Chick-fil-A

Mass Murders Disconnected From the Larger World, Senate Plays Chicken on Tax Vote, Teen Thrives With Home-Grown Trachea: P.M. Links

|

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

Advertisement

NEXT: Kid's Hot Dog Stand Shut Down by City Officials Before It Even Opens

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. ..raised British hackles by suggesting that preparation efforts in London were, maybe, not up to snuff.

    Stupid Mitt. International diplomacy is not helped by stating the obvious.

  2. The U.S. Senate voted to exclude high-income Americans from a tax cut extension and to dramatically raise the estate tax ? moves likely to be rejected by the House.

    I just wonder if the Senators knew that when they voted for it.

    1. They always know the tax increases.

      1. I mean that the House would reject.

        1. You mean like all the times the House voted to repeal Obamacare knowing the Senate would reject it?

          1. Different. Here they are making an unpopular choice, raising taxes. IN the case of Obmacare they are making a popular vote, repealing a nearly universally despised bill.

            1. Yup, different, Senate voted to extract more wealth from the private sector, House voted to try and increase liberty.

            2. Aren’t tax rises supposed to start in the House? I mean if they are called taxes, not that thing the Supremes did last month.

              1. AFAIK, the way it is supposed to work, is congress as a whole holds the purse strings. I don’t think there is a difference between House and Senate functionality in that respect.

                1. The House version of the Constitution says in Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

                  Not sure about the Senate version. I am pretty sure the President’s version is way different.

                  1. Nice Suki, I learned something here, ty.

                    I guess it pays to do a little research.

              2. The Senate takes a stalled bill that originated from the House and amends it to include the taxation provisions.

                1. I think they can also take an entirely unrelated bill, delete everything except maybe the name and identifying number, and substitute an entirely different text.

                  1. I really wish someone on SCOTUS would smack that shit down. It’s so obviously entirely contrary to the explicit text of the Constitution.

    2. You wonder if the Senators in the Democrat-controlled Senate knew that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives would reject a tax increase and the exclusion of high-income Americans from a tax extension? What’s to wonder??

      1. Go ahead, further damage the economy. Why not? Those rich people already paying most of the taxes aren’t paying their fair share and must be punished for already paying most of the taxes.

        1. You’re sardonically explaining this to me? Of course I understand the folly of it. That’s not what I wanted to know about however. I wanted to know why he thought the senators might conceivably not know that the Republicans controlling the House would of course reject the legislation.

          1. I’m talking to Congress, not you.

      2. Don’t all of the tax cuts expire automatically if the Senate does nothing? I think the Democrats think they have the upper hand and can win that game of chicken.

      3. This is all politics. The democrats hope to gain political advantage by tying the republicans to the rich, in particular rich people like bankers.

    3. I bet the vote on that estate tax increase was preceded by a flurry of calls to financial advisers and estate planners, to make sure their estates wouldn’t be gutted.

      1. Warren Buffet likes estate tax increases, because it means more money for certain kinds of insurance policies that his company sells.

      2. Not even necessary. That’s the beauty of the estate tax for the statists. They get to claim they’re “soaking the rich” knowing full well that the rich have largely protected themselves through the plethora of estate planning strategies that make this tax irrelevant to them. Now, middle class business owners with hard-to-value assets and little access to sophisticated estate planning strategies, on the other hand…

    4. The Senate is under no obligation to consider how the House of Reps will vote on legislation they pass.

      But I thought bills for revenue had to originate in the House? What’s up with that?

      1. Not sure if this counts since ending a temporary tax cut isn’t really a provision for raising revenue.

        1. The revenue practically raises itself!

  3. “All in all, the labor market is gradually healing,” said Ryan Sweet, a senior economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania. “We’ve got to take this report with a grain of salt. The jobs market is still tough and we’re setting ourselves up for a soft second half of the year.”

    Insightful analysis like that can only come from a senior economist.

    1. You need a Wharton MBA for that you know. I am Jesus tap dancing Christ how the hell does someone get paid to say such shit?

      1. knows Top Men.

      2. Well, yeah, but Moody’s Analytics is a very special kind of stupid. They were telling us right up until recently how good this recovery was going to be.

  4. http://accordingtohoyt.com/201…..ce-people/

    Interesting rant. This part caught my attention

    On gay marriage, some of my more violently opposed friends ARE gay. Some oppose it because they think it will up the ante on getting in other people’s face in a vain attempt at getting the approval mommy and daddy denied. Some oppose it because they think it will destroy the bohemian aspects of gay life. And some oppose it because given our common law marriage laws and alimony suits, no gay guy will ever feel comfortable letting an unemployed friend crash on his sofa for a few months.

    I hadn’t thought about the advantages of not being subjected to common law marriage rules before. It is interesting, the gay women I have known are mostly dying to get married. A good number of gay men I have known fit the description given here and think the idea is whacked.

    1. In employment law, some employers ban nepotism (like Uncle Sam in 5 U.S.C. ? 3110). However, this ban only applies to spouses.

      DOMA actually makes it legal for gays to commit nepotism. Lucky loophole-having homosexuals.

