put us in cages if we don’t go along with you.

  30. Laws and Taxes are for the little people:
    http://www.wbaltv.com/news/mar…..index.html

    The governor insists Maryland State Police Superintendent Marcus Brown’s home is Maryland, but he and his family are receiving tax breaks for claiming primary residences in two different states, I-Team lead investigative reporter Jayne Miller said Wednesday. A dark-colored Crown Victoria that’s owned by Maryland taxpayers is the take-home car assigned to Brown, Miller reported. The 11 News I-Team took pictures of the car on Memorial Day ? not in a Maryland neighborhood, but in Camp Hill, Pa. ? a suburb of Harrisburg. It’s one of two places Brown can call home.

  31. Ernest Borgnine is dead.

    What was your favorite Borgnine performance? Mine has to be “Fatso” Judson in From Here To Eternity

    …or maybe Ted Denslow in BASEketball.

    1. Merlin’s Shop of Mystical Wonders.

    2. Mermaid Man from Spongebob Squarepants.

    3. Don’t worry kids! As long as I have my trusty….my trusty…..

    4. his tranny act as Roseanne

    5. What was your favorite Borgnine performance?

      Mermaid Man in Spongebob Squarepants. Hands down.

    6. If I ever got in an epic bar brawl, I’d have wanted Borgnine with me.

    7. Obviously Airwolf, you philistines.

    8. I liked him in Escape from New York, The Dirty Dozen, The Poseidon Adventure, and in the John Boy Walton version of All Quiet on the Western Front.

      1. The John Boy Walton version of All Quiet is a great movie.

  32. Linked on Drudge…

    http://news.yahoo.com/freedom-…..34889.html

    Check out the snark quotes employed in the headline.

    1. Aaaaand it looks like Lord Humungus beat me to the draw. Schucks.

    2. Look who was a “racial justice fellow” in 2005: Pauline Arrillaga, National Writer, Associated Press.

  33. You people just cannot resist feeding the trolls, can you? Why?

    1. Nobody has fed you yet. Wait. Shit…

      1. I am not a troll, I am an ogre.

        1. NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRDDDDD!

        2. Oh, so you’re doing Capital One commercials now?

          1. Those Capital One guys are teh seksi.

    2. And here comes the Axis of Glib.

      1. And here comes the Axis of Glib.

        Shut up, Mary.

        1. And you continue.

      2. the Axis of Glib.

        That’s our shortstop!

      3. I didn’t know MNG was Greek. Explains a lot.

    3. It’s our famous kindness – we hear the cries of the hungry and voluntarily feed them, instead of waiting for Big Daddy Government to do it by theft. We really ought to set our top hats at a jaunty angle and stroll by, whistling some Cole Porter, but we are just too damn soft-hearted

    4. I have resisted – well, one slight deviation. Back to monocle fitting and top hat selecting.

    5. “The creatures of the deep seem to have lost some of their luster.”

    6. After years of feeding, the wild trolls have become unable to feed themselves and are virtually domesticated. If they don’t feed them the troll will become extinct, leaving only the related species of griefer and sockpuppet.

  34. Here’s a nagging question Obama chronicler Jonathan Alter may be able to answer: In his 2011 State of the Union address, Obama laid out a plan to have ‘a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015,’ a goal that now looks increasingly unrealistic insane. Did Obama know the million-EV goal was BS when he announced it? Was he misled by advisers? If the latter, have any suffered adverse consequences ? Was he too inexperienced to know the extent to which bureaucracies tend to tell the boss what he wants to hear, even if it’s a fantasy? Or did he not care?

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/07…..for-obama/

    1. none of the above. He said because he thought it sounded good, made him look all forward looking. The Daily Caller is making the same mistake others do – it analyzes Obama with the same calculus applied to everyone else.

      That does not work. He’s not like anyone else. What most politicians would see as failure, Obama sees as the desired outcome since his goal is to foster as much dependency on Fedzilla as possible.

