A.M. Links: State of Emergency in Louisiana, Gary Johnson Targets GOP Immigration Policy, Che or Lindsay?

|

  • Lindsay Lohan

    With Tropical Storm Isaac verging on hurricane status and heading in for some jambalaya, President Barack Obama has declared a state of emergency in Louisiana.

  • Gary Johnson, Libertarian presidential candidate, points out that Republican immigration policy "borders on racist." You may actually be too nice with your description, Gary.
  • Word has it that Joe Biden is planning his own presidential run for 2016. Please. No.
  • In North Carolina, a prison guard was busted for smuggling marijuana to the inmates, hidden in his pants. What's the problem? It keeps them mellow.
  • Greece will offer tax and administrative advantages in "special economic zones" to lure business and investment from overseas. Here's an idea, folks: Try that in your whole, damned country.
  • Galway, Ireland plans to erect a statue to famed butcher and thug Che Guevara, so Florida-based philanthropist Elviro Sanchez, a Cuban refugee, is offering to foot the bill for a Lindsay Lohan statue, instead. He points out that Lohan has actual roots in Galway and hasn't killed anybody. Yet.
  • The family of Rachel Corrie will not be getting any damages from the Israeli government, the Haifa District Court ruled. She was killed by a military bulldozer while protesting on behalf of Palestinians.

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

NEXT: Mursi Considering Emergency Laws

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. FRIST.

  2. Che or Lindsay? What, like the choice between death by hanging or burning?

    1. Oh I don’t know. I can think of PLENTY of things to do with a 40 foot tall statue of Lindsay Lohan.

    2. Burning during urination, vielleicht.

    3. I think it’s all firing squad.

    4. “You shall surely die by hanging or the pox”

      “That all depends on whether I embrace your principles or [Lindsay Lohan].”

      1. We need manly political insults like that again.

        1. “You, sir, are a direct, lineal decendant of the impenitant thief on the cross!”

        2. Denis Healey said being attacked by Geoffrey Howe was “like being savaged by a dead sheep”

          Prime Minister Paul Keating called the Australian Senate “unrepresentative swill”. His best was when asked if Andrew Peacock could become Liberal leader again:

          “Can a souffl? rise twice?”

          1. when asked if Andrew Peacock could become Liberal leader again

            Is that a real politician’s name?

            1. Yep. A bit of a suntanned jetsetter who also had an affair with Shirley Maclaine.

    5. Lindsay never killed anyone. Well, not yet, and if she ever does it will be accidental. Her crazy bloated drunken antics are far more praiseworthy than Che’s murderous bloody life. The only question is what shape the statue should be in. I vote for this one, in which she looks like a proud daughter of Erin

      1. She had a scene or two in Machete which would make a nice statue.

      1. We English will not bow to savages. I’ll choose Mau Mau

          1. “Perhaps you are a naturally slothful person, sluggish and indolent, a dawdling flaneur, content to waste his life spread eagled on pillows forever indulging himself in the pleasures of the palm.”

            1. You don’t want to get him angry. I once saw him beat a man until he and the man were crying

            2. Hoisted by my own pet toads.

        1. Aww, you’ve heard it before.

          1. You know I’ve got this gun!

            1. Holy hell, tell me you’ve read (and lived) Gravity’s Rainbow and you’re not married.

              Also that you’re 25 and look like Gemma Arterton. And that you like fat Americans and want to live in West Africa.

              1. You’re going to be disappointed in so many ways…

                1. Well you’re a chick right?

                  1. Female, unmarried, but 25 was a long time ago and Gemma Aterton would have been a stretch even then. I’ve only read one Pynchon, but not GR. Stopped reading literature before I really had done the Americans

                    1. Female

                      Close enough!

                2. I’m going with a libertarian Michelle Jenneke who likes AC-DC, has an awesome accent, and likes freakishly tall and sarcastic men.

    1. Surely “Montana man dressed as sasquatch to rape hikers struck and killed by STEVE SMITH”

      1. STEVE SMITH is a rape monopolist and can’t stand the competition.

        1. “STEVE SMITH hit by car; dead hiker dressed in ‘sexy SMITH lingerie’ falls off his cock.

    2. A question about this: charge of sexual gratification with an animal would it be the same charge if the guy used a piece of liver for sexual gratification? Entire dead animal vs dead animal parts?

  3. “Word has it that Joe Biden is planning his own presidential run for 2016. Please. No.”

    Every comedy writer in North America begs to differ.

    1. They’re so desperate for a president they’re allowed to mock.

    2. No one will ever top the Bushisms that rolled out of Dumbya’s mouth. Letterman has had to hire writers since Jan 2009 instead of just quoting him.

      1. BOOOSH!!!1!

        Psst, its been 3.5 years, let it go…

        1. They can’t. Waking up from the kool-aid stupor and finding the current Oval Office occupant is even more incompetent, however improbable, has the knee-jerk left in a vicious state of denial.

          1. I wake up thankful that that brain-dead moron is gone which makes Obama look good in comparison.

            I don’t miss financial meltdowns, corruption and lying us into trillion dollar wars.

            1. Of course you don’t miss that shreek. You have even more of all of that under Obama. Why would you miss it when you have more of it now?

              1. But but but, intentions!

            2. We actually know W got C’s in school, which means he’s not quite brain-dead. Can we really say the same of Obama?

            3. 57 states. That is all.

              1. Those 57 states, you didn’t build those.

              2. Navy “corpseman”
                “”No, no. There’s gotta be a little gallows humor to get you through the day.” (when being asked why he’s giggling when discussing a bad economy)
                “You’ve got to spread the wealth around a little.”
                “The private sector is doing just fine.”

                1. Oh, and who could forget the immortal “profits-to-earnings ratios”?

                2. “I see fallen heros in the the crowd”.

                  “I don’t know how to say it in Austrian”

                  “Intercontinnental railroad”

            4. I don’t miss financial meltdowns, corruption and lying us into trillion dollar wars.

              It’s hard to miss what isn’t gone.

    3. “Word has it that Joe Biden is planning his own presidential run for 2016. Please. No.”

      PLEASE YES

      1. I have to agree. Frankly, he’d be preferable to anyone else at this point.

        1. Yes! I might register as a Democrat just to vote for him.

  4. President Barack Obama has declared a state of emergency

    Bjork already did it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BSMcVRgloY

    1. + 1 swan dress

    2. -1 Sugarcube

  5. The Truth about Obama’s Budget Deficits, in Pictures/A big version of the biggest, most important chart in American politics

    If we are to cope with climate change we need a new moral order
    …What religious thought ? and ritual ? can supply is the two things absent from normative consumer liberalism. The first is a belief that the choice between ends is not arbitrary or wholly personal: that there are moral facts of the matter; that saving as much of humanity as possible is an obligation on all of us, and that this is actually true, and not just a matter of preference.

    The second is the kind of conformism, reinforced by all kinds of social ritual, large and small, which will enforce the social discipline needed to carry societies through some pretty ghastly changes. Let’s face it, any adjustment to an ecologically sustainable standard of living is going to be a lot nastier than anything Greece is going through now. It will need considerable determination and solidarity…….

    1. To all who advocate going back to a Druidic lifestyle I have only two things to say;

      “Sod off, swampy,”

      or

      “You first”.

      1. I say come live in Liberia with me for a month, and then let’s see if you rethink your position.

        1. Why do you live in Liberia?

          1. I thought it said Libertaria 🙁

            No, I work for the Brits that are here. It pays nice, and everything’s good except for the internet.

      2. but you repeat yourself…

    2. Offers you false faith to the Woodsie Lord, tricksie wordmaker man?

    3. That ruined environment you got there…You didn’t do that, someone else made that happen.

    4. So… global warming is a cult. No matter how much they try to deny it.

  6. Polarized to a draw
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    The reason Romney does not dominate or collapse is because the American electorate is evenly divided and highly polarized. Obama has spent the last year effectively shoring up the Democratic coalition, including minorities, single women and college-educated voters. Romney has (for the most part) solidified the support of reliably Republican voters. Each candidate has gained his expected 45 percent or 46 percent of the electorate ? but not much more.

    In an ideologically charged election, decided voters are not easily budged from their natural predispositions. Republicans tend to think a second Obama term would mean the consolidation of a European economic and social model on U.S. soil. Democrats tend to believe that GOP rule would incorporate the least attractive elements of puritanism and social Darwinism

    1. Social Darwinism. Could someone please take that poor term out and shoot it so the liberals can’t rape it anymore.

      1. What?! And rip asunder the fabric of society?!

      2. I find it funny that the reality based community believes in directed evolution.

    2. Pretty much true. The current campaign ad fight is over the mushy middle.

      1. Your insight is invaluable.

      2. Thanks. You should change your handle to Captain Obvious! in recognition of your valuable insight.

      3. Not really.

        If the electorate is polarized and almost evenly divided then the point of the ads is to encrease your own turnout and suppress, your opponents.

    3. the Democratic coalition, including minorities, single women and college-educated voters

      Funny, I know lots of those who aren’t voting donk come the fall. The shoring up must not be working too well.

      1. I like how the writer assumes that college-educated voters are naturally predisposed to voting Team BLUE.

        1. Well I found it interesting that the writer could precisely name the Donk voting bloc (minorities, single women and college-educated voters), as opposed to “reliably Republican voters”…because we, for the life of us can’t figure out who that might be and we can’t be arsed to learn.

          Of course the writer did also conveniently forget the remainder of the reliably Democrat voting bloc; government leeches, felons, and dead people.

  7. How I became George Obama’s ‘brother’
    … So I agreed to send George the money through Western Union. He was profusely grateful. But before I hung up I asked George, “Why are you coming to me?” He said, “I have no one else to ask.” Then he said something that astounded me, “Dinesh, you are like a brother to me.”

    Actually, George has a real life brother who just happens to be the president of the United States. (George Obama is the youngest of eight children sired by Barack Obama Sr.) George’s brother is a multimillionaire and the most powerful man in the world. Moreover, George’s brother has framed his re-election campaign around the “fair share” theme that we owe obligations to those who are less fortunate. …

    1. Obama pays his fair share to the government, then it’s up to them to take care of his brother. It’s not his job.

    2. He meant to say, “Other people need to pay their fair share.”

    3. Maybe George isn’t his brother, the birthers were right in sensing some fraud in Obama’s birth myth but went in the wrong direction.

    4. He’s not his brother’s keeper. Just everyone else’s.

    5. Dear god, is having a sketchy half-brother on the politician entrance exam?

      That said, I don’t think family relationships and estrangementts have any business in political discussion, even when the pol in question uses a trite phrase like “brother’s keeper.” Maybe it’s a sign the pol in question (not specifying O here because this does seem to come up frequently) is a skeez (as if we needed evidence beyond the fact that he is a pol) or maybe there’s some really complicated family drama behind it all. I can never know, and I think it’s far dirtier than most politics to dig into it.

