A.M. Links: Anti-Romney Super PAC Star Calls President a Jerk, Chuck Schumer Rants About First Amendment, Law of the Sea Treaty Could Sink

|

  • poseidon from the clash of the titans

    A bomb planted by the Taliban destroyed 22 NATO tankers en route to coalition forces in northern Afghanistan.

  • The United Nations is set to a vote on another Syria resolution as early as today, though it doesn't look like Russia will drop its objections. Syria's defense minister, meanwhile, was killed in a suicide bombing this morning, according to the state media. Assad's brother-in-law, a feared deputy defense minister, was also killed.
  • A district court judge ruled against seven attorneys general suing to block a federal requirement employer coverage include contraceptives, certain sterilization procedures and abortion-inducing drugs. The judge said the plaintiffs could not show "immediate harm," (because the feds delayed when the requirement comes into effect) and so didn't have standing to sue.
  • A laid off steelworker hired for an anti-Romney ad by Priorities USA called President Obama a jerk and a panty waist. He also called Romney an asshole. The life-long Democrat says he won't be voting for the first time since 1971 because he's lost faith in politicians. Probably shouldn't have had any faith in them the first place. At least he got paid! 
  • Chuck Schumer parroted George Bush's "limits to freedom," saying in a speech on the Senate floor that there were limits to the freedoms of the First Amendment and that not restricting political speech via campaign finance laws was "just so wrong."
  • Jim DeMint says he has enough votes in the Senate to sink the treaty of the Law of the Sea, signed in 1994 but not yet ratified by the Senate.  John Kerry disagrees.
  • An Iranian vice president blamed the West for a drought in the southern part of the country, calling it part of a "soft war." Should we blame the Midwestern drought on the Mideast?

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

Reason.TV: "Sen. Tom Coburn: How Both Parties Bankrupted America"

Advertisement

NEXT: Jacob Sullum on Obamacare's Unenforceable Linchpin

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. +Titan

      1. Hey, now. Let’s stick to giving out our own props, shall we?

  1. An Iranian vice president blamed the West for a drought in the southern part of the country, calling it part of a “soft war.”

    The suxH2O virus.

    1. Should we blame the Midwestern drought on the Mideast?

      Well, all those towels must be having *some* effect.

      1. Dammit. I should have said suxwet virus. Do-over.

      2. That’s it, right there. Casus belli, bitches. Nuke away.

  2. This just in! Victoria’s Secret models are hot!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..mpics.html

    1. I saw that. I always laugh when people say Gisselle Budchen is a VS model. No she is a former VS model. No over 30 mom,no matter how hot is competing with 19 year old women. Their standards are about as high as it gets.

  3. So is Ashley Tisdale!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..lines.html

    1. I watch to much Phineas Ferb to be completely comfortable ogling Ashley Tisdale.

  4. Mmmmmm. Kate Beckinsale….
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..n-set.html

    1. Mmmmm with a side of ahhhhhh….

    2. In my mind’s eye Kate will always be fetchingly attired in a leather catsuit, wielding a sword and a BFG.

      1. I kinda like the frilled bikini look, but that’s just me.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..-look.html

  5. *knock knock* “Who is it?” “Bondage delivery!” “Honey! The whips and chains finally arrived!”
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..-door.html

    1. Related, but different: Candian Judge in hot water for her nude bondage pics.

      Also interesting part othe story, the client screwed his lawyer for a change.

      http://abovethelaw.com/tag/lori-douglas/

      1. Judging from the picture at the article, I really don’t want to see those pictures.

    2. Or they could just use Amazon.com like a normal person.

  6. Old guy with gun thwarts robbery! Take that you anti-gunners!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-door.html

    1. Yawn. Posted yesterday. Try to keep up, sarc.

  7. Whatever you think of the Bush “limits to freedom” speech. He at least gave it with the intent of trying to keep the country from being attacked by suicidal lunatics. Schumer’s “limits to freedom” speech was given with the intent of saving America from the deadly scourge of corporate sponsored political ads.

    Bush’s speech may have been a tragedy from a Libertarian perspective. Schumer’s speech is a comedy.

    1. Theoretical Marxists of the early 20th century had a utopian vision. Many of them honestly believed they could create paradise, and used that as a rationale for ending freedom.

      Scum like Schumer seek to end freedom so that people will eat fewer hot dogs and not use fake marijuana. They’re not only authoritarian or totalitarian, they’re very, very small.

      1. That is a really good point. They don’t even strive for Utopia anymore. In fact it is hard to figure out just what they want beyond crude access to other people’s money and control of other people’s lives for its own sake.

        1. Petty tyrants. Sic semper tyrannis.

          1. Chuck Schumer: No sandwich too bland, no man-bra too big, no tyranny too small

          2. Yes, the tree of liberty is looking might parched, isn’t it.

            1. I’m sure Chuckles will go piss on it soon enough.

        2. In fact it is hard to figure out just what they want beyond crude access to other people’s money and control of other people’s lives for its own sake.

          I think you hit the nail on the head right there.

        3. when you control people’s every move, it’s not really Utopia, is it.

          1. Sure it is….for them.

        4. Even the Great Society programs were sold as a way to “end poverty”. Now the programs cost 20 times as much and are only meant to provide a “safety net”. The goals are getting smaller, but the bills are getting larger.

        5. From another thread to John;

          KPres|7.18.12 @ 8:03AM|#
          “Moran praises Iceland for being the first country in the world to outlaw lapdancing clubs for feminist rather than religious reasons.”

          What’s the difference?

          Suthenboy|7.18.12 @ 9:11AM|#
          Intentions…c’mon KPres get your priorities straight.

    2. IS this your version of “it’s OK when my guy does it?”

      1. Only if you are too stupid to understand what I am saying. Which part of “Bush’s speech may have been a tragedy from a libertarianism perspective” is so hard to understand? Do I really need to spell this out for you?

        1. Whatever you think of the Bush “limits to freedom” speech. He at least gave it with the intent of trying to keep the country from being attacked by suicidal lunatics.

          IOW, he wanted to limit speech for the right reasons. Because, you know, sometimes you just HAVE to limit speech. You fucking nutbag…

          1. And you are an illiterate moron. Read what I wrote. The point is that the Bush speech was a tragedy in the sense that it went to far in pursuing at least a legitimate cause. The Schumer speech is a comedy because it goes to far pursuing a comically stupid and made up threat.

            I guess I do have to explain things to you. Shrike is just crazy. Tony is just a hack. But you seem legitimately kind of dim Sparky.

        2. I get it….and of course you are right it is a tragedy.

          Still, it is an argument that intentions count.
          Bush wiped his ass with the constitution, he doesnt get a pass.

    3. Bush’s speech may have been a tragedy from a Libertarian constitutional perspective. Schumer’s speech is a comedy.

      FIFY

    4. “There ought to be limits to freedom” was a 1999 comment about a web site parodying his presidential bid.

      http://www.rtmark.com/more/art…..shsite.htm

    5. It was a 1999 comment about a website parodying his presidential bid.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..9-idx.html

      1. **pulls up La-Z-Boy**
        **gets popcorn**

        1. “please pass the popcorn sloopy”

          1. Buy your own popcorn, stOOOpid.

      2. Thanks. I assumed it was a post 9-11. Then at least Bush was talking about liable, which really is a legitimate limit on free speech. So Bush’s statement wasn’t quite so much the tragedy I thought it was. But Schumer’s is still a comedy.