      1. Well you could just not marry a partner of the opposite sex, and take advantage of the same “loophole,” right?

        1. If you think she’ll buy that excuse.

    2. Imagine that, not all gay people think the same. What a novel concept.

      1. No Sparky. All gay people are noble monogamous creatures dying to get married and adopt three or four children. That is what Hollywood and the media tell me. So it must be true.

        1. But Andrew Sullivan told my dad he is the queen of all gays.

        2. So we should limit the rights of those that want to get married because some don’t want to get married? Should we ban opposite sex marriage because there are polyamorous and serial monogamists that don’t want to get married?

        3. Remember, the kids that homosexuals prefer to adopt are the crack-addled ones that no one else wants.

          1. That would be a real zinger if anyone ever made that claim.

    3. Whatever “common law marriage” precedents or laws exist, with regards to assets and entitlements and what not, it is just as much bullshit as regular state sanctioned marriage. Shacking up should occur at one’s own risk, in the absence of formal contractual agreements.

      1. The problem with common law marriage is that you can create a “marriage” when one party, usually the one with the assets, intends anything but.

        1. What I mean is, if no contract was agreed upon stating otherwise, then no party should have any legal obligation to the other one(s) or owe any assets.

        2. “Your honor, I have no idea how my penis wound up there!”

    4. I went looking for an article I read right after gay marriage was made legal in New York, but I couldn’t find it. It was by a lesbian activist lawyer who now has second thoughts when she realized, as the richer partner, she would be subject to the same bullshit alimony and divorce laws that men were.

      1. isn’t it ironic? Folks like her whine about a paternalistic world, how men get all the breaks. Welcome to the club, sister.

    5. Re gay women and marriage, it reminds me of the old joke:

      Q: What does a lesbian bring on a second date?

      A: A U-Haul.

  5. A now-13-year-old boy who received a transplanted trachea grown from his own stem cells is breathing normally and no longer needs medication to suppress rejection. He was born with an abnormally small trachea that didn’t grow with the rest of his body.

    This is why we can’t have nice things like natural selection anymore. NTTAWWT.

    1. Maybe he won’t breed.

    2. I was wondering if this could be applied to other abnormally small organs.

      Jes’ askin, that’s all. Not that I need it.

      1. Perhaps – but bear in mind that stem cells need to be injected.

        1. No, the original organ has to be removed to be replaced by the lab-grown one. Which will, with any luck, not be rejected.

    3. He should be breeding a lot better now wit the new trachea.

      1. It’s comments like this that keep me coming back to HR.

  6. Hey, apparently a cop can be fired. Is it for shooting an unarmed suspect? Kicking down doors in illegal no-knock raids? Shooting dogs? No, no, and no. Instead, this Boston cop was fired for using a racial slur against Red Sox outfielder Carl Crawford.

    1. Perrault had been on paid leave since he called Crawford a “Monday” before a July 5 minor league game in Manchester, N.H.

      Ok, after the olympic’s thing, I’m convinced that people are just making shit up to be offended about now. I mean, they always were, but it wasn’t an official policy of government to humor them until now.

      1. That sent me to Urban Dictionary, and sure enough, there is a definition of Monday that is a racial slur. Who knew?

        1. Now we’re just punishing people for thought-crimes.

          1. That, and I don’t think he would have been disciplined at all if he had used the word against a black guy that wasn’t an overpaid and overrated athlete for a professional sports team.

            1. Of ^that^ I have no doubt.

        2. So, when someone says I “just have a case of the Mondays”, I can sue them?

          Silver lining.

          1. I would like to hear Rick Monday’s opinion.

        3. From the story:

          In another instance at Leominster’s St. Patrick’s Day celebration, Perrault saw a black man wearing a shirt displaying the name of the Irish beer Guinness, and commented to him, “I didn’t know they serve Guinness in Africa.”

          Guinness had long shipped a special extra hopped up brew for their African and American markets since the 1820’s. They stopped doing so during the 1920’s, and in the last few years they have brought it back.

          http://beeradvocate.com/beer/p…..=WCBCFrank

          Been meaning to look for it, but brought home some Sierra Nevada Pale Ale and Torpedo at lunch for the weekend drinking instead.

          1. Now that one is clear. So why wasn’t he in trouble for that one?

          2. I’m pretty sure Guiness has a brewery in Nigeria.

            1. Seems like I’ve read about it somewhere, and they’ve had it there a long time, correct? Pretty sure you are right, I’ll double check.

            2. Yep, they’ve been brewing Foreign Extra Stout in Nigeria since 1962.

        4. That sent me to Urban Dictionary, and sure enough, there is a definition of Monday that is a racial slur. Who knew?

          And what’s the date on that entry?

        5. Really, because I didn’t see it. But I did see this:

          Chik-Fil-Atheist
          JULY 26
          A person who loves Chik-Fil-A, but not God, and is therefore pissed that Chik-Fil-A is closed on Sundays.
          Even though I’m an avowed Chik-Fil-Atheist, I tried to go to Chik-Fil-A on Sunday again. Goddamn it!

      2. While looking this up, I discovered the racial slur database. You can even search by race.

        1. They ***still*** don’t have the fucking Belgians in there!

    2. They’re serious about slurring the Red Sox in Boston…oh the outfielder was black? If only the cop had racially slurred a Yankee, he’d have been promoted.