  8. WP Editorial: Syria’s escalating slaughter
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    Last week President Obama did say that his “calculus” about “military engagement” would change if the regime began using or deploying its stocks of chemical weapons. But as the Syrian blogger Ammar Abdulhamid has written, the drawing of that red line may have emboldened the regime to conclude that anything short of using weapons of mass destruction will be tolerated by Washington.

    Mr. Abdulhamid wonders “why slaughter would be deemed tolerable if it happened one way and not another.” It’s a good question ? and one for which the administration’s morally bankrupt policy has no answer.

    1. calculus…I don’t think it means what O thinks it means…

    2. I love how journos despised BOOSH for his predilection of getting in to wars, yet criticize Obama for not getting in to enough of them.

      Were it up to the journos, we’d be in perpetual war.

      Fuck journos.

  9. Pediatricians say circumcision benefits outweigh risks

    http://www.dispatch.com/conten…..-says.html

    1. some are already claiming it’s a Jewish conspiracy… ’cause Jews give a shit if goyim are circumcised.

    2. Andrew Sullivan hardest hit.

    3. Ah, Jaysus. Get ready for the 300 comment thread where nobody says anything new or changes their mind.

      1. Yes, that’s what I was aiming for.

        Some men just want to see the world burn.

        1. I just want to see the big mound of 4 billion foreskins burn.

          1. Eewww!!

            1. Circle of life, baby…circle of life.

              Now get on the motorcycle.

              1. It’s not a motorcycle, baby, it’s a chopper.

          2. If they were deep fried and sold in vending machines…wouldn’t they taste just like pork rinds?

        2. This got posted the other day and it didnt happen.

      2. Brett, I not only totally disagree with what you said, I refuse to believe any person could ever hold such a view with good faith. Furthermore, you are obviously a horrible person and your mother should be ashamed of herself for not smothering you in the crib.

        1. your mother should be ashamed of herself for not smothering you in the crib.

          She is. As she’s told me many a time after getting a few drinks in her.

          1. Lucky you. Mine doesn’t need the drinks for that rant.

          2. so that’s why she dresses you that way

    4. Jezebel is glib and bitchily dismissive that men might have strong opinions on this, which is not at all hypocritical. Nope.

      1. “Boys are getting their genitals mutilated, isn’t that hilarious?”

        1. mu?ti?late
          tr.v. mu?ti?lat?ed, mu?ti?lat?ing, mu?ti?lates
          1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
          2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
          3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

          Not seeing it.

          1. To disfigure by damaging irreparably

            It ain’t like they can sew it back on, now, is it?

          2. 3 applies. Of course, it’s just little boys have their penis cut up, who gives a shit right?

            1. Jerry Sandusky?

            2. Of course, it’s just little boys have their penis cut up, who gives a shit right?

              Wow, I think you’re spending too much time around women. Now you’re arguing like one.

              1. Mutilation is in the penis of the beholder. If circumcision is a rational health decision, they will make it when they are older.

                I’m not going to agitate to make it illegal. A lot of irrational and immoral acts aren’t illegal. But it shouldn’t be the default setting and if has such proven medical benefits, then men can decide for themselves.

                And don’t give me any shit about it being easier to do it as a baby. If we clipped off your left pinkie when you were a baby, that would have been easier too.

                1. Mutilation is in the penis of the beholder.

                  Bullshit. You don’t get to throw about inflammatory rhetoric and then claim it’s valid because it’s a personal definition to you.

                  1. The definition was posted, and reasonably applies.

                    That you don’t see it shows that you are judging by faith and not reason.

                  2. A) I get to do whatever the fuck I want.

                    B) Mutilation is not objective. Some men don’t mind having their genitals sliced up; those that do mind get to define it as mutilation if they want to.

                    I was made imperfect. I was disfigured. I was mutilated. That I was never allowed to know any other state is immaterial. Magically give me my foreskin back and I’ll decide if you are correct or not.

                  3. Bullshit. You don’t get to throw about inflammatory rhetoric and then claim it’s valid because it’s a personal definition to you.

                    Unless it’s in regards to Mormon racism.

                    1. Unless it’s in regards to Mormon racism.

                      Yes, not letting blacks fully participate in your sacred temple ordinances (like, you know, getting married) and saying that the ‘chosen seed’ cannot mix with those with the Mark of Cain…no, that’s not racism at all.

            3. The problem is that “to make imperfect” part.

              The human body is not “made imperfect” by, say, removing the tonsils. Or trimming your toenails or cutting your hair.

              Why not also say that cutting your kids’ hair is wrong? You’re not letting them choose. And their hair will never be as long as it would have been if it had never been cut.

              You’re DENYING them CHOICE.

              1. What are you talking about? My kid has always chosen when to have her hair cut.

                1. Also, hair grows back and is painless to cut off.

                  That other thing? Not so much.

              2. Why not also say that cutting your kids’ hair is wrong?

                For fuck’s sake, Fluffy.

              3. yes, for all the poor fellows born with small penises, I hardly think ‘perfection’ was built in…otherwise, there would be a lot fewer men driving big pickup trucks to their office jobs.

      2. I just thank Zod that I look like my daddy!

    5. I posted this the other day. If nothing else this should put an end to any idea that it is mutilation. Medical procedures whose benefits outweigh risks are not and cannot be mutilations.

      1. Well, as long as it’s FOR THEIR OWN GOOD.

        1. Like vaccines and orchiopexy, perhaps?

          1. Yes, exactly like that. My eyes, they cannot roll far enough back.

            1. Stunning and substantive rejoinder, suh!

              1. You can’t reason with faith.

                1. In other words, you don’t have an argument. Good job.

                  1. Your comparisons were so assinine that they didn’t deserve a substantive response.

                    Here, I’ll throw it out there, even though you’ve proved just by saying these two things that you are starting from a ridiculous position:

                    Vaccinations: There’s no visible physical evidence of vaccinations (except smallpox, but we don’t give that to most kids anymore, I don’t think). Additionally they protect against an actuality, not a potentiality which is what circumcision does (if it does at all). If everyone went crippled on their twelfth birthday unless they were circumsized as a baby, you might have a valid argument. But potentially slightly reducing the risk of a rare cancer isn’t quite the same as dying from rubella.

                    Orchiopexy is pretty rare, and is to correct a defect that can be detrimental later in life. It’s also regularly done at the 10-12 year old range as opposed to on infants.

                    I know I’m wasting my breath, since you obviously think that since I think circumcision is a ridiculous practise that I think it should be illegal (which isn’t the case). But there it is.

                    1. Additionally they protect against an actuality, not a potentiality which is what circumcision does

                      Everyone’s guaranteed to get the mumps if they don’t get vaccinated?

                      But potentially slightly reducing the risk of a rare cancer isn’t quite the same as dying from rubella.

                      How about anywhere from a 44%-71% reduced rate of HIV?

                    2. How about anywhere from a 44%-71% reduced rate of HIV?

                      I assume you mean sexually transmitted HIV? And you mean you’re saying that they could have it done anytime before they’re sexually active?

                    3. How about anywhere from a 44%-71% reduced rate of HIV?

                      And if you knew that:

                      A) your child would have multiple partners and not use condoms
                      -and-
                      B) that your child would grow up in a culture that fetishizes dry sex to the point of using sand and other dessicants in the copulation process,

                      then that would be a valid concern. Good thing that doesn’t apply to any of us.

                    4. Now you’re just arguing over the numbers, which means you’ve essentially lost the debate.

                    5. Now you’re just arguing over the numbers, which means you’ve essentially lost the debate.

                      No I pointed out that your latest point was invalid. Just like all the others you’ve made here. I recognize this style of argumentation. Obsession over consistency. You’re TAO, aren’t you?

                    6. It’s not a debate. You don’t debate with faith.

                    7. How about anywhere from a 44%-71% reduced rate of HIV?

                      How many infants get HIV from having sex with an uncircumcised penis?

                    8. Who gives a shit about the numbers? As I’ve said before, if you’re going to cut off the end of your kid’s dick to make him less likely to get HIV, you should pull out his big toenails so that he never has to deal with them getting ingrown.

                    9. As I’ve said before, if you’re going to cut off the end of your kid’s dick to make him less likely to get HIV, you should pull out his big toenails so that he never has to deal with them getting ingrown.

                      I’ve always said “remove his appendix so he never gets appendicitis”.

                    10. That, too. And his tonsils, of course. And remove his buttcheeks so it’s easier for him to wipe.

      2. Medical procedures whose benefits outweigh risks are not and cannot be mutilations.

        Castration prevents 100% of all testicular cancer. Nice to know that cutting someone’s balls off isn’t mutilation.

        1. In that case, the benefits would not outweigh the risks and disadvantages.

          You don’t have to be deliberately dense, you know. That’s a personal choice and you can change.

          1. In that case, the benefits would not outweigh the risks and disadvantages.

            I see you added the word disadvantages. That helps, somewhat. The only problem is that disadvantages are subjective. And the person that determines what constitutes a disadvantage has no say in the matter.

              1. What body part is permanently removed when you get vaccinated? Who the fuck was your pediatrician? Mengele?

                1. That is not what you said, Coeus. You said:

                  I see you added the word disadvantages. That helps, somewhat. The only problem is that disadvantages are subjective. And the person that determines what constitutes a disadvantage has no say in the matter.

                  In other words, your implied point is that because disadvantages are ‘subjective’ and the subject cannot determine that the rewards outweigh the risks, then we should not perform the procedure.

                  That calculus applies to vaccines, where there are risks.

                  1. That calculus applies to vaccines, where there are risks.

                    My stance on vaccinations here is well known. The small but immediate chance of death makes, in my liberty-minded opinion, mandatory vaccinations a no-go. But in both cases, i.e. vaccination vs no vaccination, quick death is the thing we’re trying to avoid. There is no death involved in not circumcising that also isn’t true for the cancer risk in any other body part. There is, however, a very real risk of immediate death to a newborn infant who’s circumcision is botched. And that’s not even going into the much higher risk of them losing all or part of their penis.

                    In other words, the death decision has to be made one way or the other before the child is old enough to decide. The circumcision decision, however, does not.

          2. You have to be a pretty shitty Objectivist to be anything but full-on against circumcising ie mutilating the genitals of infants

        2. And it is an 100% effective means of birth control. The benefits far outweigh the small risks.

          1. Since when is pregnancy considered something to be avoided 100% of the time?

            Jesus Christ, get some honest argumentation folks.