        1. Both comments share that same ninny tendency politicians have to stop people from saying mean things about them, and then go around spouting garbage all over the place themselves.

          1. No Schumer’s is worse. Bush was pissed that someone drew a picture of him snorting cocaine. That at least arguably liable since Bush was a committed teetotaler the entire time he was in politics. Schumer in contrast wants to stop all political speech he doesn’t like liable or not.

            1. *facepalm*

              1. What a witty comeback there Sparky. I guess it is the best you can do considering your inherent limitations.

            2. Bush’s speech was just as shitty as Schumer’s, I’m sorry to say. He knew it was a caricature of him, yet he chose to have it banned rather than address it with a libel claim in a court, which would have been the correct venue.

              Bush could have sought redress in the court system, but he sought to ban speech he didn’t like. Hell, it could be considered worse since Bush sought to ban outright expression while Schumer seeks to ban giving money by or to certain people.

              I’d just admit my error and move on with my day if I were you, John. If you don’t, I predict you will be in a very deep hole by lunchtime.

              1. So wishing to limit libelous speech is the same as wishing to limit all political speech? Got it Sloopy.

                That is what you are saying. And I am not the one in the hole, you are. Why don’t stop digging and move on. Sparky, has an excuse, he is stupid. You generally are not.

                1. The venue to attack libelous speech is the court system, John. There are already laws on the books that Bush could have sued for redress under. Calling for any new laws to limit actual expression are always bad, seeing as we’ve got more on the books than we should have, and surely did in 1999 as well.

                  Bush took a personal insult and (potential) libel as an opportunity to call for more restrictions on direct [removed]i.e.: speech). He wants to limit the voices of his opponents by creating laws that would create a chilling effect on them. Schumer does exactly the same thing, only he goes after their financial support instead of the actual speech.

                  One coin. Two sides. Etc. Etc.

                  1. Once again, wanting to restrict libelous speech, something that already can cause the speaker to pay huge dollars in civil judgement, is the same thing as wanting to restrict all political speech.

                    That is weapons grade stupid Sloopy. And you know it.

                    1. You’re intentionally missing my point, John. Bush had a venue to seek redress, but he chose to have new laws created that would further limit speech by his opponents. Schumer is doing the same thing, insomuch as he has an avenue as well…he can spend more of his own money or solicit more donations to counter those made to his opponents.

                      Both are shitty attempts to limit speech, but in Bush’s case, the limits were already codified.

                      I have to leave for the day, but I hope this sinks in finally.

                2. John, when the day comes that you finally decide to not go full retard on some issue probably half the commentators here will die from shock.

            3. if Bush’s complaint was based on libel, that is actionable and not by presidential decree. This seems more a debate over degrees of badness as opposed to a good guy/bad guy case. Schumer does enough other things that make him look like a jackass.

            4. Libel, not liable.

              /grammarnazi

              1. That’s more than just grammar, Brian. Liable and libel are two totally different words with different meanings. You ain’t no pedant for pointing that out.

            5. Schumer’s is worse.

              Bush made a stupid comment–but went after a specific site and person. Schumer wants a blanket restriction on ALL political speech he doesn’t like.

              Bush is at the top of the slippery slope–Schumers’ careening down.

      3. Ed, you forgot to add, “John, you fucking incompetent retard” to the beginning of your post.

        1. You are such a sad little person Sparky.

    6. Schumer is really trying to prevent the deadly scourge of incumbent members of Congress from ever losing an election.

  8. Sarah Silverman’s Indecent Proposal to Mitt’s Sugar Daddy (NSFW)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..r_embedded

    (she has many fans here – including me)

    1. You like women with huge nostrils and generally unfunny comedy routines?

      1. “Racism. Straight up.”

      2. Just walk away, John. There can be an end to the horror.

        1. Isn’t that Lord Humungous’ line?

          1. I’m invoking the Designated Commenter Rule. Some people have said it has ruined the game, but barfman doesn’t. [barf]

            1. Also, if anyone here could rule the wasteland in his stead, it would have to be you.

              1. I’m always willing to step up and help the shattered survivors picking listlessly through the radioactive rubble of this once-great country.

              2. I’m not sure the title ‘SugarFree’ commands enough presence to rule the Wasteland.

                1. The question is, is the presence great enough to make the name something people fear making fun of? Like the jacked up guy calling himself Tiny.

                2. SugarFree is just my screen name. As ruler of the wasteland, I shall be known by my true title:

                  LORD DOOMCOCK

                  1. So have you staged your coup of the Grail yet?

                    1. “I don’t get what I want, me an’ these goofs’re gonna get to watch a fat boy try to eat his own tits off ? an’ if that ain’t an evening’s entertainment, I don’t know what is.”

                  2. You might get some competition from Allfather db.

                    1. I’ve got pics of you visiting the Meat Man shack.

                      “SMEAR THE CHEESE! SAY THE NAME! SAY THE NAME!”

                      By the way… if you haven’t read Ennis’ The Boys, I recommend it. He set out to “Out-Preacher Preacher” and pretty much accomplished it.

                    2. I still have to read Preacher, so I can wait a bit.

                    3. The Homelander, RIP. I can honestly say I didn’t see that coming. Also, Crossed is great, at least the issues written by Ennis are. Ennis is a demented genius.

                3. Should be Warty…he looms large…

                  1. What does that mean? Does it mean that he weaves large amounts of cloth?

                4. It does lack a certain gravitas.

                  1. For the wasteland, sure–but what about the Waistland? Puts it into a whole new context.

            2. The DC is an abomination before man, God, and whatever atheists worship.

      3. Well, yeah, she’s all that but at least she’s classy.

    2. I knew you were Matt Damon!

  9. Jim DeMint says he has enough votes in the Senate to sink the treaty of the Law of the Sea

    Jim DeMint: Soft on Pirates; Bad for America

    1. The alternative, hard on pirates, so much worse.

      1. I think Hard On Pirates is available somewhere for donwload, but it’s NSFW.

    2. BREAKING: Jim DeMint Refuses To Back Anti-Piracy laws. Women And Children Most Effected.

      1. Affected.

  10. “And the new theorists on the Supreme Court who don’t believe that, I am not sure where their motivation comes from, but they are just so wrong. They are just so wrong.”

    I’m quite sure you have no idea where their motivation comes from, Chucktits.

    1. “but they are just so wrong. They are just so wrong.”

      ____________________

      Wow, eloquent argument, there, Chuck.

      1. He can’t define wrong but he knows wrong when he stomps his feet at it.

      2. Like, I mean, TOTALLY wrong!

        /Chuck

        1. Like, I mean, all encompassingly wrong!

          /Mitch Hedberg

  11. A friend of mine sent me this link, and I thought I’d share the love: Courtney Stodden for your Daily Dose of Surreality

    1. She looks like seven miles of bad road. Has she even turned 18 yet? Imagine what 20 more years of drinking and semi-celebrity is going to do to her.

      (Just kidding, she’ll OD long before that.)

      1. OD, before or after she’s spit out the bottom of the porn industry?

        1. I see it playing out like this:

          Divorce
          [Playboy]
          Shoplifting arrest
          [soft core]
          Drunk driving arrest/probation violation merry-go-round
          [hard-core]
          Attempt at a post-porn reality series
          [cell phone footage of her getting poop-bukkake’d]
          OD

      2. You never know. Some of them are like human cockroaches, unpoisonable. Like Courtney Love. (Although she may just be a zombie.)