  7. A now-13-year-old boy who received a transplanted trachea grown from his own stem cells is breathing normally…

    I give this youngster a full-throated congratulations.

  8. “the firest debate”
    That one does sound interesting.

  9. Opponents of the right to self-defense hope to force presidential candidates Obama and Romney to discuss firearms restrictions at the firest debate…

    That typo seems like it should require a visit from the Secret Service.

    1. think about the first part of that sentence: opponents of the right to self-defense. I get that the wording is a rhetorical device but there is a reality behind it and, damn, it’s a bit scary.

      1. yes, when some horrific attack occurs, the logical response is to consider how people can better defend themselves, not how can we make them even more vulnerable to attacks?

      2. You have to be especially careful of rhetorical devices you want to agree with. Therein lies the path to the glib side.

        A person who supports the assault weapon ban is not necessarily anti-self-defense. Jesus Christ.

        1. Just anti-common-sense.

        2. A person who supports the assault weapon ban is not necessarily anti-self-defense.

          True, but the overlap is quite high.

          I know a bunch of folks who truly believe that either the AWB or the magazine ban will be the tipping point. Once one of them passes, Congress will discover that the NRA is just an empty shell consisting of a few bitter clingers led by the people in the headquarters in Virginia, who for far too long have thwarted the will of the 85-90% of U.S. voters who have always wanted all guns banned.

    2. You would think opponents of the President’s re-election campaign would be dying (metaphorically!) to get that on a debate agenda.

      Who knows what hideous gaffe our President would emit?

  10. http://blogs.the-american-inte…..-the-wasp/

    Our WASP President. William Russell Meade makes a point often made on this board; modern progressives are just Puritans who traded the worship of God for the worship of government.

    1. ^^^^^THIS!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!

      What’s comical is their complete lack of self awareness as they talk about how lesser ethnicities, genders and/or races need their guiding hand because those groups have a childlike incapability of living in a free society without being taken advantage of.

      1. what’s worse – those ethnicities, genders, and races, or those who pretend to speak for them, are utterly lacking in self-awareness. You gotta admit it’s a helluva trick to patronize and belittle someone with their full approval.

        1. The greatest trick that progressives played on minorities was convincing them that they actually cared.

      2. I have a friend who is a black lesbian who told me she was freaking out because she agreed with the Republicans on everything except gay marriage.

        I told her she could join the log-cabin Republicans. She looked at me like I was nuts when I explained that it was the gay wing of the Republican party. She denied that such a thing could exist. She told me she wasn’t going to fall for my little practical joke.

        In the end, she told me she was going to keep voting for Democrats, because her parents would never forgive her if she voted Republican. From the tidbits she dropped about her family, I am pretty sure that her dad was also a middle of the road law and order conservative.

        I figure it will be about ten years before she has the courage to come out of the closet as a Republican.

        1. you could point her to the LCRs on the web. I’m not sure whether to be amazed or saddened that she has no clue such a group exists. And has she missed that EVERY state that had a referendum on gay marriage had the same result, even the blue ones?

          1. In her defense, she was from Oakland California, so her knowledge of the Republican Party was about as informed as an Egyptian street vendor’s understanding of judaism.

            1. so her knowledge of the Republican Party was about as informed as an Egyptian street vendor’s understanding of judaism.

              I lol’d.

          2. You should be saddened.

            Team BLUE has so thoroughly convinced gays, women, blacks, etc that Team RED is anti-gay/women/black/etc that most who fall in that demographic simply can’t even acknowledge that there are those who are actually part of Team RED.

            Also, and perhaps even sadder, is that this chick actually votes based on what her fucking parents might think afterwards. Fucking seriously?

        2. She is pretty confused if she thinks there a dime’s worth of difference.

    2. Calling progressives “puritans” isn’t exactly a new idea, but it certainly bears repeating. Progs should be told that they’re “neo puritans” at every turn. I don’t know if it’d piss them off (the appropriate response) or if they’d just call you crazy. I intend to find out.

    3. Praise Jesus Government!

    4. He’s a very insightful pundit, but for the record, his name is Walter Russell Mead.

  11. my house is going up for sale. The realtor thinks – because of the location – we should be able to break even. I don’t mind pissing away a few grand to get out of here, but yeah, I would prefer to break even.

    1. Where are you getting out to?

    2. Just walk away.

    3. I should make money when I sell. But then, the real estate marekt here didn’t really slump that much.

      1. I’m too lazy to look it up, but isn’t it a fact that about 5 states make up 90% of the country’s foreclosures?

        1. Yeah. And back when I was toiling away in the infancy of the CMO market lo, these 20 years ago, those exact same states were redlined out of any mortgage pools that wanted to be rated.

    1. With the shortage of chicks, they were probably desperate to have a chance at a piece of ass who would be forever indebted to one of them. At least they got something.

    2. Risking their lives to save a sex doll? Who wouldn’t!?!?

      1. I’m sympathetic, somebody must have lost a loved one!

  12. http://www.weeklystandard.com/…..49010.html

    Obama’s fund raising pleas increasingly pathetic.

    1. Did he really write that “This could be my last Birthday in the White House”?!?

      LOL. It actually makes me want to kick a few bucks to the Romney campaign.