            1. Jesus Christ, get some honest argumentation folks.

              You’re the one rewriting other’s arguments.

              1. Coeus, embedded within any consideration of medical decisions is disadvantages. For example:

                “We have to remove your prostate because of cancer. The disadvantage is that you won’t have a prostate anymore”

                This should not have to be articulated for you to address the argument on the premises you know were presented. It’s such a known fact that removal of a body part presents disadvantages that the fact you even brought it up means you’re grasping at straws.

                1. It’s such a known fact that removal of a body part presents disadvantages that the fact you even brought it up means you’re grasping at straws.

                  So you believe that removal of the foreskin presents a disadvantage. That’s great. I wouldn’t be able to say for sure, but it is indeed probabal. Logical as well. Removal of a non-important part of the body like your ears would probably have a slight disadvantage as well.

                  But how does me chopping up john’s glib illogic, you jumping in (poorly and transparently), and me calling you out on it have to do with me grasping at straws?

            2. Fine – what are the health implications for waiting until the boy is 14-15, and can make up his own mind, as opposed to performing a completely irreversible act on an infant?

              1. Fine – what are the health implications for waiting until the boy is 14-15, and can make up his own mind, as opposed to performing a completely irreversible act on an infant?

                I want to know where it is written that parents cannot consent, on behalf of a child, to have a medical procedure done that is “completely irreversible” where, in that parent’s judgment, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

                1. I want to know where it is written that parents cannot consent, on behalf of a child, to have a medical procedure done that is “completely irreversible” where, in that parent’s judgment, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

                  I thought your argument was that it’s beneficial and morally ambiguous? Now you want to switch to whether it’s illegal or not? Of course it’s legal. Guess that’s the only argument you think you can win.

                2. So this is a discussion of law? Funny, I thought it was a discussion of normative ethics. Such as, putting an infant through a irreversible medical procedure is wrong if it can be done later voluntarily.

                3. Nobody here is saying that they can’t, Tulpa. We’re just saying that they shouldn’t.

                  1. Nobody here is saying that they can’t, Tulpa.

                    I’m pretty sure he’s TAO. Is there a theory that they’re all the same, or are you just calling him out as devil’s advovate?

                    1. Is there a theory that they’re all the same, or are you just calling him out as devil’s advovate?

                      He got the Tulpa real bad. From a vaccine.

                    2. No, I’m just trying to gently shame him into being less Tulpical. I would never accuse anyone of being Tulpa. That’s way beyond the pale.

                    3. Can’t be Tulpa. He hates anything that is even obliquely connected to Jews.

                    4. Can’t be Tulpa. He hates anything that is even obliquely connected to Jews.

                      He balances that out with love and devotion to the Catholic church, though.

            3. Since when is pregnancy considered something to be avoided 100% of the time?

              At the child support hearing.

        3. That doesn’t outweigh the risks, it just shows one fringe benefit.

          1. See Auric, you didn’t say that RISKS included “not having balls anymore”. That’s Coeus’s oh-so-convincing “point” here.

            1. Why would be risky about not being able to pass on your genes, arguably the entire point of life?

            2. What in the hell are you blathering about now? You’ve completely lost your mind over this. Did you have a botched circumcision and desperately need to justify the decision? Or did one of your kids?

              1. This is one of those instances where you have to marvel at the fact that someone can’t follow simple argumentation.

                you thought it was clever to point out that the word “disadvantages” didn’t appear in John’s OP. It wasn’t. The end.

                1. Auric didn’t try to add to someone else’s illogical argument to make it seem more accurate. You did. You’re really off your nutter on this, ain’t ya?

        4. I had Lasik, I’ve been mutilated!

          1. Actually, that’s the reason I decided not to. It turns out, if you say, fall while water skiing, or get punched in the face, your lens flap can come loose.

            I weighed the risks.

            1. You should do it just for the experience of having your eyeballs almost sucked out of your head.

              1. You should do it just for the experience of having your eyeballs almost sucked out of your head.

                The sound of the blade motor was probably the most uncomfortable part for me.

                I don’t regret my lasik for one second–being freed from 20 years of $$$$$ spent on eye appointments and glasses will do that.

                1. I don’t regret my lasik for one second–being freed from 20 years of $$$$$ spent on eye appointments and glasses will do that.

                  I agree. I thought the whole procedure was pretty damn weird though

            2. And that has happened like twice and stuff. I asked about this before I did it, odds of it happening are HUGE against.

              The Air Force used this as an excuse for not allowing pilots to get it done for almost 15 years. They claimed that under high Gs your lens flaps can come loose and you will crash in a fiery explosion. They’ve reversed their position.

              So Coeus, you are more of a pussy than Air Force doctors…
              …I didn’t think that was possible.

              1. I was more worried about the stuff I said (that’s why I said it). I don’t regularly take high Gs unless I’m rebounding from a thrust into your mother’s fat ass. And I’m done with that since I pinked-socked it last week. So the high G issue no longer applies.

                1. You are sick. My mother is a double amputee.

                  Guess it’s easier when they can’t get away.

                  1. Guess it’s easier when they can’t get away.

                    Now you’re just blantanly plagiarizing my tattoos.

              2. They’ve reversed their position.

                Are you fucking serious? This rule is why I didn’t go to the Air Force Academy.

                1. Want to hear the funny part?

                  All that perfect eyesight shit? The second you arrive at pilot training, they’ll give you glasses. No questions asked.

                  The stupid is strong with them.

      3. No, John, these doctors are liars and other doctors say it is bad. At least that’s what the women of Jezebel tell me. It amuses me to no end that the people with the strongest and most virulent opinions of male circumcision are women. I have never met a circumcised man who thought it was a bad thing.

        1. The science is settled unless we don’t like what it tells us.

        2. I have never met a circumcised man who thought it was a bad thing.

          Hi.

          1. Warty, your penis shame has nothing to do with the circumcision.

            1. Fuck you, each and every one of its horns is special to me.

          2. Really? What don’t you like about it? What makes it a bad thing?

            1. I don’t like that part of me was amputated for no reason, for one thing. I would also like to have twice as many nerve endings in my dick as I do now, thank you very much. I would like to know if it makes a difference.

              1. That^, and mine wasn’t done very well. There is visible scar tissue in one area.

        3. None of those women on Jezebel have had phimosis, so screw ’em. I have, and it sucks donkey balls, especially when you don’t realize it until you have a chance to lose your very stubborn virginity.

          Ouch.

          1. See, that is the appropriate time and circumstance to consider ‘options’. Not to do it to some infant with no chance to decide.

    6. Just the tip, please.

    7. Not too mention its just more aesthetically pleasing.

      1. Mapplethorpe begs to differ.

        1. I wonder what the ladies think?

          1. They think what I tell them to think.

          2. uncut is cool by me

          3. I prefer sex with uncut men, natural piston action is good.

            1. Either way is fine

          4. Either way.

      2. Not too mention its just more aesthetically pleasing.

        1) To whom?

        2) That is a frightening basis for serious decision making.

        1. True story: I dated (briefly) a British guy in college who had moved to the U.S. at 15. He was circumcised at 17 solely because his high school girlfriend would not blow him until he was cut.

          1. That is sound decision making if you ask me.

    8. According to Goldwater, this should cause a spike in lube sales.

      1. Yeah, in about 12 years. Follow the money. Those guys play the long game. Respect.

        1. I’m not in the pocket of Big Lube, but that’s quite a conspiracy you got there.

          1. I’m not in the pocket of Big Lube, but that’s quite a conspiracy you got there.

            That’s good. Once you fall in there, it’s hard get out. You may have started out with good intentions, but it’s a slippery slope.

    9. Who says libertarians like to argue for the sake of arguing?

      1. Oh yeah, whats it to ya, pal?!

        1. Oh yeah, well fuck anybody who uses Q-tips. Fucking racists.

  10. Republican immigration policy “borders on racist.”

    Did they build a fence around it to keep racist out?

    1. I guess the standard for racism now is that if you don’t allow everyone in the world who wants to move to the US into the US then you are now racist.

      Since the US allows more people to move to the US as citizens then all the rest of the world combined then it must be the rest of the world is even more racist then the USA.

      1. it must be the rest of the world is even more racist then the USA.

        Yes, they are.

        1. Often shockingly so. Nothing like getting a German drunk and having him tell you (in reference to minorities) “If you would have left us alone, we’d have solved this problem.”

          1. If you’re shocked by that, you don’t know many Germans.

            The ones I know don’t need to be drunk, they just need to think no one is listening.

            1. Let’s not forget the lovely Japanese. Just as racist as our German friends.

            2. It’s a little startling the first time. Then you realize a lot of them think that, even if they rarely admit it. And they’re not entirely sure Southern Europeans shouldn’t be on that list, either.

            3. Don’t the Germans have laws against such speech?

              1. They only apply in Germany.

      2. I guess the standard for racism now is that if you don’t allow everyone in the world who wants to move to the US into the US then you are now racist.

        Hey look someone learned something today.

        1. Yes, the amazing stupidity of people who throw the word racist around.

          1. I never seem to hear anything about throwing up a border wall on the Northern Border.

            Isn’t that funny?

            1. Dennis Leary kind of did on his No Cure For Cancer album. I’ll check with 12 year old me to see if that’s true. It may take a few minutes as he’ll probably be laughing too hard to hear my question.

            2. Maybe because there isn’t millions of illegal’s crossing the northern border?

              And much of the northern border in populated areas has the Great Lakes or other bodies of water which separate the two countries which is even a bigger barrier then any wall.

              1. Maybe because there isn’t millions of illegal’s crossing the northern border?

                So what? You either believe people have freedom of movement and freedom of contract, or you don’t. If one Canadian illegal makes it past, by your own standards, then we’re not enforcing the borders ‘hard enough’.

                And much of the northern border in populated areas has the Great Lakes or other bodies of water which separate the two countries which is even a bigger barrier then any wall.

                You have never visited the Great Lakes, have you?

                1. I grew up on the shores of the Great Lakes and its a bigger barrier then any wall.

                  1. I grew up on the shores of the Great Lakes and its a bigger barrier then any wall.

                    Dude, bullshit. I grew up on Lake Erie and people travel back and forth constantly with very little interference.

            3. What kind of number are we looking at as far as illegals coming in from the north?

              1. What kind of number are we looking at as far as illegals coming in from the north?

                It matters?

                1. In a world of limited resources and disparate threats, of course it matters.

                  If your house has a cracked foundation and is on fire, you put out the fire first, right?

            4. A northern fence? Why, to keep Americans in?

            5. Do they have a lot of poor people coming in that way?

        2. Hey look someone learned something today.

          Great. Now if we can just repeat that 350 million more times we might have something.