      3. Had no idea who she was, but I have to give props to Horus for marrying a 16 year old when he’s 51, even if she looks that used up.

    2. Can it really all be for real? It’s so weird, even for today, when people are really into weirdness.

      1. People are really into weirdness? Books in all the supermarkets about the Bermuda Triangle, UFO’s, how the Mayans invented television, that kind of thing?

  12. I hope someone introduces a bill to curb Chuck Schumer’s political speech.

    1. The constitution isn’t a suicide pact!

      1. The liberty plate only comes with a big side of order. No substitutions!

  13. http://news.investors.com/arti…..-money.htm

    Not a good idea to call someone who has the money and time to sue you a “pimp” and falsely allege you knew about and support prostitution.

    1. Well, if you’d rather them spend money on lawsuits than political speech, then it’s not so bad (assuming you can dodge the case at low cost).

      1. Adelson has lawyers on payroll that would be happy to take this case on and bury the asshole at the DCCC. It won’t cost him a dime, but even if it does, it’ll cost him a smaller percentage of his net worth than it will cost the DCCC to defend.

  14. The Law of the Sea Treaty, which entered into force in 1994 and has been signed and ratified by 162 countries, establishes international laws governing the maritime rights of countries.

    I am wary of international governing bodies.

    1. Those 162 countries just want some of what the 1% have been hoarding.

    2. How is it still in the Senate after this long? Treaties don’t expire or something if the Senate doesn’t approve them?

      1. Apparently a treaty signed by the Secretary of State will take effect unless the Senate or the President takes a dump on it. I would assume that the opposite would be true, it will sit there forever until it’s given the thumbs up.

        1. That is backwards.

        2. Apparently a treaty signed by the Secretary of State will take effect unless the Senate or the President takes a dump on it.

          I’m not sure this is right, so could you cite it please? I always thought any international treaty required a supermajority of the Senate to give its consent, which the President can actually ignore if he chooses. It is then signed by the President.

          Where the Senate’s “consent” comes into play is that it will rarely be brought to a vote unless a supermajority (2/3) either approves it or disapproves of it. But once this vote takes place, it is sent to the President to either sign or not sign.

          Technically, the Senate cannot hold up a treaty by voting it down. They can only hold it up by not voting to either approve it or disapprove of it.

          1. I think I’m actually wrong on that. It requires a 2/3 majority to consent to the treaty and can then be sent to the WH for the President’s signature. Until it has that 2/3 majority, it can languish in the Senate.

          2. Nope, looks like you’re right. I guess that’s what I get for believing something reported in the ‘news’. Another bad habit to ditch I guess.

  15. Study shows that people who are constantly online can develop mental disorders. But we already knew that thanks to our very own Mary Stack, aka “White Indian”, “Palin’s Buttplug”, and about fifteen other user names.

    1. So the many conservative commenters here are immune to this? It is remarkable how little I disagree with the few real libertarians here on policy.

      1. really? All I see is you flacking for Obama and arguing with folks. Liberalism cannot co-exist with libertarianism.

        1. How would you know? You are one of the many conservatives that post here.

          1. I know because you tell us. I am fiscally conservative but that is where it stops. I don’t care who marries whom, what substances adults choose to ingest, or a whole lotta other things that fall under the social penumbra.

            Your claim dies on the basis of claiming to be both liberal and pro-gun. It’s like being pro-choice and Catholic.

            1. the NRA aint the only party that gets to define pro-gun

              1. But… but… Obama = Barry Goldwater! shrike said so, and he’s a self-proclaimed genius!

      2. Which is remarkable when one considers how disagreeable you are.

      3. Well, I’m pretty sure that you’re the only person here at Reason who has adopted about a dozen different personas and posts under about fifteen different handles. Definitely a sign of a serious mental disorder.

    2. Sara Thomee, lead author of the study, which was written in cursive and hand-delivered to interested parties, said there was a “central link” between computers and mental disorders.

      1. I’m sure that it’s computers causing mental illness. Because the idea that maladjusted people with traumatic backgrounds stay indoors and go online is far too fantastic.

    3. Swedish men and women between the ages of 20 and 24 for a year and found that a majority of them who constantly use a computer and mobile phones can develop stress, sleeping disorders and depression.

      Alright, wait one fucking minute. Maybe I’m mistaken but isn’t that normal for Scandinavians?

      1. something about limited daylight for extended periods of time. Which may well contribute to increased computer use since it’s too damn cold and dark to do other things.

        1. it’s too damn cold and dark to do other things.

          Swedish women make me think of plenty of things its never too cold and dark to do.

          1. agreed…then, what’s with the 20-24 men?

            1. Emasculated by the “Swedish Model”, and I don’t mean someone who gets their picture taken for a living.

              1. Is that the country where they make men sit down when they piss?

      2. A Swedish rather anti-American friend of mine said that that was a vicious rumor spread by the CIA to discredit Sweden in the seventies because it was against the Vietnam war.

        Yes, he was serious.

        1. Well, no crazy in that Swede.

  16. “Panty waist” Haha. I always liked that insult. I have no idea what it means but it’s got ‘pansy’ ‘panties’ ‘waste’ all together.

    1. It’s a good word. I also like “milquetoast.”

    2. pantywaist

      n.
      1. A child’s undergarment consisting of a shirt and pants buttoned together at the waist.

      2. Slang A boy or man who is considered weak or effeminate.

      Interesting. I didn’t know it was a real thing first.

      1. Why didn’t he just call him a fag?

        1. Didn’t was to seem uncultured. Pantywaist is the classy way to call someone a fag.

          1. That’s gay.

        2. John Wayne was a pantywaist.

          1. Along those lines, my stepmom seriously thinks Marshall Matt Dillon is/was gay. I now watch Gunsmoke through a whole new lens. Thanks Mom!

  17. “Proponents of the Law of the Sea Treaty aspire to admirable goals, including codifying the U.S. Navy’s navigational rights and defining American economic interests in valuable offshore resources,” the senators wrote. “But the treaty’s terms reach well beyond those good intentions.”

    Oh, so all of the sudden professed good intentions aren’t enough to carry legislation to fruition? What the hell has the United States Senate become?

    1. Please, continue, you were saying something about best intentions. What’s the matter? Oh, you were finished! Well, allow me to retort!

    2. “”””including codifying the U.S. Navy’s navigational rights””‘

      I thought the US Navy had codified their navigational rights earlier this week by shooting up a fishing boat that came too close?

      1. Exactly. I thought the US Navy’s navigational rights were established by ultima ratio regum.

  18. Anyone heard of Firesign Theatre?

    Heard this bit on the college radio station on the drive this morning, a song called What Makes America Great.

    It’s candied apples and ponies with dapples
    you can ride all day!
    It’s girls with pimples
    And cripples with dimples
    that just wont go away !
    Its spics and wops and niggers and kikes
    with noses as long as your arm!
    Its micks and chinks and gooks and geeks
    and honkies
    (Honk! Honk!)
    who never left the farm !

    I couldn’t stop laughing.

    1. “And you can believe me, because I never lie and I’m always right. So wake up! (slap and baby crying) And take a look at your only logical choice. Me.”

      They are due for a resurgence.