    2. My upcoming birthday next week could be the last one I celebrate as President of the United States, but that’s not up to me ? it’s up to you.

      Make sure to clean up after the party and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

  13. Feminists get trolled on enthusiastic consent and drinking. At least, it seems like a troll. The best part is how many think it’s a troll, but assume that it’s actually a guy “trying to get away with rape” instead of someone demonstrating the ridiculousness of their hard-line stance.

    1. Oh come on…copy and paste the goodness. It’s like keeping smallpox samples in a clean room. Just common sense.

      1. There’s just so much. Here’s the original post:

        Dear Prudence,
        My husband is kind, supportive, funny, generous, smart, and loving. However, I feel like I must divorce him. Six years ago, when we were in our early 20s and had just fallen in love, after a night of partying and drinking, he woke me up in the middle of the night and started to have sex with me. I was dozing and still drunk and, yes, I took my panties off myself. But when I realized that it was not OK for him to make advances on me in my state, I pushed him away and ran out. He later felt so bad he wanted turn himself in for rape. I was very confused and thought at times that I was overreacting and at others that I was raped. We painfully worked through this, but the incident made my husband very reluctant about having sex. This led to an agreement that he shouldn’t be afraid of coming close to me in similar situations as long as he asked my consent. This made us feel better and I felt secure again. However, we just found ourselves in a very similar situation. After coming back from a friend’s wine tasting we went to bed and he started to kiss me. I liked it and went along, only to wake up in the morning and remember only half of it. Now I am in the same painful spot I was before and I can’t fathom how he could have ignored our agreement. Should I just drop it or am I right about feeling abused?

        ?Confused

        1. That was posted a few days ago. My first reaction is what a fucked up sense of intimacy and trust this woman has. Who doesn’t trust their spouse enough to have drunken sex? And what kind of a fucked up relationship do you have when after said drunken sex, you both think it was rape?

          1. Yeah, but this link is to a feminist website. I posted it for the comments. Such as:

            snorkellingfish 7.19.2012 at 7:10 pm

            So, she’s asleep. He initiates sex. She takes her panties off while still dozing. When she wakes up enough to realise what’s happening, she runs off. If I’m interpreting this right, it sounds an awful lot like rape ? someone who’s asleep can’t consent to sex.

            In that context, his act of offering to term himself in sounds potentially manipulative. I could imagine an abuser offering in order to convince his victim that he’s contrite and that it was an accident ? or, as Stentor suggested, to escalate matters knowing that the police were unlikely to do anything and she was the one who’d come out looking like she’d overreacted.

            1. “Heads I win, tails you lose.”

              I suppose the proper feminist response should have been for him to throw himself off a bridge in penance. Like all men are supposed to.

              1. No, cause then the cock-man-oppressor would be doing it just to make her feel guilty.

        2. Gold. +100.

        3. Fuck, that is a dysfunctional relationship. How do people live like that?

          1. I am surprised they haven’t called for a signing of a consent contract at a notary every time people want to have sex.

            1. You should probably just video tape every encounter to be safe.

          2. Because it feeds a primal need inside.

            I stuck with my ex because I wasn’t going to give up on my marriage like my dad did.

            … and I stuck with it despite how horribly she treated me, even when she tried to make me an unknowing accessory to a felony. If she hadn’t taken the kids and fled the state the first time the cops threatened to arrest her, I might still be with her.

            …. all because I wasn’t going to be like my dad.

            1. tarran, I am your father. Join me on the dark side.

              1. No matter how many times you ask, I am NOT INTERESTED IN ANY TITLE IN YOUR ROBIN WILLIAMS MOVIE COLLECTION, LET ALONE A MOVIE MARATHON!

                Anyway, who died and made you hegemon?

                1. Andy Griffith did.

                  Come on, just watch Mrs. Doubtfire with me. Just that. Or maybe Jack? How about Jumanji? Just one, that’s all I ask.

                  1. I’ve only seen Jumanji in Spanish (dubbed), but I’ve seen it so many times that I don’t think I even want to see it in English. My feeling is that it was the only Spanish-language ish movie that my primary school had.

                    1. Do you want to watch it with me?

        4. what the hell kind of fucked up person thinks this is even a problem? If one partner is not in the mood, just say so but spare me the buyer’s remorse. He’s your spouse, not some pickup from a bar.

        5. Should I just drop it or am I right about feeling abused?

          Neither. You should have a hysterectomy and then join a convent in order to spare the gene pool from the possibility of you breeding and society in general from your presence.

    2. I was more shocked that the husband wanted to turn himself in for rape. WTF? He didn’t force himself on her and when you are married you do have license to make sexual contact with your spouse.

      1. the husband is emblematic of the new class of emasculated man who has been thoroughly marinated in victim politics while in school. The larger question is why he hasn’t packed up and moved on, but it probably goes back to the first sentence.