          1. False alarm. DJF still doesn’t like Mexicans.

            I haz a sad 🙁

      3. DJF, meet Joke, Joke, DJF.

      4. I guess the standard for racism now is that if you don’t allow everyone in the world who wants to move to the US into the US then you are now racist.

        I’d say a pretty good standard is that if you’re totally cool with swimsuit models from Denmark moving to the US, but say that letting poor Mexicans come here will “damage our culture”, yeah, that’s per se racist.

        1. Since Mexico in 2010 had 139,120 legal immigrants to the USA while all of Europe had only 88,730 then I guess the US immigration policy is racist against Europeans.

          1. Your ‘point’ makes zero sense.

            1. The subject is US immigration policy racism, yet Mexico alone has more legal immigrants to the US then all of Europe including your swimsuit models from Denmark so how does this show US immigration policy racism?

              1. The subject is US immigration policy racism, yet Mexico alone has more legal immigrants to the US then all of Europe including your swimsuit models from Denmark so how does this show US immigration policy racism?

                It has to do with the ratios. If 1 million Mexicans applied last year and only 130,000 were granted entry, whereas 100,000 Europeans applied and 88,000 were granted entry, what would that tell you?

                Your numbers only tell half the story.

                1. If 1 million Mexicans applied last year and only 130,000 were granted entry, whereas 100,000 Europeans applied and 88,000 were granted entry, what would that tell you?

                  In the absence of information about the applicants, not a hell of a lot.

                2. “It has to do with the ratios. If 1 million Mexicans applied last year and only 130,000 were granted entry, whereas 100,000 Europeans applied and 88,000 were granted entry, what would that tell you?”

                  It has to do with being ignorant of immigration law.

                  “In general, to be eligible to apply for an immigrant visa, a foreign citizen must be sponsored by a U.S. citizen relative(s), U.S. lawful permanent resident, or by a prospective employer, and be the beneficiary of an approved petition filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).”

                  And then you have the Diversity Visa Program, which is a lottery system:

                  “The congressionally mandated Diversity Immigrant Visa Program makes available up to 55,000 diversity visas (DVs) annually, drawn from random selection among all entries to persons who meet strict eligibility requirements from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States.”

                3. It has to do with the ratios. If 1 million Mexicans applied last year and only 130,000 were granted entry, whereas 100,000 Europeans applied and 88,000 were granted entry, what would that tell you?

                  That a nation is going to be less inclined to allow immigrants from countries that are politically and socially dysfunctional?

                  1. Do you seriously think Mexico is more dysfunctional than Europe? They are pretty much equally fucked up. At least the people from Mexico are coming to work and not to transform America into Europe.

                    1. Do you seriously think Mexico is more dysfunctional than Europe? They are pretty much equally fucked up.

                      Geographic contiguities aside, there’s a reason Mexicans (and many Central Americans besides them) look at us as a better alternative to what they have at home, whereas Europeans aren’t exactly breaking down our door to come live here.

                      At least the people from Mexico are coming to work and not to transform America into Europe.

                      I’m sure they’d settle for transforming southwest America back into Mexico, if a trip through west Denver is any indication.

              2. I would think more people are trying to flee Mexico than Europe. Maybe that has something to do with it.

            2. Uh, I think he’s saying that since the US let in more of the people that they’re supposedly racist against than the people of the race that is supposedly racist, than maybe they’re not actually racist.

              Just throwing that out there.

              I know you’re trying to be argumentative today, but you could do it in a non-obtuse way and be more effective and entertaining.

              1. I didn’t say that US immigration policy was racist.

                I said that people in the immigration debate who are agitated about Mexican immigration, but would be less agitated about Danish supermodel immigration, are racist.

                And what percentage of the nativist electorate would you say that is?

                It seems like quite a lot of it to me.

                1. Are the people in favor of the Danish supermodel immigration also opposed to Mexican supermodel immigration?

                  1. “Are the people in favor of the Danish supermodel immigration also opposed to Mexican supermodel immigration?”

                    No, but the people in Denmark are pissed

                2. I’m in favor of Meican supermodels and Danish supermodels coming here. Attractive women of all nationalities should be encouraged.

                  I’m hoping it’ll offset some of our native ugly, of which we have a definite surplus.

          2. The point makes sense but just isn’t responsive.

            Are there are are there not a large number of people who would stop complaining about immigration if the immigrants were all Danish supermodels?

            Do people openly offer the argument that letting in too many Mexicans will change the US culture?

            1. are there not a large number of people who would stop complaining about immigration if the immigrants were all Danish supermodels?

              What evidence do you have supporting that contention, other than your own bigotry?

              Historically, many Americans complained about large scale immigration from Ireland and Southern Europe and China.

              The commonality of the complaints over time are about large number of immingrants, not their specific race.

              1. Learning that “Mexican” is a race and that Mexicans are incapable of being supermodels has made this a most enlightening thread.

                http://www.icelebz.com/celebs/…..hoto26.jpg

                Just how this Danish beauty passed for a Mexican is a mystery only the Reason master sleuth club can solve.

                1. Considering the fact that I didn’t say “Mexican” was a race, I guess that makes you too fucking stupid to live, huh, you stupid cunt?

                  1. Can I cite this as an example of a well crafted arguement, designed to persuade and kept civil?

                  2. Considering the fact that you think Danes are inherently more appealing than Mexicans, I guess that makes you a bigoted fuckstain that can’t make a coherent argument.

                  3. If you’re suggesting that someone is ‘racist’ because they’re opposed to Mexican immigration while being in favor of Danish supermodel immigration, then yes, you are suggesting that ‘Mexican’ is a race.

                    And that’s exactly what you did….

                    I’d say a pretty good standard is that if you’re totally cool with swimsuit models from Denmark moving to the US, but say that letting poor Mexicans come here will “damage our culture”, yeah, that’s per se racist.

              2. That’s simply not true.

                It’s impossible to look at contemporary nativist depictions of the Irish and not conclude that they were driven by racism.

                You’re aware of the fact that WASPs considered the Irish a different race at the time, right?

                What evidence do you have supporting that contention, other than your own bigotry?

                Well, for one thing, I had the personal experience of living in the Boston area for many years, where there has always been a large “illegal” Irish population that nobody complains about, because they’re busy complaining about the “spics” in Lawrence.

                There are a lot of people opposing immigration on purely economic grounds. You hear from those people a lot when the H-1 B visa program is discussed. So people with non-racist opposition to immigration exist, sure. But you’re simply full of shit if you don’t think that there are a vast – vast – number of “average American” dumbasses who just plain old don’t like having too many Hispanics around.

                1. Well, for one thing, I had the personal experience of living in the Boston area for many years, where there has always been a large “illegal” Irish population that nobody complains about,

                  You don’t hear a lot of complaints about illegal mexican immigrant in east LA either.

                2. But you’re simply full of shit if you don’t think that there are a vast – vast – number of “average American” dumbasses who just plain old don’t like having too many Hispanics around.

                  And there’s a lot of “Messicans” who think whites are the devil (pretty much everyone on my dad’s side of the family, for starters).

                  People will tend to gravitate towards those who look and act like them. Who would have expected that?

                  1. People will tend to gravitate towards those who look and act like them.

                    Which is why the number of interracial marriages is constantly increasing in America.

                    1. Which is why the number of interracial marriages is constantly increasing in America.

                      Neighborhoods still tend to be more culturally and ethnically homogenous, irrespective of interracial marraiges.

              3. The commonality of the complaints over time are about large number of immingrants, not their specific race.

                Which why they used the term “Yellow Peril”, of course.

                1. Right.

                  VG pretty much exposes the fact that he’s a complete retard with nothing valuable to contribute to the discussion when he argues that anti-Chinese immigration statutes had no racist element.

                  What a fucking maroon.

                2. Which why they used the term “Yellow Peril”, of course.

                  Who used the term other than racist democrats?

                  If you’re refering to the Chinese exclusion act, there’s a clue in the title. And it was motivated by the belief that the mass immigration of Chinese threatened native wages and standards of living and that they were creating a counter culture in the areas with large concentrations of immigrants.

                  The act was directed at a specific nationality and did not limit Japanese or Indo chinese immigration.

            2. “Do people openly offer the argument that letting in too many Mexicans will change the US culture?”

              A lot of people in border states will make that argument. There a lot of places where a large enough mexican population has formed up that mexican neighborhoods become like parts of Mexico, with all the inherent problems and issues.

              1. But to self hating leftards, like a certain poster here:

                Culture = Race
                Nationality = Race
                Religion = Race
                Political Beliefs = Race

                So racism is always applicable.

                1. If the definition of “racism” is the problem issue, I will stipulate to the strict definition of “racism” and suggest we use “bigotry” instead.

                  Now, can we proceed with the actual issue of whether or not bigotry is on display?

          3. According to Chris Mathews rethuglicans hate white Europeans.

        2. Isn’t it culturalist, more than racist?

    2. Since it is impossible as a foreigner to even own property in Mexico much less get any kind of permanent status, what is Mexico? Is there a term that comes after racist?

      1. Libertarian?

      2. Authoritarian shithole?

        It’s a pretty broad section of the bell curve for states. Room for all sorts of different flavors.

        1. True. And maybe calling a country like the US that has some of the most liberal immigration and foreign ownership laws in the world racist, devalues the term to the point of absurdity.

          1. Just because you have policies that are less racist does not mean they are free of racism.

            1. Just because you don’t like the policies doesn’t mean they are racist. Racist would be letting say Asians come here with impunity while throwing out all Mexicans. We don’t do that. In fact, we have a lottery to determine who gets the VISA. That is not racist. Johnson doesn’t like that. He would like there not to be borders. Good for him. He wants to make the argument for the end of borders and immigration, go ahead and make it. But he makes himself look like a race hustling clown when he claims immigration laws as loose as the US has are “racist”.

              1. Just because you don’t like the policies doesn’t mean they are racist.

                You’re right. The fact that we have de facto, even if not de jure, quotas in place is what makes the policies racist.

                1. We don’t have defacto quotas in place. Show me what part of the INA does that? The only thing we do is try to admit more high skilled workers. That may be discriminatory against low skill workers. But it is not racist. What do you think all Mexicans are stupid and only fit to mow your lawn?

                  1. We don’t have defacto quotas in place. Show me what part of the INA does that?

                    This would be the part where I point out I said “de facto” and NOT “de jure”, John. These terms are not too complicated for you, are they?

                    What do you think all Mexicans are stupid and only fit to mow your lawn?

                    Nice try, Projector Pete.