  19. The headline to end them all: Cyborg gets beat up at French McDonald’s.

    Human cyborg and University of Toronto Professor Steve Mann claims he was brutalized and kicked out of a Paris McDonald’s earlier this month after employees objected to his headset and its ability to record photos and videos of his experiences.

    1. Looks like he shoulda added at least one gatling gun to the camera and mike set up.

    2. androidism. the last acceptable prejudice.

    3. someone thought they had a borg on their hands?

      1. someone thought they had a borg on their hands?

        I would support them beating Hugh to death, but if it was Locutus, I hope he got out of there relatively unscathed.

        1. Seriously, fuck Hugh.

    4. It wasn’t because he tried to order a Quarter Pounder, forgetting they use the metric system?

    5. From cop-threads, we know that potentially recording someone constitutes interfering with the performance of their duties.

      Makes sense. If an employee got caught jacking it into the mayo, someone might get — well, not fired, it’s France. Raped, maybe?

      1. jacking it into the mayo,

        Sounds like a new business opportunity for some hipster fuckheads in Brooklyn.

      2. Oh wait, I had something good for this… the… Pita Predator.

    6. Your droids – they’ll have to wait outside. We don’t serve their kind.

    7. Unless it could also record smells, what did the French care?

    8. And apparently the cyborg pissed itself. Who built this thing? Presented a doctor’s note? Really? What is this, the Wimpbot 1998?

      This thing seriously needs an upgrade

  20. Just when is it appropriate to call someone like Schumer a fascist?

    etiquette experts?

    1. When is it not?

    2. If it looks like a duck…

    3. Whenever you are awake.

      1. It’s totally legit even if you say it when you’re asleep.

  21. Arpaio: Obama birth record ‘definitely fraudulent’

    http://news.yahoo.com/arpaio-o…..tml?_esi=1

    I find the birther stuff oddly curious. Didn’t the Obama people produce the newspaper announcement of his birth? I would love to see it be true for the LUTZ factor if nothing else. But why don’t these people let it go?

    1. I suspect Sheriff Joe knows the direction his fame and post-sheriff career lie. That might explain a great portion of why he’s doing what he’s doing.

    2. If Obama is really not an America and that disqualifies him to be president it allows them to get rid of a president they hate without having to recognize that the political system that let him become president is the problem, thereby preserving their faith in the system.

      In a twisted sort of way, all the birthers are really trying to do is hold back the political nihilism that leads to libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism.

      1. That is interesting way to put it. It is the flip side of the truthers. The Truthers can’t accept that any politically correct group could ever really be a threat to the country. So they hold on to the belief that it was really the government who did it in order to keep from facing that fact.

        I think your explanation is probably about as good as any I have heard.

        1. I think you are slightly mis-applying SF’s insightful analysis. I don’t think most Truthers perceive “Al Qaeda” as “politically correct”, in either the earnest or facetious sense of the phrase. Maybe the left-wing community-organizin types do, but not the Alex Jones wing of trutherism.

          Actually I think “Trutherism”, if it is in the same category at all, is more of a mental block from making the reverse transition. From nihilistic/anarcho/libertarianism back into the “upright citizen” realm.

          I guess it’s also why I don’t really pity or hate Truthers. Even if they are wrong about this particular set of circumstances, if they can only support one set of Bayesian priors at a time in their heads, I think they and we are still better off assuming that the government is a bunch of lying sacks of crap up to no good.

      2. Or more likely some version of socialism.

      3. That is a very interesting analysis. Never thought of it that way. I think same thing applies to the people who say “you don’t have to pay taxes cause you aren’t a CORPARASHUN man. You are sovereign citizen”. Also the people who say “see that yellow fringe on the flag, that means it’s a naval court, so they don’t have jursidiction over you as long as you aren’t at sea”.

        Now I actually kind of pity those people.

    3. Call me a crackpot, but I’ve seen enough credible-looking analysis of that PDF to make me seriously wonder if its legit.

      As I recall, the first one released had all kinds of edit files attached to it, there’s hinky layers, stuff you wouldn’t expect on a straight scan.

      And, of course, his SocSec number is hinky, also. Could be an innocent explanation, of course, but the adamant refusal to release his college records makes me think he was a naughty boy when he was applying for aid/admission, and claimed to be a foreign student of some kind.

      We’ll never know, of course, and it stands primarily as an indictment of our supine media and our complete disregard of the Constitution. Like we needed more proof of that.

      1. I would bet good money that Obama claimed to be foreign born in college. I still think he was born in Hawaii. But I absolutely believe he would and did pull a Lizzie Warren and road the affirmative action train.

      2. I’ll happily raise my hand and self-identify as a birther. No way in hell is that form he released (well, he released, pulled and then re-released i with many changes) legit. There are font differences, the SSN issue, the verbiage in parts of it, the margin errors, the way it was typed and the halos around the letters in the scan.

        I don’t know if he was born in Hawai’i, Kenya, Washington or sprung forth from Satan’s butthole. But I do know that birth certificate is about as real as Dirk Diggler’s cock.

        1. The truth always comes out eventually sloopy. If it does turn out he was born in Kenya, I will laugh my ass off. It will most likely come out long after he has left office. But it will come out.

          1. Agreed. It will come out when Obama, tired of not ruling over people, declares himself eligible to be the head of state of another nation by coming out and saying he “just found out through discovering some old family records” that he was actually born overseas.

            He’ll blame his white grandmother and say it was to hide his blackness or something. Then, he’ll try to start his socialist utopia somewhere else.

            Holy shit. I was trying to be over the top, but this actually seems more than plausible.

            1. He will say it to get African support of his bid to be head of the UN.

        2. I thought the SSN issue was a typo. SOmething like the difference between the zipcode for Honolulu Hawaii, and a zip code in Danbury CT, were one number off.

      3. college records makes me think he was a naughty boy when he was applying for aid/admission, and claimed to be a foreign student of some kind.

        That’s what I think. And also that his pulling “executive privilege” on the FF documents is to conceal that either he and/or Holder knew about what was going on as it unfolded. Basically, he’s a lying liar who lies, but we all knew that.

        1. Yeah, but there’s a difference in a “lying liar that lies” and a “lying liar that covers up a criminal enterprise that smuggles weapons into a sovereign nation and results in hundreds of deaths on both sides of the border”.

      4. has anyone ever seen Obama’s passport?

        I thought citizenship could be claimed if a parent was a US citizen, and no one argues that his mother was not such. Secondary conspiracy would be that Frank Marshall Davis is more likely the daddy than Barrack Sr, making citizenship doubly done. Look at side by side pics; Obama looks far more like one than the other. Proves nothing but neither does Sheriff Joe.

        1. I thought citizenship could be claimed if a parent was a US citizen, and no one argues that his mother was not such.

          Yeah–even if he was born overseas, he would still have been a “natural-born citizen.” So I just don’t get it.

  22. With both major party candidates being androids has anyone noticed if Gay Jay is clutching a teddy bear?

    1. Barry Hit and Run Excene?

  23. Evangelical Christian vermin at it again:

    Catching Hell for Hiring a Muslim
    …The new hire, Samar Ali, is a Tennessee native, Vanderbilt law graduate, a recent White House Fellow, a former associate attorney at Hogan Lovells and has one of the most impressive resumes of international humanitarian service I’ve ever seen.

    She’s also Muslim.