    2. Hey, it looked good on the teleprompter.

    3. John, if Obama says then it is true.

      Stop being an unbeliever.

      Stop confusing Obama and hear his music.

    4. Not much different than NCLB. SotU’s are so vacuous that it amazes me every year how much people invest time in parsing the idiocy.

  35. REPORT: UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DROPPED IN EVERY STATE THAT ELECTED GOP GOV. IN 2010

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G…..ov-In-2010

    1. That is just because racist corporations stop hiring whenever a Democrat is in office. The comentariat at Slate told me so.

  36. The other part of it ? I like that there is a check, OK? That there’s a person in the office that doesn’t think he’s bigger than the state. I like religion being a check and knowing that my president goes home every night addressing someone above him and not thinking all the power resides right here? Atheists don’t have that.

    The reverse of this problem is that if you take Christianity literally, this world and all of its works mean absolutely nothing. Less than nothing.

    If there’s such a thing as eternal life, the afterlife is all that matters. Nothing that happens to you in this life means a damn thing. What’s three score years and ten, compared to the first billion years of eternity? Nothing. And that’s only the first billion years, which will be followed by a further infinity of years.

    Naturally, most religious people don’t seem to be truly conscious of the meaningless of this world in their day-to-day lives. But there’s always the chance they’ll have a moment of clarity, on any particular day. And then you get, “Kill them all – God will know his own!”

    1. Of course if you are an atheist live is pretty meaningless as well. That is really the central problem of mankind. How do you balance and find meaning in a life which, when compared to God or eternity is utterly insignificant. So everyone faces that problem.

      What Christianity can do is prevent hubris. William Russsell Meade made this point a few days ago much better than I can.

      The new elites don’t feel guilty about their power; they didn’t inherit it. They earned it. They are smarter than everybody else and they deserve to rule ? and in their own minds at least, they also deserve the perks that power brings. Money, fame, access: bring it on.

      1. For a Christian, the belief in the equal value of all people in God’s eyes is a bedrock belief. Every human being is created directly by God; every human soul is beloved by God. Human beings are not all alike, and we have different gifts and different abilities. But each of us was created to be exactly who and what we are by the Author of the Universe, and we believe that God loves and values the child with Downs’ syndrome as much as he loves and values the Nobel-prize winning economist.

        That’s right. God thinks Trig Palin is just as marvelous and wonderful and adorable as Paul Krugman. The homeless old guy with the shakes down by the subway is as important to God’s vision for the world as the Rhodes Scholar passing him by.

        For the Christian, what matters about you isn’t, in the last analysis, your gifts or your talents. God uses our gifts, but he doesn’t need them. He can raise up a million children smarter than you and faster than you and more ambitious than you, should he so choose. He’s made you an intellect, an artist, an entrepreneur because his love wants you to join him in co-creating the world, not because the world wouldn’t be rich and beautiful (and efficiently governed) without you.

        http://blogs.the-american-inte…..cy-a-sham/

      2. But there’s more. Serious Christians have to struggle continually against the temptation to view “merit” uncritically. To begin with, any gifts that you have are just that ? gifts. Your ability to score 800 on the math section of the SAT is something for which you can personally take no credit whatever. It’s like a pretty face or perfect pitch: it’s very nice to have, but it’s God’s sovereign choice, not your sublime inner nature, that is responsible for this. And of course, he doesn’t give his gifts without a purpose.

        And guess what: the reason God made you smart wasn’t to make you rich and to make you special and to allow you to swank around in the White House or at Davos. He made you smart so that you could serve ? and the people he wants you to serve are exactly all those people you feel so arrogantly superior to. At the end of the day, they aren’t going to be judged on how much they deferred to you, respected you, and handed over to you all those rewards you felt you deserved. God isn’t particularly interested in what the Paul Krugmans of this world think though he wants us all to do our best to get things right; he’s interested in how much Paul Krugman and the rest of us loved and sought to serve one another.

        1. For a Christian, the belief in the equal value of all people in God’s eyes is a bedrock belief.

          That’s just not true.