                    1. Answer the question Randian. Show me where they have quotas in the INA. All you can show me is how we discriminate against low skill labor. The only way to believe that is racist is to think that expecting Mexicans to have skills is discriminating against them. That sounds racist on your part.

                      Do you think race neutral standards for college admissions are racist? If not, then why are race neutral skill standards for immigration racist?

                    2. Show me where they have quotas in the INA.

                      I said “de facto” NOT “de jure”.

                    3. Show me where they have quotas in the INA.

                      Section 2, 202-B establishes a per-country-of-origin quota.

                      C’mon, you’re a lawyer, son.

                    4. LOL HM,

                      Read the section. 202B discriminates against Europeans. I don’t think that is the racism Randian is talking about. But nice try.

                    5. Still, there are quotas by country. In my experience with the monster that is immigration law, those quotas tend to be economic in nature.

                      Except for Japan and China.

                      Plus ?a change, plus c’est la m?me chose, oui?

                    6. Nationality isn’t race.

                      Next…

                    7. The only way to believe that is racist is to think that expecting Mexicans to have skills is discriminating against them.

                      You think the employer hiring the Mexican doesn’t think the Mexican has skills? If the Mexican didn’t have skills, the employer wouldn’t hire him.

                2. Also, since the policy applies to white mexicans as well as mestizo mexicans equally, it isnt racist.

                  Mexican isnt a fucking race. Its a nationality.

                  1. Also, since the policy applies to white mexicans as well as mestizo mexicans equally, it isnt racist.

                    Mexican isnt a fucking race. Its a nationality.

                    That doesn’t matter to the argument, at all.

                    The question is whether if I am taking a poll and I ask Poll Subject X:

                    1. “Do you object to large-scale immigration to the US by Mexicans?” and he says Yes; and then I ask,

                    2. “Do you object to large-scale immigration to the US by Scandinavians and Germans?” and he says No;

                    …I get to conclude that racism plays an element in his decision.

                    “Mexican” doesn’t have to be its own race. All that is necessary is for the racial makeup of the population of Mexico to be different than the racial makeup of the population of Scandinavia.

                    1. Disagree, in part.

                      The difference could be cultural, not racial. For example, if you are polling in Minnesota, they might be happy with more Swedes and Germans, and not so much Mexicans. Or Italians.

                      Or, maybe someone is being classist instead, and they only want immigrants from relatively rich countries.

                      Luxembourg Yes, Greece No!

                      I think you would need a few dozen more questions before you started classifying it as racist.

                    2. There are Mexicans of all races. There are even Mexicans of German and Scandinavian descent.

                      I t is possible that something besides race is informing the answer to the question.

                      Mexico has a large amount of poor, low skill workers as the core group that wants to immigrate. Scandinavia and Germany don’t.

              2. Actually, Johnson is criticizing Republican policy, not current law.

                So you can’t point to current laws and say “hey, they aren’t so bad.”

                You’d have to look at the most extreme anti-immigrant positions advocated by the portion of the GOP electorate Johnson is complaining about.

                1. I thought Johnson was just making me feel better for not voting for him.

                  1. I thought Johnson was just making me feel better for not voting for him.

                    I’ve been planning on voting for Johnson, but I won’t if he keeps saying stupid shit like this.

                2. What policy would those be? Not granting amnesty to illegals? Do Republicans plan to let Irish illegals stay but kick out Mexicans and Central Americans? If not, then what is “racist” about that?

                  Do Republicans want to only admit Europeans and abolish the quota system? If so that is would be racist. But I am unaware of such a policy proposal.

                  Again, just because you do not like those policies doesn’t make them racist.

                  1. Again, just because you do not like those policies doesn’t make them racist.

                    Yeah, and just because a few white immigrants get booted along with the Mexicans doesn’t mean they aren’t racist.

                    1. Joe R,

                      Libertarians are no embracing the disparate impact test? You really want to go down the road of claiming facially neutral laws can be racist because of their impact?

                    2. Oh boy, here come the butthurt nativists to tell us that xenophobia really isn’t xenophobia.

                    3. Oh boy, here come the butthurt nativists to tell us that xenophobia really isn’t xenophobia.

                    4. Oh boy, here come the butthurt nativists to tell us that xenophobia really isn’t xenophobia.

                    5. Joe R,

                      Libertarians are no embracing the disparate impact test? You really want to go down the road of claiming facially neutral laws can be racist because of their impact?

                      My “they” wasn’t intended to represent the policies, but the people who promote them. Poor sentence construction on my part.

  11. In North Carolina, a prison guard was busted for smuggling marijuana to the inmates, hidden in his pants.

    Is that paraphernalia in your pocket or are you just trying to make a buck?

        1. it’s what Will Robinson from Lost in Space did when he was all growsed up.

  12. Environmental Protection Agency in South Australia acts to prevent noise pollution by noisy shaggers. Bonus points: they’re fugly.

    So: governmental overreach?

    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/…..6458052248

    1. Apparently they’ve not seen Avenue Q.

  13. Unilever sees ‘return to poverty’ in Europe
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin…..urope.html

    Unilever has already started to change the way it sells some of its products. In Spain, the company sells Surf detergent in packages for as few as five washes, while in Greece, it now offers mashed potatoes and mayonnaise in small packages, and has created a low-cost brand for basic goods such as tea and olive oil.

    “In Indonesia, we sell individual packs of shampoo 2 to 3 cents and still make decent money,” said Mr Zijderveld. “We know how to do that, but in Europe we have forgotten in the years before the crisis.”

    1. Nice. Now let’s watch shriek call them profiteers for, you know, offering people something they want at a price they can afford.

    2. A lot of Southern Europe was Donkey Cart Land before the euro, right? So it shouldn’t be a huge surprise that, if the euro’s effects were artificial, it’s returning to Donkey Cart Land.

      1. Racist

  14. San Francisco arch-bishop popped for drunk driving. And as an American of Irish descent, I’d like to thank this American of Italian descent for breaking the stereotype for us.

    1. Drunk wop is a stereotype just like drunk mick, Brett. The only difference is the choice of beverage. Them dagos like the red wine, I hear, while you paddies like the whiskey.

      1. I learned at the dinner (and breakfast) table to drink what was put in front of me.

  15. Obama has declared a state of emergency

    ‘Cause he’s The President Who Cares?.

    1. Depends on which state you’re in, apparently.

  16. …lure business and investment from overseas.

    Who in the fuck is going to invest in Greece at this point? Other than Germany.

    1. Mobsters based in Cyprus?

    2. The one remaining Bee Gee?

      1. I don’t even understand what this means, but it made me laugh. I probably just need a coffee…

    3. If they leave the Euro I’d buy property – if I could.

      1. Yeah, waiting for them to start selling islands for pennies on the dollar.

  17. Are the socialists in Europe more right than the Democrats in America?

    Greece’s future is in the eurozone
    http://euobserver.com/opinion/117332

    Even with the most basic economic knowledge, it is obvious that what Greece requires to get back on its feet is economic growth. Privatisations and increased efficiency as well as serious cutting of red tape will facilitate investments and projects resulting in job creation and therefore increase the number of taxable incomes, simultaneously providing opportunities for the jobless in Greece. These measures will need the support of Greece’s partners, the Troika as well as the EU member states.

    1. forgot to add: The writer is President of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament

      1. …it is high time to restructure harmful austerity measures to find a new balance and social justice.

        Alas.

        1. Also:

          For the EU to prove its commitment and unreserved, economically sound support, the European Central Bank (ECB) must be given the space and independence to execute its mandate…

          What does this mean, does he want the “independent” ECB to start purchasing Greek debt directly?

          1. More debt on top of the already unsustainable debt levels and print euros like crazy.

            Spain’s Catalonia region demands 5billion in aid – rejects any conditions on it.
            http://translate.google.com/tr…..scdseco_9/

            1. Demands?

              What are they going to do if they don’t get it – hold their breath.

              1. Launch a Zombie El Cid attack!

        2. yeah – a strange mix…

      2. Shorter version. Oh crap the golden goose just joined the choir invisible.

  18. Gary Johnson, Libertarian presidential candidate, points out that Republican immigration policy “borders on racist.”

    We see what you did there, Gary. We see what you did.

  19. PolitiFiction
    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..on-editors

    The website PolitiFact is going to be truth-squadding the Republican convention speakers this week, delivering verdicts on which claims are “mostly true” and which deserve a “pants on fire” rating. Our advice: Pay no attention to those ratings. PolitiFact can’t be trusted to get the story right.

    1. Read the TBT editorial board for a while (the then St. Pete Times started Politifact) and see why this doesn’t generate a surprised face from me.

    2. Say the fucking liars at National Review? Seriously, conservatives maintain their own stable of liars like them and the Discovery Institute, Fox News, even Conservapedia (to offset Wikipedia) to keep their carefully brainwashed Creationist idiots from the truth.

      Even Hillsdale College – where right-wing propaganda is pushed into soft heads so Harvard and Stanford won’t fuck your kids up with Secular Liberalism!

      1. Yeah because people on the Right have think tanks and opinion magazines, it is just okay for liberals to masquerade as real journalists uncovering “facts” while lying. Good you are fucking stupid.

      2. The problem with ALL of the so-called fact checking sites is that they get bored with just checking facts and try to branch out into rendering judgments on what is and what is not “misleading”.

      3. At least Hillsdale refuses all taxpayer money, shrike. Would that we had more of that kind of behavior from the private sector.

        I note that you overlook the fucking liars on your side of the aisle, by the way.

      4. When I was in the third grade, I learned a valuable lesson: that tu quoque was not a defense.

        Take heart, bluttpug, you’re only about 20-30 years behind the curve.

    1. it would take a ‘fresh look’ at the ban of using electronic devices …. That means there’s a very good possibility that we’ll be able to use our electronic devices whenever the hell we want when we’re on a plane.

      Right. Remember the promise about we won’t have to take our shoes off? These clowns should just quietly and scientifically resolve the issue once and for all and make a definitive announcement one way or the other.

    2. I once slept the last 30 minutes of a flight from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia and when we landed I woke to find my headphones still in my ears and the music playing. I just wish I knew what cunning plan I had carried out to get away with it.

      1. Really? I thought everybody faked it and listened to music anyway. I guess it’s just me.

      2. I make it a policy to keep my iPad out and read on it unless the flight attendant stands over me.

    3. Not FAA related, but TSA related. I flew out of O’Hare last night, and they seem to only have the body scanners, so I opted out for an “enhanced pat-down”. The guy was surprisingly professional (or, as professional as one can be while feeling someone else’s leg and lower junk). What I didn’t like is that some people were going through the scanner, and some were going right through the old metal detectors. I don’t know how they differentiated but I thought it was bullshit.