    As a result, several county Republican groups and a Tea Party group went berserk and began churning out petitions and resolutions calling for Ali to step down and for Haslam to receive “appropriate action.”…

    1. http://blogs.tennessean.com/po…..more-17554

      Here is the petition. Their biggest bitch seems to be that she is a Democrat.

    2. this is why socon often = liberal.

    3. ali should obviously gun them down und bomb the tea party HQ…then snack on royal crown and moon pies!

      1. Looks to me like o3 and anon-bot are moving ever closer to singularity.

        1. No way. Anon-bot is cheerful and sometimes amusing.

          1. In his defense, o3 occasionally gets a good line in. But the signal to noise ratio is still pretty goddamned high.

    4. one of the most impressive resumes of international humanitarian service I’ve ever seen

      I’d want some details. Most NGOs that claim to be doing this are suppurating nests of crypto-Marxist tranzi corruption, don’t forget.

      1. wasn’t Ray LaHood’s son involved in such a group that found itself in hot water in Egypt?

  24. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/physi…..48754.html

    Physical inactivity kills millions a year. How long before government mandated morning PT?

    1. It’s not a mandate, it’s a tax on inactivity!

      Exercise a certain amount each day or pay a tax!

    2. actually, govt stopped mandating it some years back when schools got rid of PE.

      1. which was a mistake…fattie

      2. Wasn’t that due in part to the observation that PE activities encouraged competitive behavior and We Just Can’t Have That?

    3. ?”Winston had disliked her from the very first moment of seeing her. He knew the reason. It was because of the atmosphere of hockey-fields and cold baths and community hikes and general clean-mindedness which she managed to carry about her. He disliked nearly all woman, and especially the young and pretty ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.”

      1. Orwell saw the coming of modern feminists as well?

        1. It’s not like human nature changes much. Carrie Nation would have fit right into the modern feminist movement ahd she been born 140 years later.

          1. She would be a US senator, or head of the DEA.

        2. Orwell saw a lot of shit coming. MAD, for example. I still don’t get how the hell he could favor even the less awful form of socialism, but I’ll give him a pass on it.

          1. He really did. That passage if fucking eery when you compare it to modern hard left feminists.

            1. Not to mention the part about young people in general being the most devoted adherents to the authoritarian state.

              1. That was true in Orwells time. The youth lapped up Nazism and Communism both.

    4. I can just see us all in our gray commie uniforms doing jumping jacks every morning, in front of the TV with mandatory built in webcam so that a bureuacrat can watch and make sure we’re doing the repititions correctly. After that we will have 10 minutes to eat our government rationed tofurkey pudding for breakfast.

    1. Finally, a counterpart to the Female Body Inspector t-shirts: Testicle Size Analyzer.

    2. suspicious bulge

      Nice band name.

    3. No comments? Nothing? Nobody even wanting to claim credit for the world’s largest penis?

      I am teh disappoint. All of you are dead to me.

      1. You’re a day late. This was in yesterday’s links.

        1. Besides, I thought dunphy had already told us he had the biggest penis in the world, which is what kept him off of the Olympic Games curling team 2 years a

        2. Besides, I thought dunphy had already told us he had the biggest penis in the world, which is what kept him off of the Olympic Games curling team 2 years ago.

          1. No Sloop…Dunphy told us he was the worlds biggest penis…..

            1. Well then he and I finally agree on something.

      2. I had some comments about this…..yesterday!

  25. A laid off steelworker hired for an anti-Romney ad by Priorities USA called President Obama a jerk and a panty waist. He also called Romney an asshole.

    Life is about to become very difficult for that lifelong Democrat. At least one of those offended parties has shown no reluctance to get vindictive.

    1. where is Joe the Plumber nowadays anyway?

      1. I thought he was running for the HoR this year.

  26. Why is Hans Gruber underwater?

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4TcO….._edit2.JPG

    1. He bought at the top of the market.

  27. http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hocke…..harge.html
    Don’t read the comments. They are bringing the torches and pitchforks are out for this guy

    1. I’m sure he just had a seizure. Or took some Ambien.

    2. Wow. Read the article. He actually consented to the test, went in and pleaded guilty, accepted the punishment he was given and then apologized for his own poor judgement.

      If only our politicians would act this way when they do something stupid.

  28. http://cnsnews.com/news/articl…..ulus-money

    The country is in the best of hands

    DOE unable to locate $500,000 worth of equipment bought with stimulus money.

    1. Perfect, it’ll be added stimulus when they buy $500,000 more.

    2. The DOE said it would not be “appropriate” to release the name of stimulus-money recipient where the $500,000 worth of equipment could not be located.

      And this case of corruption will be completely ignored by the legacy media as the pursue the much more important story regarding just exactly who did Mitt work for 13 years ago.

  29. Jenkins: The Campaign’s Stupid Moment
    In ‘defining Romney,’ Obama may be finally defining himself for a mystified electorate.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..on_LEADTop

    Most elections end up being relatively sensible arguments about getting, keeping or restoring prosperity. In a modern welfare state, another top-of-mind priority also jostles for a sizeable number of voters: hands off my benefits!

    These perhaps should be two sides of the same coin. In the long run, after all, there can be no benefits without prosperity. But look at Europe: It becomes worrisomely clear that welfare states can devolve into lose-lose fights over a stagnant or shrinking pie. See Greece: Big government also has a way of spawning big corruption.

    So maybe, when the stupid moment passes, the two campaigns can take up the question likely to be on every lip in any case given the evening news: Whether America is to become more like Europe.

  30. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/imu…..-an-idiot/

    Don Imus destroys hack reporter who refused to believe a story just because the evil drudge had linked to the Reuters report.

    1. Imus is still alive? Are you sure?

      1. Imus is still alive? Are you sure?

        Probably not. They move his mouth parts and limbs in marionette fashion so the show can stay on the air.

        You know…like the Quadaffi (Khadaffi, Quadafi…whatever) corpse.

    2. Demonstrating once again the idiocy of ‘journalists’.

      Is there a stupider group of people in America today? I think they’ve finally beat out teachers in that category.

      1. If there is I can’t think of one. I honestly think she had no idea that Matt Drudge doesn’t write anything and just links to other news sources. Talk about living in a bubble.

        1. Right. About the only thing Drudge actually adds to the links are the sarcastic headline jabs, and even then he’s pretty judicious. Usually, simply quoting the decadent classes’ actual words is far more devastating than any Jon Stewart-like mugging or outraged redundancy.

      2. You’d think they’d love him, since he drives massive traffic to their work.

        1. They hate him because he takes away their power to set the agenda and decide what is news and what is not. They love power a lot more than they love money.

          1. This, especially since the money they get from the extra traffic is negligible compared to the money they lose not having a monopoly on news reporting.

    3. It seems like a thousand years ago when he was more evil than a child molesting hitler for saying that a female basketball team looked like “nappy headed ho’s.”

      1. You love Hitler so much that you find it evil when a child molests him?

        1. Everybody’s bikini area should be a safe place.

          Even Hitler’s.

          1. You know who else only had one testicle?

            1. The average human only has one testicle.

  31. How Much Has Citizens United Changed the Political Game?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07…..nted=1hp;

    The reason for this exponential leap in political spending, if you talk to most Democrats or read most news reports, comes down to two words: Citizens United. The term is shorthand for a Supreme Court decision that gave corporations much of the same right to political speech as individuals have, thus removing virtually any restriction on corporate money in politics. The oft-repeated narrative of 2012 goes like this: Citizens United unleashed a torrent of money from businesses and the multimillionaires who run them, and as a result we are now seeing the corporate takeover of American politics.