          God divides us into sheep and goats.

          One group gets eternal bliss and one gets eternal punishment on some truly horrific terms.

          And that’s the fundamental problem with value systems that include eternal life. If you believe in it, you’re likely to include that anything or anyone in this world that might lead any soul to end up in the “goat” group should be suppressed by force.

          Your ability to score 800 on the math section of the SAT is something for which you can personally take no credit whatever.

          This is Rawlsian nonsense. This mindset is itself largely responsible for half the sins of collectivism. Since people don’t deserve to be talented, since they’ve received “gifts”, it’s perfectly OK for the state to seize the proceeds of their labor and redistribute those “gifts” to the less “gifted”.

          It doesn’t matter what kind of abilities God “gifts” me with – I’m not getting 800 on the math SAT unless I show up and try. If I walk into the test station and take a dump on the paper, I don’t get an 800. That to me says that the marginal value of my giving a damn and making an effort = 100% of the outcome.

          1. That’s just not true.

            God divides us into sheep and goats.

            That is totally true. The only thing that separates is belief. We all start out in the same worthless shape. And it doesn’t matter if we are a Nobel Prize winner or a street person, if we believe we are the same. What separates us is not our ability but our belief. And even then every Christian knows they are one doubt away from going right back to where they started. You may for a fleeting moment be able to feel good about believing. But you can never feel good about being smart or beautiful or anything else but belief because none of that matters. And that is the point.

            This is Rawlsian nonsense. This mindset is itself largely responsible for half the sins of collectivism. Since people don’t deserve to be talented, since they’ve received “gifts”, it’s perfectly OK for the state to seize the proceeds of their labor and redistribute those “gifts” to the less “gifted”.

            That is one extreme. The other extreme is that since you got your 800 SAT you are smarter and more deserving than those who didn’t and therefore more deserving of rule. Fuck you fluffy, I am smarter and better than you. Therefore, I get to tell you how to live for your own good.

            1. What separates us is not our ability but our belief.

              Um…so what?

              That still means you have a “merit” test of value.

              So you can’t say, “God values everyone equally and meritocratic atheists don’t,” when God is applying a system of merit performance where the penalty for failure is eternal torture. That sounds pretty damn meritocratic to me.

          2. As Meade points out, our elites are nearly universally atheist. And they all believe that they have a right to rule and determine the fates of others because they deserve it. They are just better people and therefore it is okay to rule other people’s lives. That is the ditch we are in.

            Now you show me where Christian equality before God is used as an excuse to take other people’s property. I don’t see many examples of that. But I see a hell of a lot of people who confuse worldly cleverness for a right to rule over those whom they deem inferior.

          3. If I walk into the test station and take a dump on the paper, I don’t get an 800.

            If standards keep getting lowered so everybody can feel good about themselves, it may get you an 800 in the near future.

          4. If you believe in it, you’re likely to include that anything or anyone in this world that might lead any soul to end up in the “goat” group should be suppressed by force.

            Only if you actually ignore the actual teachings of Jesus.

            This is what the inquisitors did, they applied their own logic instead of following the teachings of Jesus. And it is what you are trying to do.

            Your logic is invalid, even if it were logically valid. It doesnt apply.

          5. If you believe in it, you’re likely to include that anything or anyone in this world that might lead any soul to end up in the “goat” group should be suppressed by force.

            Where the fuck do you get this bullshit from? I thought you said to went to a Catholic school, and not some sect that doesn’t believe in free will?

        2. Of course if you are an atheist [life] is pretty meaningless as well.

          What the fuck? Why do I need a big bearded guy in the sky for my life to have meaning?

          1. Because John said so, duh. John’s life has meaning because of God therefore if you don’t believe in God your life has no meaning.

      3. KILL THE TROLL!

      4. There you go again.

        Probably not the right thread to debate this…again…but I still can’t resist at least saying again that…

        “Meaning” is relative. My life has meaning in that my ability to find enjoyment during my time on hand has meaning to me.