      2. Or, and I’m just throwing this out there, maybe he was being sarcastic.

        1. Yes. This is the correct answer.

      3. She’s cutting out the working over she gave gim that lead up to him deciding to make this offer.

    3. I was waiting for a response to that but it wasn’t very fun. Dare I enter into the comments section?

      1. Here’s another one from the “he’s an evil manipulative rapist camp”.

        Stentor 7.19.2012 at 3:47 pm | Permalink
        Another theory on the “turn himself in for rape” aspect: there are a lot of guys out there who believe that rape only counts if the victim reports it to the police. (In another community I participate in, I’ve lost track of the number of people saying that the community should not do anything about abusers unless they have a police record.) So I could see a case where she’s saying she feels like it might have been rape, and he comes back at her with “well if you’re going to accuse me of rape, we can go down to the police station and turn me in. If you’re not willing to do that, then it must not have really been rape.” So he could have been escalating things to force her to back down.

        1. whoa, whoa, whoa. She feels like it might have been rape. If Stentor is a guy, he should immediately turn in his man card, testicles (provided he still has them), and anything else that identifies him by gender. Stentor must mean eunuch in some language.

    4. Hahahha, it’s so funny, they have basically taken “technically an incapacitated person cannot consent” to mean “it is immoral to consent while intoxicated”

      Oh, the religion of feminism.

      1. I know, just because she doesn’t remember doesn’t mean she passed out. That would be rape but if she very much consented but doesn’t remember doing so well that’s her fault for drinking too much.

        1. ^in a long term committed relationship^ that is. I have a bit of sympathy to the college situation having witnessed and intervened first hand when a girl was literally being carried over a guys shoulder like a caveman. Problem is most situations are not that clear cut.

          1. Right. And basically it sounds like this woman was not saying “This was not ok with me,” she was saying, “I’m quite ok with this, but I shouldn’t be because feminism!”

            1. Ultimately, she must have the world’s most patient and sensitive husband since I can’t imagine being with someone with such profound trust and intimacy issues.

              1. I’d turn around and walk the fuck out the moment she pulled that shit on me. It’s ludicrous beyond comprehension. Let’s be blunt here: How the hell do these people ever fuck with attitudes like that? Are they all involuntarily celibate?

                1. I wish I could answer your- no, actually, I don’t wish I could answer your question. I’m glad I can’t, because I’m not self-loathing enough to be in that spot.

                2. If I was in his shoes, I’d be worried that if I walked away, she would go to the cops.

                  1. But six years ago? That would be tough, no?

        2. Yeah, I drank too much in highschool and college, and sometimes I black out when I’m still good to drive (technically good to drive, not legally).

        3. Ever heard of consent forms? Hell, just have her sign the condom, that should hold up in court.

    5. From the comments:

      If she’s experiencing this as a rape and/or violation (I don’t want to attribute a word she may not identify with) then that needs validation support.

      Wait..what?! So however she “experiences” it should be the deciding factor as to what it is? As in, I “experience” sleep as work and thus should be paid for it?

      1. Yes, but only if you’re a member of a “victimized class”.

        1. That is some of the most annoying stuff out there. I do not hesitate to agree that there are many institutions (primarily government-associated) which discriminate unfairly against certain classes of individuals. What I despise, though, is the “you’re a straight white male, so you have more PRIVILEGE than everyone else.” Ceteris paribus, that may be true, but, guess what, ceteris isn’t paribus (I know that is horribly ungrammatical). I am not as “privileged” as a member of a victimized class drawing a seven-figure income. I cannot stand the way that some trustafarians use this argument to basically say, “I’m a woman, so I am oppressed by people like you!” even though she has orders of magnitude more wealth, power, and influence than I.

          /rant

  14. “some killers emulating their predecessors.”

    It might be a good idea for mass media to VOLUNTARILY minimize printing their names, grievances, aliases, photos.

    1. That was my reaction too.

  15. 9 cm error turns dream home into nightmare for couple

    The Conception Bay South town council in eastern Newfoundland says Steven Boyd and Karen Bursey built their house too close to their neighbour’s property. … When an inspector picked up on it [being 9 cm too close to the neighbour], the council issued a stop-work order.

    At last we have order!

    1. We offered the world order!

        1. Calm down, Hitler. You think Ron Howard just wished Willow was great? No, and yet it was.

  16. Opponents of the right to self-defense hope to force presidential candidates Obama and Romney to discuss firearms restrictions at the firest debate, scheduled for Denver on October 3.

    Indeed it will be fiery.

    1. Firest. Time to whip the intern eh Tuccile?

  17. Chick-fil-A is delicious and they have far and away the best customer service in the industry. I’m going to keep eating there.

    1. They good chicken sandwiches. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion. Who gives a shit what the guy who makes you a sandwich thinks about politics?

      The whole thing shows how totalitarian liberals are. Everything in the liberal mind comes back to politics. Politics rule every aspect of a liberal’s life down to the food they eat. That is what a totalitarian ideology looks like.

      1. Not just what you eat. Your mode of transportation is also important.

        1. Everything.

          1. Yeah, I guess “everything” does cover mode of transportation.

      2. I despise when people bring politics into stuff like this whether its jerk off liberals or christian moral crusaders.

        1. I am trying to remember an example of Christians calling for a boycott of a business over politics. I am sure there has been. But I can’t think of one.

          People need to stop and think. When you boycott a business over unrelated politics, you are saying that people who hold that view have no right to earn a living. That is pretty fucked up when you think about it.