    As a matter of political strategy, this is a useful story to tell, appealing to liberals and independent voters who aren’t necessarily enthusiastic about the administration but who are concerned about societal inequality, which is why President Obama has made it a rallying cry almost from the moment the Citizens United ruling was made. But if you’re trying to understand what’s really going on with politics and money, the accepted narrative around Citizens United is, at best, overly simplistic. And in some respects, it’s just plain wrong.

    1. I love how liberals since Citizens United act as if the corporate capture of the political process had been limited up until the decision passed. Even McCain-Feingold didn’t do anything except create opportunities for alternative corporate money funnels.

      Their biggest problem is that they believe they can end a process that’s been going on since Crassus.

  32. Podhoretz: The Biggest Mistake of Campaign 2012
    http://www.commentarymagazine……aign-2012/

    1. Obamas “Macaca” moment!

    2. I think this one is going to hurt. The liberals on Facebook are going insane trying to spin it. They protest a bit too much.

      1. Only if Romney hammers the hell out of it – which I wouldn’t count on.

        1. Wouldn’t be cricket old man.

        2. Amazingly enough, he actually is. His speech in Pennsylvania yesterday killed Obama on this issue. It was actually a pretty good speech.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/….._blog.html

          1. Yesterday, right. He needs to do it daily through Nov 5. He won’t.

            1. I bet he does. The one thing about Romney is that he is patient and persistent. He really is the tortoise of political candidates. Once he gets on a theme he doesn’t stop usually.

      2. The sad part, is, like I have already said, it’s not going to hurt him one bit. That is why we are doomed as a nation. Anyone makes a comment like that and still have a majority of the population vote for him… we are already beyond the level of stupidity in that movie ‘Idiocracy’.

        Obama can go on national TV and put kitties in a blender, hit liquify, and then drink the mess, and it will not change his voter base by one vote.

        1. this is the result of generational indoctrination. Oh, sure; there are occasional pockets of young folks discovering curious concepts like liberty but the combination of mind-numbed publicly-educated drones + older folks firmly on the govt tit adds up to a big chunk of the population.

          People will talk a good game about the perils of the debt and other horribles, but they will first cling to the free pony they are getting.

          1. Yes, it is exactly that. And the decision by Roberts has emboldened the progressives to the point that they will totally abandon any further pretensions about what they really are. Expect to see more comments spewing from the O, that are far more outrageous than that one, especially after he wins re-election.

          2. Democrats haven’t really changed all that much in philosophy from their slave-owning forebears 160 years ago–they’re still claiming that dependance on a benevolent overseer is a “positive good.” The only thing that’s really changed is the scale of the institution that they are promoting.

            1. I am convinced that the ultimate goal of both sides of the one party, is the establishment of a world empire ruled by the UN in combination with the US military, where all choice is eliminated and there can be no escape from their tyranny.

              There would be 2 distinct classes in this system, the elite ruling class and the rest of us, the peasants. Call this conspiracy theory if you want, but I don’t think it is.

      3. Facebook? Huffington Post has already put out several articles calling anyone who even mentions it stupid and evil because “out of context!!!!!!” They have all ignored the fact that the context was horrible.

    3. “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that,” Obama said. “Somebody else made that happen.”

      If R has a brain in his head, he will hang this around O’s neck and never let anyone forget it.

      1. Right? “You didn’t build it – why? Because your business also paid taxes to fund roads and schools?” The moron president just insulted everyone who has ever created a business. Also, everyone whose view of human society does not correspond with a beehive.

        It would be great to see ads with “THIS IS WHAT OBAMA ACTUALLY BELIEVES” at the bottom.

        1. What can a professional “community organizer” possibly know about creating a successful (or for that matter, an unsuccessful) business? This Obama is one of the most bubble-dwelling, elitist Presidents we have ever seen. It’s absolutely nuts that anyone outside DC (which is itself full of bubble-dwellers) would even consider voting for the asshole.

          1. Kristen his pants were perfectly creased. And his speeches sent a thrill up people’s legs. And damn it they had always dreamed of voting for a black man for President.

            I have never met a single Obama voter who voted for him for any reason beyond blind partisanship or something completely shallow and stupid.

          2. bubble-dwelling but also willing to shake down those same evil filthy putrid business folks for every dime possible. And too many are willing to pony up because a power-grabbing federal govt makes it that much more difficult for competitors.

          3. Well you couldn’t possibly have built a successful business without a properly organized community!

        2. +1.

          Red letters. Flashing. I’d love to see that.

      2. Romney appears to be brain dead. He has no personality at all, and his only strategy seems to be, make sure the hair is perfect and smile at the camera. He won’t use this at all. He just does nothing.

        1. but he has been using and, even better, someone in the Camp Mitt has released the Sununu. Finally, a guy willing to call bullshit on bullshit.

        2. I thought his speech in Pennsylvania was pretty good. How is he brain dead? You don’t agree with him on a lot of things. That is your right. And hell you are probably right in some cases. But that doesn’t make him brain dead

          And fuck personality. What a stupid and shallow way to judge a politician. Barney Frank has a great and charming personality. Last I looked his having power didn’t work out so well.

          1. It’s a proper way to judge him, John, due to the fact that voters seem to be so hung up on this charisma thing. Romney is just so flat. I am not judging him on that, I could care less. I care about his policies, which will not look much different than Obamas after he is elected. If he is elected (which he will not be), except that he will be more aggressive when it comes to foreign policy.

            1. His domestic policies are different. He would work with Congress and do at least a little something about spending. He sure wouldn’t be sending guns to Mexico or wasting billions on green energy programs or engaging in the kind of blatent corruption Obama has.

              And the “more aggressive foreign policy” dog won’t hunt. Obama has put us on a track towards war with Iran. And as a Democrat, Obama has no worries about there being an anti-war movement. Romeny would be more restrained than a second term Obama because he would actually have an opposition when it comes to war.

              The problem is there is that Romney is not radical enough. But he is most certainly different than Obama. I don’t’ know why Libertarians insist on telling themselves that lie.

              1. Valid points, but I think you will be very disappointed in Romney if he is elected, which I don’t see happening, because reality will not quite sync up with what you just wrote. His rhetoric will sync with what you just said, but what he will actually do, will expand the size and power of the federal government in one form or another.

                And I think Romney believes that his base is SoCons and NeoCons, otherwise they would have voted for RP, so he will be more aggressive on foreign policy to please his base. Sure, the leftists hypocrites will scream about him doing the exact same things that Obama did, but they will be ignored. The wars will continue.

                1. Romney is going to win. I can’t see anything changing between now and the election. And Obama is an incumbent below 50%. Below 50% incumbents nearly always lose. And these polls are ones that are totally skewed Democrat. In reality, Romney is 2 to 3 points above what the polls are saying. And the polls are a dead heat right now.

                  I have said this all along, the election is always a mandate on the incumbent. The challenger is incidental. Obama is going to lose.

                  And I would not be disappointed in Romney since I wouldn’t expect that much of him. But the chances are very high that Obama is going to lose and the Republicans will have the House and 52 or so seats in the Senate.

                  1. I have said this all along, the election is always a mandate on the incumbent. The challenger is incidental.

                    Do you think this held in 2004? Was that really a mandate that we still secretly loved Bush? Or a problem of Kerry being so awful? It’s hard for me to think of it as the former rather than the latter, but I don’t know. I wasn’t even living in the country at the time.