      1. Back when they were still using the metal detectors regularly, I found that wearing a cheap suit to travel got me sent through them like 90% of the time.

  20. Anyone built a Rachel Corrie statue yet?

    1. I propose a giant box of Bisquick.

      1. Just hold a pancake brunch in her memory.

        1. Are they still doing that in San Francisco?

  21. Gary Johnson, Libertarian presidential candidate, points out that Republican immigration policy “borders on racist.” You may actually be too nice with your description, Gary.

    Maybe not. He didn’t say which side of the border they were on did he?

  22. The Tampa Republicans
    This is not the George W. Bush-Tom DeLay GOP.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..on_LEADTop

    The Republican Party gathering in Tampa this week to nominate Mitt Romney is not your father’s GOP, or even George W. Bush’s. Four years in the wilderness seem to have had the salutary effect of returning the Party of Lincoln to a focus on government reform and economic revival.

    Four years ago, the Republicans were a tired bunch who had lost Congress in 2006 and seemed intellectually tapped out. The 9/11 attacks had turned George W. Bush’s focus toward national security and difficult wars abroad, while Tom DeLay presided over a risk-averse Congress focused on incumbent protection. Despite his personal virtues, John McCain had no explanation or answer for the financial panic of 2008, and probably no Republican could have overcome it in any case.

    1. Pull my other leg next.

      1. c’mon, baby, I’ve changed… really…

      2. Whether they follow through is a dubious proposition, but the tone from the ‘dark days’ of 2006 (from the perspective of GOP-er) is definitely different.

        1. Just like they were freshly energized in 2002 when DeLay took over, right? Remember, we were gonna spend a little extra and passed the tax cuts because of 9/11. Then we were gonna have a short little war and rebuild Afghanistan in no time flat. THEN, it was going to be back to small government as usual. Fuck those guys. Fool me once…

          1. Hey, I’ll never fall for that crap again. This is just an outsider’s read that the tone is different.

      3. As long as we don’t then have to pull your third leg

        1. At least a third leg pull would have a happy ending.

          1. Depends on how hard they pull.

    2. I will look forward to reading the second paragraph again in four or eight years, with name and date changes.

      1. They have gotten better. Losing will do that to you the same way winning will turn you into a crap weasel. The problem is how do you get the Dems to get any better so that when you kick the Republicans out in four years you are not turning the country over to complete crazies.

  23. With Tropical Storm Isaac verging on hurricane status and heading in for some jambalaya, President Barack Obama has declared a state of emergency in Louisiana.

    All the lefty schmucks who said that Isaac is proof that God and Mother Nature hate republicans must be feeling pretty fucking stupid right now.

    1. If God controls the weather, does that mean global warming is no longer a big deal? Or at least we can just pray a lot in order to end it?

    2. All the lefty schmucks who said that Isaac is proof that God and Mother Nature hate republicans must be feeling pretty fucking stupid right now.

      The current spin is that the Republicans still get punished via split-screen coverage of New Orleans getting trashed and Tampa partying.

      1. But no coverage of Obama playing golf.

        1. Do you really want to watch all 117 strokes he takes?

          1. I would think after all the practice he has gotten in during the last three years, he could at least break 100.

            1. Are we counting generous “bounces”?

          2. Do you really want to watch all 117 strokes he takes?

            Half of them are mulligans.

          3. But I thought Obama once shot 11 holes in one and finished 28 under par. Or was that a different “Dear Leader” I’m thinking of? Sometimes I get authoritarian asshats with delusions of grandeur mixed up.

  24. The family of Rachel Corrie will not be getting any damages from the Israeli government, the Haifa District Court ruled.

    Didn’t they also sue Caterpillar?

    1. I believe that got tossed.

  25. Kimberley Strassel: The Reform Governors Who Led the Way
    To understand today’s Republican Party, look to the state houses.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..on_LEADTop

    The party’s transformative spirit is already on vivid display, thanks to a crop of reformist Republican governors. With the GOP stymied in Washington, these state leaders?from Chris Christie in New Jersey to Scott Walker in Wisconsin?have become the heart of the conservative movement, many pursuing the sort of thorough overhauls of government once considered impossible. In many cases, the changes are already showing dramatic, positive economic results. Think of the reform governors as the vanguard of the far-reaching policy reforms that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan now want to bring to the national arena.

    “If you want a sense of what the party is, what it really stands for, and what it can do, this is the right place to start,” says one of the trailblazers, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. He has cut his state’s budget, reduced property and inheritance taxes, overhauled education and created free-market health-care options for state employees and the uninsured.

  26. http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/a…..low-sales/

    GM suspends volt production due to slow sales. They didn’t do anything to make GM a better company. But that $23 billion or so dollars made some union goons happy, so it was all worth it I guess.

    1. I’ll admit, I didn’t see the GM/Volt thing collapsing as quickly and as spectacularly as it did. I thought the government would at least be able to bully their way to some fake good news for a while before the floor fell out. But they couldn’t even do that.

      1. This retarded electric car bullshit is never going to catch on nationally, no matter how much psychotic leftists want it to.

        This is hardly a new idea, they’ve been trying it off and on for 100 years now.

        1. Sure it will, when it is cheaper than a gas car.

          1. One of the major problems is that electric cars are essentially really expensive motorcycles from a usability point of view. By that, I mean that having a motorcycle as an only vehicle sucks balls if you want to do anything besides drive it on sunny days in low traffic situations. Similarly, an electric car is great if you want to commute or run errands. Not so great if you want to drive, say, 200 or more miles at a time. It limits you in a way that ICE cars don’t, and that’s worth something when calculating “cheaper”.

            1. Isnt that the point of the hybrids? So you can drive 8 hours if you need to?

              1. I guess. Introducing a heavy and possibly tempermental battery pack to the long-perfected ICE just to drive electric motors at the wheels seems like the long way around to me. Running a smaller engine at peak efficiency then putting the power generated through a DC converter to a battery and through electrical wires, which guarantees loss (until the capacitor/superconductor technology comes around), is hardly revolutionary change.

              2. And hybrids don’t really solve any of the supposed problems.

                In practice, better mileage usually means more willingness to drive further; so same amount of gas spent.

                1. I’m waiting for the point at which the number of junk hybrids reaches a critical mass where it becomes obvious what an environmental nightmare disposing of/recycling all the batteries and other electronics is.

                  I’m kind of wondering when that will come.

    2. It must really piss you off that the bondholders agreed to those terms.

      1. After they were told that they had no choice, they agreed. Face it Shreek, Obama fucked bond holders and non union workers to pay off the UAW with tax payer money. And GM still sucks and can’t make a profit.

      2. No worries, we’ll get by somehow!

        /Delphi employees with pensions that done been vaporized

      3. PIMCO made billions on the GM deal by buying on the cheap and then getting a tax-payer bailout.

        1. That’s why shrike approves of what Obama did, John – because Obama did what he did.

  27. Study shows marriage stops men drinking ? as their wives hit the bottle instead
    Marriage appears to drive women to drink but has the opposite effect on men, a study has suggested.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/hea…..stead.html

    1. Maybe they’re just meeting in the middle?

      1. Being freshly married, that’s my experience.

  28. Sounds like a plan to me dude.

    http://www.Private-Anon.tk

  29. 2nd death from hantavirus in Yosemite.

    Patients may not develop symptoms until one to six weeks after exposure. There is no cure or virus-specific treatment for hantavirus.

  30. http://www.lombardifinancial.c…..e=08282012

    World to end September 30, 2012.

    1. Paywall?

      1. It was in some junk email I got. The guy claims that the entire US economy is going to collapse on that date.

        Here is the email

        Dear Reader:

        On September 30, 2012, I believe a market-crushing
        event will take place…

        I see it blindsiding investors…crushing the
        markets…sending our elected officials into utter panic, as
        they try to find a way to spend the economy back to life.

        And I can only imagine things will spiral down from
        there.

        This is no exaggeration; even Bloomberg has stated this
        event could “sink [the] economy” if it came to fruition.

        In fact, as soon as the major media outlets hear how near
        we are to this calamity taking place…you could see it spread
        across the news like wildfire.

        The buildup alone could send the markets into free-fall.

        Why?

        Because on that day, all of Washington’s efforts to prop
        up the economy…all of its efforts to prevent us from sinking into
        a depression…could turn around and spit in its face.

        To see what I’m talking about and how it will affect you,
        I urge you to learn more about what’s going to happen on
        September 30, 2012 here.

        1. Is this the same guy who has that radio ad that is always proclaiming doomsday is just around the corner and all you need to do check out his youtube video?

          1. Maybe. I am not saying I believe him. I think it is pretty interesting that he is so specific about the date.

            1. He had to beat the Mayans to the punch.

        2. Perhaps Harold Camping has gone into financial analysis after his theological predictions didn’t pan out.

    2. erm… link redirects to the main site.

  31. The Root of Physician Burnout

    http://www.theatlantic.com/hea…..ut/261590/

    A colleague of mine in primary care medicine has decided to leave the practice of medicine. She is very well trained, has impeccable professional credentials, and works in a thriving practice. Over the past several years, however, she has noticed an unrelenting decline in the sense of fulfillment she derives from her work. She feels increasingly frustrated with what she calls the “bureaucratization” of medicine, and resents spending “more time filling out forms than caring for patients.” My colleague is suffering from what is commonly described as burnout.

    Medicine is not a job. It is not even a career. At its heart, medicine is a calling. When it comes to physician burnout, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We must begin early in medical education to help medical students and residents explore and connect with a sense of calling to the profession. Even late in their careers, physicians need to recall that they are summoned to something older, larger, and nobler than themselves. They must never forget that a career in medicine represents one of life’s greatest opportunities to become fully human through service to others.

    Holy crap, that is retarded.

    1. Maybe if they would let more people into med school and there were more doctors, being a doctor would be easier.

    2. Yup. It’s nothing less than the Sovietization of medicine. “You are the health of the collective; you only live to serve others.” You shouldn’t care about pay, or paperwork or living conditions… you are above these petty concerns.

    3. So “physician burnout” == “its just a job”? Cry me a fucking river. I had “programmer burnout” so bad I went a got a ChemE degree so I could change careers.

    4. Maybe they could reduce the bureaucracy instead? No, that’s crazy talk. Forget I said it.

  32. Playgroup dramas from Dear Prudie:

    last week I got a nasty email from one of the mothers. I sent some homemade cookies and store-bought veggies and dip for the snack last week, and apparently this was not up to snuff! The mothers said that my vegetables were clearly not homegrown and organic and that they could taste the pesticides and preservatives on them. They asked if I knew that ranch dip is high in cholesterol and saturated fat which leads to heart disease. I was in tears reading this email. Their assumption that I had no idea how to feed my daughter was so insulting.