          1. Disney for Gay Day for starters. Every fucking stupid “Family” NGO you have (thousands of them).

            1. They didn’t boycott the business just the day. Good god you are a lying worthless piece of shit.

              1. Ford, Starbucks, Proctor and Gamble (the latter two for demonic symbols), much of the media including HBO and Flynt Publishing (the latter I doubt they really boycotted but had to say so for their FundieNut donors)

            2. They got oreo’s for that rainbow cookie add as well. I remember when my family accidently went to Disney world during gay week when I was a kid. Couldn’t have planned it better. All the lines were like a third as long. If I ever go again, that’s when I’ll go.

              1. All the lines were like a third as long.

                You’ve convinced me… when’s their next Gay Day?

                1. First week of June. Better luck next year.

                2. Hear at Disney World, it’s always Gay Day!

                  It’s a gay world, after all,
                  It’s a gay world, after all,
                  It’s a gay world, after all,
                  It’s a gay, gay world!

          2. I remember some Christian groups boycotting Carls Jr. for having ads featuring Hugh Hefner and Playboy models. I always found it strange that Carls Jr. has the most sexual ads in fast food given the politics of its founder Carl Karcher.

          3. there was some group with its knickers in a knot over Ellen Degeneres doing JC Penney ads, but even most conservatives thought that was stupid.

          4. Um the gay oreo thing is the most recent. It happens all the damn time.

          5. The raison d’etre of the FRC is to organize boycotts.

          6. Disney, in theory. Of course, I was a kid back then in a Southern Baptist church, and I remember watching Disney movies on the bus during a church trip and wondering if anyone actually took the boycott seriously. I guess I was already pretty cynical at that point.

        2. Boycotts don’t bother me one iota — whether or not I’m on “their side.” However, when it comes to a gov’t official making a stand, that ain’t right. It’s the difference between a city govt not hiring blacks, or a restaurant not serving blacks. Private is private, public is not.

          1. Boycotts don’t bother me one iota — whether or not I’m on “their side.” However, when it comes to a gov’t official making a stand, that ain’t right. It’s the difference between a city govt not hiring blacks, or a restaurant not serving blacks. Private is private, public is not.

            Booyah!

            Let the market sort it out. Boycotting a particular business for their politics is perfectly kosher in a free market; using government to shut them down isn’t.

            I do it all the time. I refuse to ear at cracker barrel for because not only is their food mostly bad, but at one point in time they openly admitted to not hiring gays. I refused to even consider a GM car when I bought my recent truck because they extorted bailout money, so they can go fuck themselves.

            None of that is to say that government should force them to shut down.

      3. And you whackjob Fundie conservatives separate politics from all else? Don’t make me laugh.

        1. Last I looked, “you too” is not an argument. You demonic little brown shirted retard.

          1. It is time to admit, John, that I come here just to read your excellent Shrike epithets.

            1. “Demonic little weirdo” is always funny no matter how many times I read it.

        2. I can’t seem to remember an elected official ever standing up and declaring that Apple or Starbucks is persona non grata in his/her jurisdiction because of their gay-friendly policies.

          Help us out here, Shriek.

          1. shrike never bitches about the religion of government.

            1. He’s a bishop in it, after all.

      4. I don’t even care if the liberals don’t want to go there for political reasons. As far as I’m concerned, people can consume or not consume whatever products they want to, for whatever reasons they decide.

        But the fact that they want to make the determination for other people around them is infuriating. Especially when these same disingenuous Chicago scumbags openly embrace a guy like Farrakhan, who has the exact same opinion of gays and gay marriage that Dan Cathy does.

        1. And thanks to Twitter, I learned about a Chicago restaurant owned by Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam:

          http://chicago.everyblock.com/…..t-5114873/

          Farrakhan’s anti-SSM remarks cited:

          https://reason.com/blog/2012/07…..nt_3162841

      5. Maybe they will propose a law on who can eat where. Maybe divide the counter.

    2. I just posted down below about their CS. Top notch and rare in fast food.

  18. Chicago Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno explains that he won’t allow Chich-fil-A to open a store in his ward because of the owners’ anti-gay-marriage views…

    Because he has more gay constituents than chicken-eating constituents? Or just voters who like to have their decisions made for them?

    1. Is there no greater paragon of morality than the Chicago Alderman? Strive to emulate him in all respects, comrades.

    2. Don’t you know that you fight discrimination with discrimination?

    3. I look forward to Joe’s salty ham tears when some alderman in a right-leaning city “won’t allow” a business to open because its owner is pro-choice or anti-gun. These morons forget that stupid can work both ways.

      1. Can you think of such an example – not a boycott, there’s lots of those on both sides, but a threat of a legal ban based on a business owner’s politics?

        Yes, I know about the mosques.

        1. not from an elected official regarding a business, no. Most conservative mayors and council members welcome new businesses to town.

    4. So alderman = feudal lord?

      I did not know that. And yet it explains so much.

      1. So alderman = feudal lord?

        Well actually, yeah.

  19. OT: So I was watching a news report back from the days of the Haitian earthquake, and there was a report on the global response to the disaster. While the reporter was proudly proclaiming how the world had come together and shit, everything he showed — food and supply crates, trucks transporting people and aforementioned crates, tents, checkpoint equipment, medical containers, the supply vehicle the reporter himself was sitting in as he finished up, etc. — either had an American flag on it, or had some variation of “United States” plastered over it.