        1. Sure it is. But finding meaning in relation to the pretty insignificant nature of life is really life’s central problem after just surviving. Belief systems just solve that problem they don’t eliminate it.

          1. “But finding meaning in relation to the pretty insignificant nature of life is really life’s central problem after just surviving.”

            I don’t happen to agree. In fact, I find the question completely pointless. It may be a fun philosophy discussion, but that’s about it.

            I do not agree that a need for meaning is the root of any system for defining social cohesion. Natural Rights can be defined in the absence of meaning.

            1. I do not agree that a need for meaning is the root of any system for defining social cohesion. Natural Rights can be defined in the absence of meaning.
              reply to this

              Sure, anything can be defined. But without any metaphysical grounding they are just made up definitions. You call them “natural rights” but what they are is just things you happen to like. Good for you. But don’t pretend that your preferences have any binding effect or meaning to anyone but you.

          2. the pretty insignificant nature of life

            Insignificant by what standard? Insignificant to whom?

            You’re taking the concept of “significance” and dropping the context within which it has any meaning.

            1. IF your life is “significant” to you, good for you. All you are saying is that you have answered the question, at least for yourself. But the question still remains.

    2. The reverse of this problem is that if you take Christianity literally, this world and all of its works mean absolutely nothing. Less than nothing.

      Not so – how you live is the test and by what you are judged.

      I beleive it was a Frenchman that first utter “kill them all, God shall know his own” when sacking Albi, yes? Haven’t seen too many Crusades lately – so you you’d probably have to go look up the nearest Haqqani or AQ branch office to hear such talk these days.

      1. this world and all of its works mean absolutely nothing.

        No, rewards in this world are meaningless. This world is very meaningful in the Christian sense because your actions in this world determine your fate for all eternity. That is pretty significant.

      2. As I said, most religious people don’t live their lives as if they were truly conscious of the implications of their notions of eternity.

        The Frenchmen who suppressed the Algigensian heresy were, when you sit down and think it through, much more literally conscious of the implications of a metaphysics of eternal life than we are.

        Frankly, if you actually believe in God, you should be fanatically attempting to please him at every moment. You should be insane with fear that you could die at any moment and not be in a state of grace and end up damned. Because the downside of that is just so unbelievably horrific.

        1. Frankly, if you actually believe in God, you should be fanatically attempting to please him at every moment. You should be insane with fear that you could die at any moment and not be in a state of grace and end up damned. Because the downside of that is just so unbelievably horrific.

          Sure, if you beleive salvation comes via works. But that is not Christianity. Christianity recognizes that no one can live like that. The people are sinful and will never totally please God. Salvation comes through belief. And you should live every moment believing and letting that guide your life and understanding that that belief grants you forgiveness for the times you don’t measure up.

          1. Sure, if you beleive salvation comes via works. But that is not Christianity. Christianity recognizes that no one can live like that. The people are sinful and will never totally please God. Salvation comes through belief. And you should live every moment believing and letting that guide your life and understanding that that belief grants you forgiveness for the times you don’t measure up.

            That just changes what you have to be worried about.

            The act of believing is a “work”. Yeah, not in the Lutheran sense, but it’s still something you have to do, and something you could fail to do correctly. And if you fail to do it correctly, you lose.

            So you should be quivering with fear that you might fail to believe correctly.

            And you also should be looking at the Hare Krishnas and saying to yourself, “Those fuckers are all damned, and every time they convince someone to join up with them, that’s another person damned. We should go fuck those people up.”

            1. Your logic doesnt follow.

              Those fuckers are all damned

              ok so far.

              and every time they convince someone to join up with them, that’s another person damned.

              No, that other person was damned before they joined up. Joining the Krishnas changed nothing.

              We should go fuck those people up.

              Doesnt follow logically at all.

        2. You should be insane with fear that you could die at any moment and not be in a state of grace and end up damned.

          Except the state of grace is permanent once received.