                    1. Nicole,

                      The Democrats made 2004 a mandate on Bush’s foreign policy. They invited Micheal Moore to the convention and made ending the Iraq war the face of their party.

                      And don’t forget, the economy was good in 2004. And both Iraq and Afghanistan were going well. Iraq didn’t get hard until 2006. Go back and look. Bush’s poll numbers were good right up until Katrina.

                      In the end Bush was reasonably popular, the economy was good, the wars seemed to be going well, so Bush won. Would Bush have beat Kerry in 2006 after the Iraq war got hard and Katrina? Hell no.

                    2. It was just the fact that Kerry looks exactly like Heat Misers evil twin that sunk his campaign. Bush didn’t really need to do anything.

                      Snow Miser Kerry

                  2. I am torn about what I hope will happen in this election, as far as POTUS is concerned. Of course I hope the GOP takes the Senate and keeps the house, just because what they do will not be quite as destructive as what the Dems will do. But, being redundant, they WILL expand the size and power of the federal government in one way or the other.

                    I want Gary Johnson to be president, will vote for him, but know it cannot happen. Therefore, I am really torn to the point of not even thinking much about it anymore, whether I want Romney or Obama to win.

                    I don’t like Romney, but compared to my loathing of Obama, he looks pretty good. Still, I don’t know if it would be better to see Obama elected and watch him go completely off the deep end if the GOP actually did control both houses, or see Romney win so that there is no further opportunity for Obama to appoint more far left loonies to prominent positions.

                    1. I am torn as well Hyperion. I am not a Romney fan. Some days I think Obama is so bad that he just has to lose no matter what to get him out of there. Other days I think no, let him have another term and take all of the blame for his incompetence. Lets let the country finally see what these people are about.

                      I am not sure which to hope for.

    4. I honestly am sympathetic to the argument that the “that” in “Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business ? you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” referred to the roads and bridges. Listening to the audio, rather than reading the transcript, makes it very plausible. However, the similarity of the speech to Elizabeth Warren’s oft-facebooked quotes, the very poor wording, and the gist of the rest of the speech render it nearly irrelevant. So, the interesting thing is and will be: who among Obama’s supporters will go with the “he misspoke!” (or more likely, “you misunderstand!”) defense and which ones will defend his words as they’re being interpreted.

      1. So you blame TOTUS for this?

        1. Well, you sure as hell can’t blame the president himself.

        2. That damn machine is always trying to make Obama look bad.

        3. I blame the pranksters from Romney’s camp who clearly hacked TOTUS!

          1. What’s TOTUS?

            1. The Teleprompter Of The United States. The TOTUS accompanies the POTUS on his travels and is an indispensable member of his team.

      2. The problem is that even if you give him the benefit of the doubt, the overall meaning is still the same. Obama is saying

        1. You have a business
        2. Your business wouldn’t be there if not for all of the goodies the state provides
        3. You didn’t build those goodies

        The only conclusion to make from that is you effectively didn’t build your business and the government has a right to however much of it it wants.

      3. So the president doesn’t understand that taxes pay for infrastructure? And this is better?

        1. So the president doesn’t understand that taxes pay for infrastructure?

          I’m sure he thinks infrastructure is paid for with debt.

          And he’s not exactly wrong about that, either.

          1. Debt is paid for by….???

            1. Inflation.

        2. No, not better. There is no good to be found in there unless he were to wake up this morning and announce that he’s a voluntaryist and he was just talking about people cooperating peacefully in the market.

      4. The problem for Obama politically is that it was entirely plausible for him to say something like that. He has no problem alienating the shit out of people (bitter clingers, etc.), and he and his fellow travelers do truly believe that their technocratic caste is not only indispensable, but more important than any other group.

      5. Even that reading completely overlooks the fact that successful businesses did, in fact, fund those roads and bridges via their taxes.

        1. This is the part i don;t get why people don’t point out more. The dems say this as if businesses aren’t already paying for the roads, schools, police and so on that the government gives them.

      6. They did build “that”. They paid taxes, just like everyone else. So it hardly matters what “that” refers to, he’s wrong either way.

      7. Somebody was on here yesterday trying to peddle that line. I’m not sympathetic. In context, the meaning is clear: you wouldn’t have a business but for government.

        1. Yes, it’s a pedantic argument to be sure. The overall theme of the speech is still there, just the soundbite isn’t as tidy as you’d like. It provides an out for pundits who want to dismiss Romney’s (and others’) criticisms.

      8. If they want to limit government to roads and bridges and sewers, I’ll praise that government plenty.

      9. Anyone familiar with the English language will understand that “that” refers to the noun before it — “business.” If he had said “those” it would be different because it would refer to the plural nouns before it — “roads and bridges.” So I can think of two options here: 1) he meant what he said or 2) he has bad speechwriters and isn’t smart enough or strong enough to correct them. Neither is flattering.

    5. http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the…..7#48203597

      It’s official, Van Jones admits to being a fascist.

      Says It’s deeply patriotic to point out that America’s government is a partner to business

      Money quote starts at 3:00

      1. He probably doesn’t understand what he said. He’s a corporatist and an idiot.

      2. Funny thing is that Romney said something very similar during debates (well, something like “government should be a partner for business”, presumably as opposed to tripping them up with red tape and taxes.)

        We’re utterly fucked.

  33. How is this not in the links yet? Let’s just say that everybody’s favorite Total Recall character got an upgrade.

    1. Anything more than a handful is too much.

      1. So grow another hand.

  34. Randall Munroe’s new awesome site for random physics questions and answers.

    1. That first one is awesome.

      1. I particularly like the note at the end.

    2. Even with all that power the Sox still couldn’t win the Series.

    3. The final line, explaining the MLB rules implication, is the funniest part of that article.

  35. Spot price of dentaured fuel ethanol up $0.40/gal from a week ago, spot price of gasoline $2.87, up about $0.15.

    Low corn harvest and idled plants are on track to make ethanol more expensive than gas. Sure am glad they have all those subsidies to keep prices low.

  36. “Obama is campaigning. He’s a candidate,” Chavez told a Venezuelan television station. “I hope the real revolutionaries understand well. I think that Barack Obama ? aside from ‘the president’ ? is a good guy.”
    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfro…../id/445323

    1. That’s a ringing endorsement for liberals. “Chavez likes him? He must be awesome! I’m totally voting for him now!”

      1. Look, you have to trust democracy.

  37. My friend’s husband is a very wealthy guilt-ridden white guy. He was out during the Occutard days, telling people how guilty he felt about having all this money and that the government should take more of it, a la Michael Moore and Warren Buffet. He believes, like most of his cronies, that government is the solution to all of life’s ills. Government is the way to make sure everyone is hunky dory and equal as can be.

    So imagine my “surprise” at his railing against bureaucrats because his wife can’t get a visa to stay in Italy with him for the summer! In fact, I think his exact words were something about “strangling”.

    I’m sure, when confronted with his utter elitism and hypocrisy (how could I, a wealthy American, be forced to deal with these uneducated, smarmy bureaucrats!!), he would just say “if only the right people were in charge”.

    1. Let me guess, he is a trust fund baby. Since he never earned any of his money, he thinks no one else earned any of theirs. There are few things lower than the trust fund left. Please tell me your friend married this douche bag for his money and plans to divorce him and take him to the cleaners.