    She still wants to hang with them, though

    1. Don’t go aping me, antipodean.

    2. It makes sense. Those kids are rich and privileged. Those connections can form young. Or maybe she thinks the “luck” of the rich can rub off on her kid.

      1. If their mothers think they can taste the pesticides in their food, I would be more worried about the stupid rubbing off on little Bella.

        1. I didn’t say it was a good idea, just that it was a rational choice. I’d keep my kid as far away as possible from those people. The luck of the rich is an illusion, but the stupid of the over-privileged is real and very contagious.

    3. My thoughts on the matter.

    4. sorry all, i’m not around for PM Links so hadn’t realised Randian beat me to it. If I had, i would have gone full ape and report his word for word under my own name. Ironic appropriation as hommage or sumfink

      1. sorry all, i’m not around for PM Links

        That’s why we only gently mocked you.

  33. Some people expressed interest, and I aim to please. So for you football fans out there that hate fantasy sports (Epi), are against certain core aspects of the game like the run (Auric Demonocles) or just want another reason to mock some of your fellow commentators, I give you the Reason H(ampersand)R Bigorati Pro Football Pick-Em.

    Test your mettle against such luminaries as me, brett l and someone using the name “Fingerbang!, not to mention many of the other assorted misfits and malcontents that populate, nay haunt, the HyR threads. (Obviously this means John needs to enter).

    Go here to join the group.

    Group ID: 38814
    password: reason

    The league is free and it is a straight pick-em…no confidence points and not ATS, so it’s as simple as you can get and will take a whopping 5 minutes a week to deal with, so no fucking excuses.

    1. just want another reason to mock some of your fellow commentators

      Strangely enough, I never run short. There’s a fresh supply at least twice a day.

    2. I’m not against core aspects of the game. I fully appreciate that sometimes you should give the ball to some undrafted guy to punch it in from a yard out. Fantasy football is against the forward pass, the single most defining feature of the game.

      1. I have to ask, have you actually played any football? Or is your experience simply from watching?

        1. I did play football. There was a lot of running involved. It was basically an option offense. That’s mostly because we weren’t very good.

          I’m not saying the run should be banned, or even ignored by offensive coordinators (draws and play action being obvious examples). I’m saying that if the point system is set up that it’s best to draft running backs first, it is broken. You can plug random guys into the RB spot and be fine as long as they aren’t fumble prone.

          1. I agree with Auric. Fantasy is way too oriented around the Running Backs. A good QB should be first and foremost and the most rewarded choice, but it isn’t.

            1. Thank you! Is it so weird to hold the opinion that the strategy for building a fantasy team should mirror the strategy for building a real team?

              1. You probably also support the PPR, which is possibly the dumbest thing since the New Deal.

            2. The problem with basing it around QBs is that it is pretty easy to tell who is going to be the best QB from year to year. And there is a huge drop off from the top four or five to everyone else. If you weight QBs properly, the guy with the first pick takes Aaron Rogers and has a huge advantage. And really only the next three or four picks have any chance at all.

              1. Yes, Cam Newton’s statline last year was so easily predictable.

                1. Auric and John are both mostly correct. And that conflict is easily rectified by using an auction draft, which is much more fun anyway.

                  1. An auction draft does seem like a pretty good solution to John’s concern.

                  2. And that conflict is easily rectified by using an auction draft, which is much more fun anyway.

                    And why I only play fantasy baseball.

                    Plus, its year round, and one league is enough for me.

                    1. But baseball is sooooooooooo boring. Fantasy baseball even more so.

    3. Fingerbang! is mine, whenever I can’t think of a good name South Park is always there to guide me.

      1. Ah yes. I forgot you were Faith+1 in the league.

  34. There is only one star in the galaxy at this White House and his name is Barack Obama. Everyone in the Sun King’s court has drunk the Kool-Aid.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08……html?_r=3

    Wow

    1. From the comments

      First, Obama health care reform will be seen in the light of history, as it can be imagined now, as the greatest legislative achievement in forty years, or ten presidencies. The author has evident amnesia of that. Getting the banking reform in these times is more of an achievement than many another presidents ever had. His other comments, such as a lack of grand conceptual ideas, is an unknowing reading of Obama and the political times. It is really fabricated hogwash to try and make a specious point. In fact there is really little need for fantastical new solutions. As Paul Krugman, NY Times columnist, frequently points out, the way to end the Republican destruction of our economy by the banking fiasco is painfully clear to all people of sound mind and moral integrity. This depression, due to the size of the banking collapse, can not be solved by the Fed reducing interests rates. Krugman calls it the equity trap. Federal government stimulus , much larger than first tried, is required to increase demand, just as it was in the first great depression. The fallacy of supply-side economics has reached, hopefully, its epicenter of collapse.

      Wow… just wow. This dude drank the whole pitcher of Krugman’s Kool-Aid

      1. I was afraid to read the comments. That kind of idiocy can be a bit too jarring before noon.

      2. Why can’t these liberals see it just a huge pay-off to the insurance companies, the same way Bush’s prescription drug plan was a big pay-off to drug companies?!

        1. Yes, it is not amazing that the insurers were so supportive of Obama’s private based plan after Hilliary’s single payer.

      3. If we’d only stimulating at 100% of GDP we’d all be rich! And you can’t prove otherwise! (but we won’t accept the argument that if we hadn’t stimulated at all we’d be better off than we are now-even though our own “non-stimulated” predictions were better than the current situation)

        1. Wealth is money and money is wealth.

          Since the government can print money, that means government can create wealth!

          The more money the government prints and adds to the economy, the wealthier we all are!

          Yaaaaaaaaaay government!

          1. I thought time was money.

      4. This dude drank the whole pitcher of Krugman’s Kool-Aid

        That dude probably was Paul Krugman.

    2. I about fell out my chair laughing at the idea of Obama being cool cautious and calculating.

      These people are detached from reality.

    3. Yet it’s still embarrassingly complimentary to BHO.

      1. It’s really all those obstructionist Republicans fault.

        1. I’m just not sure what to think about an Obama-fellating article that comes right out and admits that BHO is a narcissist who has surrounded himself with sycophants but it’s all the Republicans fault. Frankly it was kind of incoherent.

          But then the line about Hillary Clinton being a brilliant SecState gave it away.

          It’s all a satire.

  35. This is what happens when you hire a violent thug and give him a badge.

    Of course he won’t be charged with the murder, and the taxpayers can foot the bill for the wrongful death suit.

    There is so little justice when it comes to police murdering people. It boggles the mind.

    1. Cops are just criminals who managed to get a government job before they went to prison.

      1. Every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints.

        1. Mick Jagger is not a stupid man.

          1. He was going to the London School of Economics with the goal of becoming a politician before he discovered he could get more pussy singing in a rock band.

            No dummy, that one.

            1. Not at all. And a brutal business man for the Stones. The Rolling Stones were never one of those bands who let themselves get ripped off by managers and promoters.

              And Sympathy is one of the smartest rock songs ever written. It is really just The Screwtape Letters set to music.

              1. Wrong.

                “Klein had already successfully secured himself ownership of the copyright of all of the Rolling Stones’ produce while under contract with Decca. He did this by setting up a company in the USA called Nanker Phelge USA and encouraging the band to sign over all of their material to it. The band-members willingly obliged since each member had a share in a UK company named Nanker Phelge Music and had assumed that Nanker Phelge USA was the same company but with an American name.”

  36. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/t…..they-hate/

    Have women finally succeeded in becoming the men they hate?

    1. I actually disagree with just about everything in that piece.

      There’s a lot of commentary out there purporting to talk about the social impacts of the “fact” that women are now more “successful” than men, and all of it is based on misinterpreting data.

      Take the much-trumpeted fact that women now earn more college degrees than men. The problem with that data point is that state licensing laws now require associate’s degrees for health care and child care jobs that boil down to being servants, and that are traditionally staffed mainly by women. Day care assistant? Babysitter with an associate’s degree. Personal care attendant? Bedpan emptier with an associate’s degree. And so forth.

      So we invented specious licensing requirements for low-skill jobs, and then used the heavily-subsidized community college system and the job training system to churn women through timekiller associate’s degree programs, and then sent them right back out to do the same jobs they were doing before, but now they’re “educated professionals”.

      1. I said the other day that at some point the full implications of the higher education bubble are going to dawn on feminists. All these degrees they trot out as proof women are doing so much better than men are not worth anything. When they realize this, the tears and rage are going to be epic.

  37. http://cnsnews.com/news/articl…..c-lands-la

    Obama to be campaigning when New Orleans takes a direct hit from Katrina. Remember George Bush hated black people and wanted them to die because he wasn’t out personally shoring up the levies during Katrina.

    1. This just proves how selfless Obama is. He’s causing himself the emotional trauma of not helping these people so that he can endure the torment of campaigning to save all of us once he’s reelected.

      1. After watching the news this morning I got the feeling the MSM actually wants Isaac Katrina II to cause massive damage.

        1. They love death and destruction. They actually think they could blame the destruction of New Orleans on Bush. Hasn’t Obama had three years to fix FEMA and the levies?

          1. Yes, but this time it will still be the Republican’s fault because they did not cancel their convention. Probably the dumbest thing was when the woman asked Chris Christie if had changed his speech due to the storm.

            1. Her next question was probably “what do you plan to do about Akin?”.

              1. “What do you plan to do about Akin?”

                Rape him until he gets pregnant. No matter how long that takes.

                1. Ah Sugarfree, I so wish they interviewed you to provide the answers politicians should have given. I would pay real money for that.

                2. That was gold – well, except that it made me laugh so hard I choked on my coffee. I bet I looked pretty damned funny spluttering, laughing and choking.

  38. he won’t be charged with the murder

    Typical ignorati kneejerk bigotry. No such thing as murder when the killer has a badge magic talisman.

    Officer safety, continuum of force, the case law is settled.

    hth.

    1. itch wuz a GUD SHOOOOOT

  39. Cannabis smoking ‘permanently lowers IQ’
    Teenagers who regularly smoke cannabis are putting themselves at risk of permanently damaging their intelligence, according to a landmark study.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/hea…..rs-IQ.html

    1. 8 IQ points is a lot. I wonder if that is only for people who start as adolescents.

    2. Doesn’t surprise me that it affects a group whose brains are still developing. Still does not support banning it. But yeah, drugs and alcohol aren’t good for developing bodies and minds. Once they have become adults? party on!