          Maybe catholics dont teach that, but Im not catholic.

    3. But there’s always the chance they’ll have a moment of clarity, on any particular day. And then you get, “Kill them all – God will know his own!”

      Yeah, committing mass murder is the way to get into Christian heaven to enjoy that eternity.

      1. 12 years of Catholic school tells me:

        1. If I murder heretics, they can’t spread their heresy and lead innocent people into damnation. Win.

        2. If I can’t figure out who the heretics in a town are, if I kill everyone in the town, the heretics will go to hell (Win), the innocent will go to heaven (Win), and the threat of heresy will be contained (See #1 Win, above).

        3. If I damage my own soul by committing the mass murder, I can walk into any church, talk to the priest for a few minutes, get absolution, and walk out with my soul as clean as the driven snow. (Win)

        1. You should ask for a refund on that education.

          1. Which part is false and specifically why?

            The sacrament of Reconciliation is pretty fucked up, in the final analysis, dude. There’s no way around it.

            1. when did you go? I had 12 years of Catholic education, and didn’t get 1 or 2, but that was post-Vatican 2

            2. #1 and #2. Niether are wins.

              If you can find any evidence of Jesus suggesting heretics should be murdered, please point it out.

              Or Paul.

              That gives you the entire new testament to work with.

              Shouldnt be hard to find an example. Right?

            3. 1. If I murder heretics, they can’t spread their heresy and lead innocent people into damnation. Win.

              Because Christ never murdered anyone and advised people to do the same. When you murder those heretics not only have you damned yourself, you have damned them as well. You save them by converting them. I will wager that no one ever taught you that. You just invented it in your head to justify your hatred of Catholics.

              1. It doesn’t matter if Jesus or Paul specifically instructed anyone to do it or not. It’s impossible to extract it from the system.

                The only thing of any value is attaining the afterlife.

                That means that the murderer or rapist or torturer is actually less of a criminal than the proselytizing heretic. They only hurt your body, which has no value and is ephemeral. Ted Bundy could torture you for a month and it would be less than the blink of an eye compared to the afterlife. The heretic, OTOH, damns others by converting them to his heresy. That damnation is an actual harm that has real value. That means that anything you would do to stop a murderer, you should be willing to do to stop a heretic – times infinity.

                The Inquisition didn’t spring out of nowhere. We can try to come up with class-based theories for why it existed, political theories for why it existed, etc. – and those existed, but only tell part of the story. The Inquisition existed because if you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that God is saving or damning souls based on having the correct beliefs, the existence of an Inquisition makes perfect moral sense.

                1. Sure heratics are bad. But you can’t then take that and conclude that you have a duty to kill them. Sure people have, but they were wrong. And it certainly is not “impossible” to conclude otherwise. You only say that because frankly you are a bit nuts on this issue and let your prejudices trump your reason.

                  1. You only say that because frankly you are a bit nuts on this issue and let your prejudices trump your reason.

                    I’m starting to see why a majority of people wouldn’t vote for an atheist candidate.

                    1. I’m starting to see why a majority of people wouldn’t vote for an atheist candidate.

                      It’s not my fault that I’ve given your religion more thought than you have.

                      OK, actually, I guess that is my fault. But my conclusions aren’t my fault.

                    2. But my conclusions aren’t my fault.

                      When you are willfully making shit up to reach ridiculous conclusions because you hate religion, then yeah your conclusions are your fault.

                      It’s not my fault that I’ve given your religion more thought than you have.

                      It’s not my religion. I’m just not a dick about not believing.


                2. That means that anything you would do to stop a murderer, you should be willing to do to stop a heretic – times infinity.

                  False.

                  2 Peter 2 is maybe the most anti-heretical chapter in the NT. And it advises nothing of the sort. It basically says heretics will get what is coming to them.

                  Totally of advice given by Peter to the Christians (on this subject): “be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men.”

                  Defensive.

                  1. The epistles weren’t addressed to people with political power.

                    If a Christian was watching a father strangle his children, would he try to stop him?