      1. NO, he got a bunch of money from his wife who killed herself, and, unbelievably, he actually earned a bunch of it by (get this) – being a self-employed and very successful audio engineer. It’s anti-self-interest at work in it’s “highest” form.

        My friend is a “professional activist”, in that she quit a public school teaching gig to move to DC to do nothing but organize and attend protests.

        Of course, now that she’s married a rich dude, she has done jackall as far as politics goes.

        1. Out of curiosity, I am sure the woman has good qualities or you wouldn’t be friends with her. What are those? They sound like a dreadful couple.

          1. Believe it or not, there are a jillion other things to talk about with someone other than politics. Shocking, I know. With this particular person there’s kniting/crochet, dogs, quitting smoking, being single (well, not anymore), sex, car troubles, cooking, wine, parents, health, cancer, restaurants, books, travel, gossip, reality TV. Really, if politics is the only thing you can think of to talk about with someone, and you only limit your friendships to those whose politics are non-offensive to you, I kind of feel sorry for you.

            1. I am fully aware of that Kristen. I have plenty of liberal friends. The husband’s elitism would drive me nuts. I don’t care what your politics are. But if you think you are somehow morally superior to the guy who cleans your bathroom, I have little or no use for you.

        2. My friend is a “professional activist”, in that she quit a public school teaching gig to move to DC to do nothing but organize and attend protests.

          Tell the guy that the TSA can see him nude through his cutoffs, and maybe you can turn him (libertarian, that is).

      2. I know a couple of trustafarians that grew up in the DC area. One is cornering the market on real estate in Austin, TX. The other is stockpiling automatic weapons at his parents’ vacation house.

        White guys, but not guilty white guys.

        1. It’s assholes like that that are the reason an M16 costs $12k and a 1919A4 will run you near or over $30k. I’m glad I bought most of my MGs before prices topped out.

    2. Let’s see if his attitude changes after the all benevolent government actually takes a lot more of his money. Ask him what he thinks is his fair share? How about 70%, 90%? He can write the IRS a voluntary big fat check each year, remind him of that.

      1. I don’t talk politics with these people, trust. That’s why I can maintain friendships with them.

        1. I understand completely. The leftists that I know are completely hostile to any kind of open political debate.

          1. Tony, shrike, Apparently a “shitheel”… yep, leftists hostile to other POVs.

            And before any of those fuckheads says a fuckin’ word: I used to think just like them.

            1. I think I have always been a Libertarian, but I didn’t know it. I was really confused when I was growing up because I tended to like Republicans more than Democrats, but the fact that I had more liberal views socially than any of them, left me with an identity crisis until 2007 when I finally discovered the LP and found that I was not alone in my political views.

              1. I went to the John Stossell talk a few months ago at Reason HQ. He said he goes around the country preaching the libertarian gospel. And he will go talk to conservative groups and tell them things they really disagree with on issues like drugs and pornography. But he says the conservatives are always polite and always willing to engage in him reasoned discourse even if he doesn’t often convince them to join his side. He liberals in contrast are just hostile. He has had liberals come up to him in the street and tell him to his face that they wish he were dead. He says he is met with nothing but disdain and hostility bordering on violence every time he tries to engage liberals.

                Conservatives are often wrong. But liberals are just fucking nuts.

                1. Conservatives are often wrong. But liberals are just fucking nuts.

                  Couldn’t agree more. This is of course because they are not liberals, but statist parasites, who want the government to take what you work hard for and give it to them.

                  I am also able to have political conversations with my conservative friends, even though we typically strongly disagree on issues like the drug war and the military empire, but they are polite.

                2. Conservatives are often wrong. But liberals are just fucking nuts.

                  Back when the shoe was on the other foot, I recall the conservative opinion leaders calling anyone who publicly disagreed with the Iraq War “traitors”. There are plenty of nuts to go around.

                  1. I recall the conservative opinion leaders calling anyone who publicly disagreed with the Iraq War “traitors”

                    Citation please? And no the voices in your head don’t count. I don’t recall anything like that. I recall a lot of people wanting to think that was true to justify their blind loyalty to Obama.

              2. I was in 6th grade when I pointed out that it didn’t matter which side you voted for because the whole system was corrupt. My 6th grade teacher (a nice well-meaning lefty, looking back) nearly had an apoplectic fit.

              3. I had the same experience. My dad was an old school small government Republican. I always felt like the government should GTFO, but at the same time the Young Republicans in my school were trying to have a mural of Jimi Hendrix removed because it “promoted drug use”, which I thought was fucking stupid. I had no idea there were any alternatives to R or D until much later. It almost made things worse, though, because I realized a) no candidate I voted for would ever win and b) just about everyone would completely misunderstand my (completely logical and consistent) political stances.

        2. My sister’s Obama statue next to the front door is enough to scare me into silence.

          You can’t really criticize someone that your host has a statue of. Maybe I should get a Ron Paul bust.

          1. You should decapitate it when no one is around (:

            There is an office that I pass at work, when walking to get lunch, that had a poster of one of our founders, can’t remember now, it was Jefferson maybe, with a fucking Obama campaign hat on. I really, really had to try hard to NOT rip the damn thing off and throw it on the floor and spit on it. It finally got taken down and I am glad I don’t have to see the abomination again.

            1. I came close to putting a dunce cap on it one night we were sleeping over, but figured I’d get caught. I’m the lone non-liberal in our family.

    3. Wait, why would an American need a visa to visit the EU for three months?

  38. The judge said the plaintiffs could not show “immediate harm,” (because the feds delayed when the requirement comes into effect) and so didn’t have standing to sue.

    This is crap. The impending enforcement of the law is plenty harmful, as you have to plan for it.

    So if the government passed a law that said black people would not be allowed to own businesses or houses after January 1, 2014, would the court say, “sorry, you can’t sue yet”?

    1. “Sorry, you can’t sue for cruel and unusual punishment until after we finish executing you via flaying.”

    2. I was wondering the same thing WRT the tax issue and Obamacare. Apparently, you can’t sue over any law that imposes a tax until it has actually been imposed. So, if they just add a $10 per person tax to every bill and have it start in 2112, no one can sue for a hundred years?

  39. “City of Compton may declare bankruptcy by September: officials”
    http://news.yahoo.com/city-com…..55526.html

  40. “Obviously, we wish Solyndra hadn’t gone bankrupt,” Obama said. “But understand: This was not our program per se.”

    We didn’t build THAT – Obama
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po…..am-per-se/

    1. The government only gets the credit when you are successful. When you fail, it is the fault of evil capitalists.

    2. It’s perfectly consistent. No one is responsible for what they do.

      A very convenient attitude for BO.

      1. No, that would be consistent. But the actual attitude is that the state/collective is responsible for all success, the market/individual is responsible for all failure.

  41. You know, I’m starting to soften up on the president’s bullshit. Some people claim cops are assholes to everyone because they mostly deal with the worst pricks in society, and start to feel like that’s all that society is.

    As president, the businesspeople you’re going to be spending the most time around are crapitalists, sort of by definition. If my idea of normal capitalism was the head of Goldman Sachs or Solyndra, I’d probably have a pretty low opinion of them too.

  42. So they lost a hammer?

  43. Make money using Google. Find out how to make up to $175/hr working for this billion dollar company. More info @ makecash25dotcomONLY

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.