      1. If it were legal and regulated, perhaps it would be harder for minors to obtain. Just a thought.

        1. Im the mid 80s, I knew I could get pot in my HS parking lot. Had no access to booze (well, not directly).

          1. In the late 90’s, I knew I could get pot, blow, x, shrooms, crystal and pretty much anything but acid around the big tree in the middle of our campus. But yeah, booze was a luxury reserved for when permissive parents went out of town for weekends.

  40. http://nation.foxnews.com/elle…..ng-sob-rnc

    Ellen Barkin hopes for Republicans to die. Is there any doubt that these people would support gassing people if they had the opportunity?

    1. She makes me laugh daily. Most recently talking about how being civil leads to better discussions. I guess wishing death upon thousands is civil. Who knew?

    2. You don’t understand.

      Tolerance means not tolerating intolerance.

      The less tolerant you are of intolerance, the more tolerant you are.

      Killing people who disagree with you is the epitome of tolerance!

  41. Well, four years have passed and Obama has adroitly steered the bankrupted United States he inherited away from the precipice

    Seriously?

    1. They didn’t say which side of the precipice we are on.

    2. That fiscal cliff just ahead?

      Umm, yeah, actually, he did build that.

  42. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ti…..37647.html

    Romney proposes RNC rule to replace any delegate with one of his choosing.

    The changes, which Mitt Romney’s top lawyer put forward last week and Gov. Haley Barbour along with some other Romney supporters have embraced, are seen by opponents as intended to significantly weaken the power of grassroots politics and insurgent candidates such as Ron Paul. Many against the move worry that it would give national candidates the power to replace delegates–often grassroots party faithfuls–with big-time donors or friends.

    1. She didn’t know she had a hand brake? Or could I don’t know, slam the car into park or turn the fucking ignition off?

      1. I once had my accelerator get stuck with the floor mat. It wasn’t that hard to control, though probably wasn’t great for my breaks or the transmission.

        1. I had a fuel pump on the fritz that suddenly caused the car to accelerate without my foot on the gas. I instinctively popped it into neutral while it revved for a few seconds and went back to normal. A week later the fuel pump died.

      2. Well, if you don’t want to fuck up your transmission, pull the car to the shoulder or even off the road and put the car into neutral until you’ve decelerated enough to shut the power off.

        But yeah, she’s probably not smart enough to continue operating a motor vehicle.

      3. FTA:
        The cops were convinced that Ubelstad did everything humanly possible to try to stop the car, including engaging the emergency brake and trying to turn it off. But her Sorrento features a push button start, and she said there was no key off option

    2. My ’66 Dodge Dart had a throttle that got stuck wide-open on Wilshire Blvd., during morning rush hour. Instead of cleverly weaving in and out of traffic, I TURNED THE IGNITION OFF!

      1. Well, if you don’t want to lose power steering, you can put it in neutral and pull over to the side. THEN shut off the ignition. But yeah, there are better ways to handle than freaking out and keep driving 100 mph down the road.

        1. What’s funny is that she still managed to use her cell phone to make a phone call to tell an authority figure that she was too stupid to do anything other than blindly panic.

          I do have to hand it to her though, that was some damn fine open throttle driving.

          1. The only thing scarier than a woman behind the wheel is a Chinese woman behind the wheel.

            1. Chinese woman: How much signal I need to cut across eight lane? None? I turn now. Good Luck, everbody else.

              1. aka, an Atlanta exit.

                In the ATL, its done in a pickup truck though.

                1. Did they ever get that train line renamed from the “Yellow Line” because people complained about the racist overtones?

            2. The car accident that nearly killed my mom was the product of a Chinese woman flying through a red light going way above 40 mph and T-boning my mom’s car sending it airborne to land on a lawn 20 yards away with all four tires ruptured.

              The red-light-runner said that it wasn’t her fault; “when light is yellow, you punch it. I punched it!” she said emphatically to the cops.

              Incidentally, my mom’s car was the third car back from the stop-line while she had been waiting for the light to turn green.

              Either the other driver was putting on one hell of a front, or she just didn’t give a shit about other drivers. While Mass drivers have a reputation for the latter, it seems particularly common in our friends from China who come here to labor in the biotech and academic vineyards.

              1. or she just didn’t give a shit about other drivers

                Bingo. Have her stand in the intersection while others in cars “punch it.” Re-interview.

                Watching the city intersection videos form the 3rd world, where traffic signals are a curiosity, is truly staggering. How more people don’t die escapes me.

    3. The cops were convinced that Ubelstad did everything humanly possible to try to stop the car, including engaging the emergency brake and trying to turn it off. But her Sorrento features a push button start, and she said there was no key off option

      1. It won’t go into neutral?

        1. “Kill the headlights and put it in neutral
          Stock car flamin’ with a loser and the cruise control “

        2. She’s a moron. You have to hit the brake to move to neutral.

      2. Although, admittedly, you can always disengage the transmission and your brakes will stop your car no matter what the engine is doing, ABS be damned.

      3. She’s a moron who doesn’t know how to operate her own car. No key? OK. HOLD DOWN THE STOP BUTTON FOR 3 SECONDS. The e-brake isn’t going to do much, since it only engages the rear brake.

        Had she stood on the brakes, the car would have stopped. Period.

    4. The cops were convinced that Ubelstad did everything humanly possible to try to stop the car, including engaging the emergency brake and trying to turn it off. But her Sorrento features a push button start, and she said there was no key off option

      Here’s how that car works:

      In an emergency situation while the vehicle is in motion, you are able to turn the engine off and to the ACC position by pressing the ENGINE START/STOP button for more than 2 seconds or 3 times successively within 3 seconds

      Not the most user-friendly thing, but not that bad either. Plus, Kia tried to reproduce the problem, and couldn’t.

      She was doin’ it wrong.

      1. Sounds to me like she was joyriding and wanted an excuse like that dipshit Prius drive who started the “Phantom acceleration” bullshit with Toyota.

  43. Roger Cohen can go fuck himself, if he can get his head out of 0’s ass long enough.

  44. http://www.reuters.com/article…..D220120828

    Putin really is the world’s only living comic book super villain.

    1. I could picture him saying, “No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!”

      1. “But not enough to just shoot you”

      2. Then do some Mortal Kombat style finishing move like ripping his spine out of his back.

  45. Does anyone else recall that someone threw a Rachel Cory Pancake breakfast?

  46. Policeman brags to a buddy about pummeling a suspect and throwing him down a flight of stairs. Does so in front of a federal prosecutor. New trial likely.*

    *Oh, not the officer being put on trial for police brutality, but the guy rotting in a cell. The cop won’t be put on trial even though he described exactly how he brutalized someone and the physical evidence supports his claims.

    1. The judge, in ordering the hearing, raised the possibility that Perrin’s alleged statements were nothing more than “an alcohol-induced false claim of bravado made in a misplaced attempt to impress old friends.”

      More likely en vino veritas.

      1. It’s nice that a judge lays out the defense’s position for them and plants a seed of doubt in the minds of any potential jury, isn’t it?

        I wonder how often a judge does that for some poor black kid that a cop claims to have “overheard” say he capped someone.

        1. Last time I overheard drunk cops, one was complaining that he’d not yet had the opportunity to kill someone.
          He had had plenty of opportunities to practice various choke holds and such, but never to use his service weapon to take a life.

          His buddies assured him that his day would come.

          And people wonder why fear the police.

          1. Sadly, I believe every word you are saying.

  47. Galway, Ireland plans to erect a statue to famed butcher and thug Che Guevara, so Florida-based philanthropist Elviro Sanchez, a Cuban refugee, is offering to foot the bill for a Lindsay Lohan statue, instead. He points out that Lohan has actual roots in Galway and hasn’t killed anybody.

    The Galway elders will most likely not accept the offer from Sanchez because, for them, it’s all about principles…

    1. Che wasn’t a butcher. As far as I know, the guy was never even trained in a kitchen and had no real skill set in any of the culinary arts.

  48. Y’all will be disappointed to know that I was neither rapescanned nor locked up in tent city on my trip to Phoenix this weekeend.

    1. We never expected you to have been. You’re not brown enough to be fucked with by Arizona’s finest.

      1. I wish!

        1. But not by that guy, I hope?

          1. Eh – you take what you can get when you’re a “woman of a certain age”.

            (j/k)

  49. This is why we need the government running things

    On Saturday, 39 were killed and more were injured in an explosion at Venezuela’s Paraguan? Refinery, one of the largest in the world. This is only the latest in a string of accidents that the state owned oil company, P?troleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), has racked up in past years. The New York Times reports that?once again?faulty state supervision of the facilities is to blame:

    Jos? Bodas, an oil union leader, said that the company had failed to invest in maintenance. “This has as a consequence the increase in accidents and tragic deaths like what we are seeing today,” he said in a telephone call to Globovision, a television channel associated with the political opposition to President Ch?vez.

    http://blogs.the-american-inte…..a-edition/

  50. Say, does anyone else want a burger?

    1. Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups missed out on so many good commercial opportunities.

    2. I’m really hungry now, for some odd reason.

    3. Can’t see it as it’s blocked where I am, but if it’s the new carls jr. add, the brunette apparently has some nude pics online.

      1. Welp, I’m done working for the day. Think I’ll go home and follow up on this rumor.

      2. Is the blonde not Sara Jean Underwood?

          1. An outstanding OSU Beaver.

      3. Many, and they’re utter perfection.

    4. I bet all you warm weather pussies want to go skiing, now, too.

      1. I’m debating whether to say they’re both way too fat for sarcasmic or way too skinny for John.

        Fuck it, I’ll just say the one on the left has a nicer rack and leave the snark alone for a change.

        1. I am blocked. But two words on skying, “Lindsey Von”. If Von doesn’t work for you, you are just not into women.

      2. Nope. I’ll stay in the warm, bikinis not being rare on the beach, either.

  51. Man tells cops they shouldn’t be harassing people for smoking outside a bar. Ends up in the hospital for his troubles.

    It gets better, including illegally obtaining evidence while he was hospitalized and misleading him into a guilty plea.

    Man sues officers and city because there’s no way in hell these fine, upstanding officers of the law could be brought before a grand jury, is there?

    1. Nothing else will happen. I know people from that area and the cops are notorious.

      Even if you’re the victim of a crime you don’t call them, because they’ll assume you deserved it and try to come up with an excuse to arrest you.

    1. Fucking shit. Win first, then purge. How is it that only the Nazis and Bolsheviks got the order right?

      1. These guys were the type of person who thought propaganda of the deed was a workable way of spreading the message; you know …. morons.

  52. Check this one out.

    Cop in Flordia files a false police report, no one says anything until a videotape comes out contradicting it. I guess his notably silent partner was “one of the good ones”, right?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.