                    Would a Christian think he possessed the moral authority to stop that?

                    If so, why would he not act to stop a father from teaching his children to, say, worship Satan? When by the terms of Christianity that’s infinitely worse to do to your children than simply strangling them.

                    It’s not enough to say, “Well, I can’t find anywhere in the epistles where it tells me to do that.” You’ve got to give me a reason to not conclude, from the things I do know, that heretics aren’t committing a harm I should feel bound to stop.

                    Now, maybe you might tell me that the Christians shouldn’t stop the strangling dad, either. And that would be one way out of the logic trap. And it might be a perfectly valid way, since “Turn the other cheek” and “The lilies of the field do not toil” are also reasonable responses to a metaphysical system that includes an afterlife. But I don’t necessarily think that rulers who did those things would be great to have, either.

                    1. If so, why would he not act to stop a father from teaching his children to, say, worship Satan?

                      He stops him by preaching the word of God.

                      In the strangling case, force is used to prevent force. In the teaching case, teaching is used to prevent teaching.

                      The epistles were addressed to everyone (in some cases not literally). And some of the literal people DID have political power. The churches in Asia Minor and Greece varied in their membership, and some had higher class members.

                      There is absolutely nothing to suggest that political power and force to be used to repress heresy. Its a not surprising result, as that is the kind of thing power is used for, but it is clearly against the teachings of Christianity.

            4. The entire thing.

              Specifically with Reconciliation you have to actually be repentant for it to work, one requirement of which is that you didn’t do the act with the specific intention of just getting it forgiven.

              1. you have to actually be repentant for it to work

                That means it boils down to whether the Inquisitors were sincere.

                Are you going to try to tell me that not one Inquisitor was ever sincere?

                1. If they were sincere, then they weren’t repentant since they didn’t think they did anything wrong anyway.

                2. Ask Pope Benedict. Just because they gave the Inquisition a new name doesn’t mean it’s gone.

            5. OK, well, first, Christian orthodoxy says all are condemned by their very nature, not innocent. In other words, we are all at the same disadvantage in God’s sight from the get-go. Heretics are dangerous in that they mix truth and untruth in varying degrees, but aren’t any more “damned” than anyone else. No person is innocent in their own right, and can’t be (in their own right)

              This idea of “protecting the innocent” is false, unless we’re talking about anyone who hasn’t fully grasped Right and Wrong and become responsible for their thoughts and actions. I, myself, thinks that’s a pretty low age range, and wouldn’t apply to most humans at any given time-and really not what you’re talking about.

              As far as absolution and whatnot, that’s Catholicism, not necessarily Christianity, per se. True repentance-actually being sorry for the wrong you’ve done, is where you’re forgiven, not just some debits and credits scheme.

              Sorry if that’s what you were taught. Now you know.

    4. “The reverse of this problem is that if you take Christianity literally, this world and all of its works mean absolutely nothing. Less than nothing.”

      Not really. The Christian worldview isn’t nihilistic, it is simply not egocentric in motive. It could be argued that the motive for life on earth is a stupid one for a Christian, but it is false to assume there is no motive.

    5. If there’s such a thing as eternal life, the afterlife is all that matters.

      Not necessarily true. You are assuming that your life doesnt affect your soul in some way that will have consequences in the afterlife.

    6. The reverse of this problem is that if you take Christianity literally, this world and all of its works mean absolutely nothing. Less than nothing.

      Not really. Christianity assigns importance to this life, which is why the Bible and Christian tradition are full of commands on how to live. The Bible also makes it clear that the way humans live this life affects the afterlife, both in heaven/hell and in rewards/glory.

      I am no longer a Christian, but you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

  37. We need “Blighter” to come over here and do some really good so-called progressive schtick. Tony sometimes asks the kind of questions you’ll get from Obama supporters but this Greek guy is pathetic.