    Pretty amusing.

  20. Sounds like a very good plan to me dude.

    http://www.Anon-Rules.tk

  21. Watson was being sought by Costa Rica after ramming a boat he claimed was hunting sharks for their fins. He claimed he was acting on the authority of the Guatemalan government, but fled when Guatemala sent gunboats to intercept his ship. Charged with attempted murder, he fled again until being arrested in Germany. Now he insists the charges are politically motivated and he will be killed if returned to Costa Rica

    http://fullcomment.nationalpos…..-contempt/

    1. There is a lot in Watson that brings to mind another self-appointed crusader and fanatic, Julian Assange, who is holed up in an embassy in London, trying to avoid extradition to Sweden on rape charges. Both men see themselves as champions of justice who are above normal legal standards, justify their actions on self-serving criteria, display overt signs of paranoia and megalomania, and are terrified of ever facing the cost of their actions.

      Sigh.

    2. Now he insists the charges are politically motivated and he will be killed if returned to Costa Rica

      Gosh, now he may get a chance to personally fulfill his dream.

      There is only one cure, only one way of stopping this rising epidemic of extinctions. The solution requires an extraordinarily immense effort by all of human society but it is achievable.

      We need to re-wild the planet. We need to “get ourselves back to the garden” as Joni Mitchell once so poetically framed it.

      This is a process that will require a complete overhaul of all of humanities economic, cultural, and life style systems. Within the context of our present anthropocentric mind-set the solution is impossible. It will require a complete transformation of all human realities.

  22. Here’s another good Dear Prudence column: Husband sleeps with nanny, wife kicks him out and divorces him, but wants to re-hire the nanny since it’s apparently hard to find good help these days.

    1. Maybe he fucked the nanny doggy-style bent over the pillow the wife puts her heads on when she goes to sleep.

      That’d be really inappropriate!

    2. That’s half a season of Californication right there!

    3. Bush’s fault! Not enough illegal aliens for babysitting that American’s won’t do! [/sarcasm]

    4. Holy shit:

      Dear Prudence,
      My husband and I have an ongoing dispute I hope you can resolve. I would like him to give me a little present once a month. Nothing elaborate?a pair of earrings, a blouse, a trip to the spa. If he were to do this, it would make me feel special and appreciated, but he says that if he’s expected to give me something according to a schedule, there’s nothing special about it. He does give me spontaneous gifts from time to time, but I think it would be more romantic if he did it regularly. It would tell me that he’s always thinking of me. My father has always done this for my mother, and they’ve been happily married for 46 years!
      ?Giftless

      Run away!

      1. Holy fuck. Do turn-offs get any more potent than this?

      2. It would tell me that he’s always thinking of me.

        I can promise you, he’s already always thinking about you, princess.

        Maybe he could time the gift-giving to her menstruation.

      3. Of COURSE she plans to reciprocate with a new power tool for him every month, right?

        1. Reverse sexism is all the rage nowadays, MS. Keep the hell up!1!!1!

          1. Sorry, sorry. I forget that when some people advocate things like “equality” they mean something completely different.

          2. So, how long (I sure hope I’m not giving them any ideas) before the feminists start demanding restitution?

            1. Whenever it is the uber-feminists make another jump in their level of sexism.

      4. This just reinforces to me how friggin’ great my wife is.

  23. Why isn’t Romney bragging about the federal bailout money he took for the Salt Lake City Winter Games?

    1. you mean the part where took over a Games that was nearly 400-mil in debt, donated one million of his own money, got rid of a lot of waste, find new sponsors and another 180 mil, private donors for at least as much, and left behind a 100-mil profit in an Olympics that would have otherwise left the country a laughingstock? That bailout?

      1. The federal government covered over $300M in direct costs for the ’20 Olympics. If the Feds give me $300 million for my lemonade stand, I’ll find a way to end up with $200M in profits.

        1. Most of that was for security. This was a few months after 9/11 for God’s sake… no way the govt was going to skimp on security.

          1. The over $300 is direct costs for the Games, it doesn’t include new infrastructure built or security costs.

      2. The GAO found that the American taxpayer provided about $75 million in funding for the 1984 Los Angeles Games, by 1996 the bill to taxpayers had escalated to $609 million, and for the upcoming 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, that bill to American taxpayers is estimated to be $1.3 billion dollars. This figure is breathtaking. The American taxpayer is being shaken down to the tune of nearly a billion-and-a-half dollars for Salt Lake City to host the Winter Olympics.

        The man who said the above currently endorses Romney.

        1. nice misrepresentation. The 1.3 bil was given, and squandered, BEFORE Romney. The subsequent fundraising and profit came AFTER him. You do understand before/after, don’t you? Kinda like unemployment was never above 8% BEFORE Obama and has never been below 8% AFTER his election.

          The man who said that was NOT speaking to financial fuckbucketry by Romney, you disingenuous fuckstain.

          1. McCain was talking about the 2001 Appropriations bill, which was 2 years after Romney took over.

          2. If Romney wasn’t suckling from the federal teat, why the fuck did he hire a bunch of lobbyists to ask for money. Romney wouldn’t pay millions for lobbyists and not get any return.

  24. Typos in the summaries of the debate and Chik-fil-a.

  25. “A now-13-year-old boy who received a transplanted trachea grown from his own stem cells is breathing normally and no longer needs medication to suppress rejection.”

    That someone had the foresight to harvest his stem cells while he was still just an embryo is damn fortunate.

    1. Uhm, when stem cells are harvested from an embryo, I believe the leftovers are no longer viable.

      We have stem cells in our body even as adults. They took the stem cells from him from his bone marrow probably within the past two years..

      1. It was a slam against the people who opposed adult stem cells in favor of embryonic ones.

      2. Why can not some of the stem cells be used to grow a new embryo?

      3. You can also use cord blood to gather stem cells and have them sent to a cryo storage unit for later use if necessary. There are programs designed specifically for this. We did exactly this with our children.

    2. Are they iPS cells? You can technically turn a somatic cell back into a stem cell of sorts by playing with the regulation of a couple genes. Of course, last I heard, this had oncogenic potential, so maybe they shied away from that.

  26. Opponents of the right to self-defense hope to force presidential candidates Obama and Romney to discuss firearms restrictions at the firest debate, scheduled for Denver on October 3.

    Hey! That’s a highly-loaded statement! Those people are not opponents to the right of self defense!

    They are just opposed to individual rights. That’s all. God! Talk about spin!

    1. The most insidious dishonesty is the kind you want to agree with. One who lies for you is probably lying to you too.

  27. A tie? A TIE? Oi, soccer twats, get out there and play until there’s a winner.

  28. Today is also the birthday of the great Stanley Kubrick. Barry Lyndon remains one of my all-time favorite movies. Just look at the lighting, costuming, and overall direction in this scene.

    1. You know he filmed that movie using special lenses designed by NASA so that they could collect enough light just using candles to expose the film, right? Fuck, Stanley was a crazy guy, and a great, great director.

      1. He also had interesting political beliefs too. I think they’re best summed up in A Clockwork Orange where he portrays the police as just as savage as the droogs and depicts the left-wing writer Alexander as just as manipulative and insidious as the government minister. Fascinating man, it’s a shame he wasn’t more prolific and died a decade too soon.

        1. It’s a shame Kirk Douglas controlled the production of Spartacus so much that it doesn’t even feel like a Kubrick movie.

          1. It has some nice moments. And some great acting, especially from Laughton, Ustinov, and Olivier.

        2. He also abused the actors in most of his movies to the point that many of them despise him with a passion. Ask Shelly Duvall if she got all her hair back after filming the Shining.

          He did make some great films though.

          1. He did some pretty fucked up things to his actors, but the prize for that probably goes to Herzog in Aguirre.

            1. To be fair, Kinski needed to have a gun pointed at him. He was nuts.

      2. “You know he filmed that movie using special lenses designed by NASA”

        Kubrick didn’t shoot that film. Someone else did that.

        1. That comment you made about Kubrick not doing that– You didn’t do that.

        2. You know, it just occurred to me that this whole “you didn’t build that” thing falls right in line with the left’s insistence that if you have money it’s only because you got lucky.

          1. Dude, it falls in line with that, and with the idea that your money really isn’t yours, but everyone’s, and with that everything is provided by the government and “society”, and more.

            It was actually an extremely candid moment for the big O.

            1. Yeah, I knew he was giving away more than he intended. Fortunately, I spend very little time thinking about that sad sack, so I didn’t put it together until just now. Time for another beer.

            2. Even the Ebony Messiah messes up speeches, it turns out. How can this BE?!

              1. when TOTUS is not present, POTUS can be found committing acts of being himself.

          2. It does not just fall in line with that. It is that. What do you think the lines about a lot of people being smart and work hard mean?

    2. I still haven’t seen that–the only Kubrick film I haven’t seen.

  29. Alright who did it?

    Why Was Twitter Down? According to Twitter, It Was Because “Reason”

    1. Drink!

    2. The squirrels are getting aggressive.

  30. Well, this is gonna piss some people off.

    8 Ways Blacks Perpetuate Racism and the Only Way to Thwart It
    -Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock are among the offenders.

  31. Disgraced former Penn State president Graham Spanier lands a job in the federal government:

    http://www.pennlive.com/midsta…..t_340.html

    Maybe they’re gonna put him in charge of the TSA, given his experience looking the other way while his subordinates are groping people.

    1. I really hope it is the fucking TSA. That would be a bigger fail than YDBI.

  32. Chick-Fil-A’s food tastes like shit anyway. The gay community should just sit back and let the SoCons have their own little ‘get fat’ club.

    1. After reading so much about how tasty their sandwich is and how hard it was going to be to not eat there, I just had to try one. Underwhelmed. Not shit, but nothing to write home about either.

      1. I dig their sammiches, but you can keep the waffle fries.

        1. Oh god the fries were awful. Good service though. Smiled. Pleasant. Patient. Fast. Didn’t ask me if I had found Jesus.

  33. “CORZINE’S MF GLOBAL WAS CLIENT OF ERIC HOLDER’S LAW FIRM”
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G…..nt-of-Eric Holder-s-Law-Firm

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.