    1. Blighter only does brilliant long form work, my pay grade doesn’t allow that.

      Tony was an actual delusional. I think the new version may not be him, but it may just be him going through election madness.

  38. What’s with these fucking US Forest Service/Ad Council banner ads asking what kind of person I become in nature? Why are my tax dollars paying for this shit? This is not a legitimate function of government.

    1. It’s a matter of public safety – they saw what sort of person STEVE SMITH became in nature

    2. Recent Druidic takeover of the USFS, I think.

  39. Please don’t engage the troll puppets.

  40. Boehner didnt listen to me in 2004. I told every liberal who would listen (total count: none) that “Anyone but Bush” was a failed strategy.

    1. Worked for Obama.

      1. No it didnt. Bush wasnt running in 2008.

        1. And yet it was still their campaign strategy.

          1. And if Bush had been running, he would have won again.

      2. Obama had hopey change as part of his shtick. Romney is doing the same thing as Kerry. I’m not the other guy.

  41. Hey, guys! What’s going on? Oh. Never mind.

    1. that might jsut work, LOL

    2. Well, my cat’s breath smells like catfood.

      1. how about your breath? Wine and roses?

        1. I’m guessing it smells like his cat.

    3. Look if I had the hours and freedom John did I could make things really fun.

      But alas I have like two hours where I can repeat what I’m exposed to every day and see if there are any gems to mine.

      Even Tulpa comes up with one from time to time:

      If most people aren’t willing to pay for a government program, then instituting it is undemocratic; if most people are willing to pay for it, then instituting it as a government program is unnecessary.

      1. Even Tulpa

        And we all laugh.

        1. Come on, that’s a good quote.

          1. Now apply it to universal heath insurance.

            1. Assume a society where “payment” is voluntary.

              1. The Federation?

              2. Other than taxes, I don’t pay for a damn thing that I don’t agree to pay for.

                Sounds pretty voluntary to me. Tell us, Stelios, what involuntary payments (again, not counting taxes) do you make?

    4. Heh. So it was SF on first.

  42. A malware program believed to have spread to computers around the world is set to shut down Internet access to those computers today. Something to do with your DNS resolution, which can be checked here.

    The malware program actually forced people to use DNS servers run by some shady characters. The FBI took down those servers some time ago, which would have cut off DNS to everyone affected by the malware. To give people time to clean out their systems, the FBI put up temporary DNS servers, but now they’re taking them down.

    NASA scientists appear to have been wrong about finding arsenic-based life. The bacteria the study was based on apparently lives despite the arsenic in its cells, not because of it.

    Scientists were pretty much saying that as soon as the study was released.

  43. When you are willfully making shit up to reach ridiculous conclusions because you hate religion, then yeah your conclusions are your fault.

    This is fucking ridiculous.

    The entire sub-thread started because someone posted an SE Cupp quote where she takes what she thinks are premises of atheism, and then constructs a syllogism where she decides how people would act if they held those premises to be true.

    I’m doing the same thing, based on the premise of eternal life.

    And my conclusions are supported by the pretty compelling evidence of the fact that religious people have historically drawn the conclusions I’m talking about.

    It really stupefies me that someone can stand there and tell me that the idea that someone might conclude that the rewards and punishments of eternal life put a logical premium on wiping out heretics is something I just made up. Here. On the spot.

    For my next trick, I will say that the premises of eternal life lead me to conclude that men might choose to withdraw from this life, and live apart, in solemn contemplation, in order to prepare for the next world, which is the only one with any real value. They might even choose to do this in groups, in special buildings built for this purpose, and they might wear special outfits to identify themselves as set apart, and to remind them of their otherworldliness.

    “Nuh-uh, Fluffy! No one would ever do that! Stop making stuff up!”

  44. Have we reached peak hipster?

    1. Dare I open the link and find a rage-inducing article on mayonnaise?

      I daren’t.

      1. Food, but not mayo. I daresay worse.

        1. OK, that’s fucking retarded.

    2. d(handlebar mustache)/dt is still positive from my view point.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.