Embassy Attacks

Reason Writers on Bloggingheads: Matt Welch Discusses Embassy Riots and Free Speech With Heather Hurlburt

|

On Friday afternoon, as the world was erupting in flames, I went on Bloggingheads to discuss the situation with longtime progressive foreign policy thinker/doer Heather Hurlburt. It was, I think, an illuminating conversation. See what you think below, or go to the Bloggingheads page to see the conversation broken up by mini-topic:

NEXT: Chinese Riot Over Japanese Island Purchase

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. Gap between teeth is cute, eyes are gorgeous, hair is fantastic, but enough about Matt . . . okay, just one more, the dad glasses have got to go. Have you tried the I hang around the Factory with Warhol and Baby Jane Holzer look?

    1. I miss Matt’s facial hair.

    2. Here is a flattering picture of Ms Hurlburt.

      1. Though as a married man, I’m dead inside to all of that, I can see why Matt felt intimidated by Ms Hurlburt.

        1. Yeah, he looked pretty twitchy to me every time she spoke. I’d be intimidated when a former diplomat defends breaking promises to constituents too.

    3. She is sitting way too close to the camera.

  2. OT:
    (honest; I’m gonna watch a ball game in a bit, but wife has cooking channel on):
    Penn Gillette is a *judge* on the cooking channel WWF-slamdown-wannabe!
    Dunno what libertarian pitch he can squeeze in, but it’s obvious he hasn’t missed many meals.

    1. I’m online because the wife has control of the main set. There is a much smaller one from a bygone era in my office, but the internet is more fun. She is watching a movie, ‘This Means War’. She noted when the title page came up, ‘Reese Weatherspoon!’ I asked her, ‘how can you tell. She is so generic looking.’ She gave me a frosty, ‘Reese Weatherspoon is NOT generic looking.’ Whatever.

      Two guys fighting over a girl, typical chick flick setup that feeds the feminine ego, and a bigger fantasy than anything in A Game of Thrones. I’m out of there.

      1. She’s not generic looking, her chin can cut glass.

    2. i saw them on Time Warp on SCI. They did this 3 cup ball switching act. They did it with clear cups and you still couldn’t figure out how they did it

      1. I know how they did it. They lied.

  3. good video of the street aftermath of a homicide. lots of video of the cops, but also the general citizenry.

    cops is obviously frustrated by the stop snitching culture, which to SOME extent exists in seattle, but not nearly as badly as it exists in many other locales.

    just people being people. and we need more of this, and more people filming cops. it can only make things better

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

  4. The film is not incendiary. It’s silly and insulting. That’s it. Nobody involved has anything to answer for.

    Hope the boys of South Park go balls to wall now on Islam… and Obama.

    1. i think that ship has sailed. i’d LOVE to see them do it, but they’ve tried and pretty much got slapped down.

      and even they have said in interviews and such that they like being alive and also feel a responsibility to their employees not to place them in jeopardy.

      an isaac hayes rhetorical explosion is one thing

      a real explosion is another

      1. True, true… they ain’t got no excuse for Obama though.

        Balls to the wall boys, balls to the wall.

        1. Obama is too obvious a target for them, I think. If they go after the biggest guy in the room, people get bored.

          1. Yeah, Trey and Matt love to use misdirection when it comes to political targets. Case and point: imagining the 2008 election as a ruse to cover an Obama-McCain elaborate diamond heist.

            Boom baby!

    2. Lyle| 9.15.12 @ 9:01PM |#
      “The film is not incendiary. It’s silly and insulting. That’s it. Nobody involved has anything to answer for.”

      Silly and insulting? So it’s a Rachael Maddow comment?
      Hey, maybe….
      Nah.

      1. What are you talking about?

        1. Uh, are you familiar with the woman?

          1. Yeah, I know her, I’m not for taking her off the air either.

            Hi-five, I’m with you, I think.

            1. “I’m not for taking her off the air either.”

              Nor causing harm to the people who happen to live in the same political grouping, whether city, state or country, regardless of her stupidity.

    3. South Park won’t do it. Last time they came even close Comedy Central got all scared because of bomb threats and took down the episodes.

  5. There is a whole bunch of crap in the new testaments and the torah.

    The YouTube video has direct quotes taken from the Qur’an and like the torah and the new testament it is a bunch of bullshit.

    Regardless of the Youtubers motives (what are the motives of critics of the Torah or the Jesus chronicles) criticism of what is in Qur’an is legitimate.

    It seems stupid to dismiss the video on its quality. What if it was more critically accurate and had a high quality?

    My guess is the loons protecting would still be protesting.

    1. “My guess is the loons protecting would still be protesting.”

      Hey, amateur cartoons get the same result.
      Among idiot bleevers, Muslims do seem to take the lead (that’s the metal, as in opposite of gold) as the dumbest. And most nasty.
      They’re welcome to their stupidity as is anyone with a superstition; ‘Congress shall make no law…’.
      First time they so much as swing a fist; they should go to jail. And I’m still waiting to hear from ‘moderate’ Muslims distancing themselves from the fundies.
      Waiting…

      1. You’re not looking in the right places then. I’ve seen a bunch of images of people in those countries holding up signs apologizing for the deaths (even though those people aren’t responsible for them). But you’re unlikely to see any news stories highlighting those people. I sure haven’t seen any.

        Example

        1. I stand corrected; I see five.

        2. To be fair, I didn’t have to “look” for this, it showed up in my Facebook feed. Most people probably aren’t going to see these through major news networks, and I only saw it because my friend who’s Muslim posted it on his account. If it wasn’t for him I wouldn’t have seen it either.

          1. “Most people probably aren’t going to see these through major news networks,”

            Given what I perceive as the bias of MSM (that’s a horrible term, but it’ll do), it’s amazing it hasn’t shown up.
            To be a bit of a cynic, I gotta wonder if those five weren’t posed. Never seen any others, nor read written comments, nor heard of verbal protests.

            1. Given what I perceive as the bias of MSM (that’s a horrible term, but it’ll do), it’s amazing it hasn’t shown up.

              Well, I guess I was sort of wrong about them not showing up in news networks. Haven’t seen them on CNN or anything, but they’re not that hard to find if you’re actively looking.

              Google finds them pretty quick if you already know to look for “benghazi apology” or “benghazi apology photos” (the latter bringing up more relevant results.).

              The first result for either search, a Huffington Post article.

              Though again, I wouldn’t have thought to Google that at all, and thus probably wouldn’t have known about it, if I hadn’t seen my friend’s wall post. So it wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of people were asking the same question you did.

              1. As an atheist, no way I’m supporting a specific superstition over another. Cynicism still suggests that such expression is *extremely* limited;
                There may well be some limited number of ‘moderate Muslims’. If so, they have yet to show on the radar, and (again, given the bias of MSM[!ugh]), that suggests that the breed is pretty damn small.

                1. It’s very, very difficult to tell proportions just from the riots and counter-protests. There isn’t a way to tell how indicative either are of the citizenry as a whole. But from what I’ve read, and what I see in those pictures, more people are protesting the riots than were in the riots themselves.

                  And shit, my Google link didn’t work right. It was supposed to link the actual search. There are a lot of people in some of those photos.

                  1. recall back when Lebanon had its protests, there were tons of hot chicks being pictured? Where’s that now dammit!

                  2. darius404| 9.15.12 @ 11:03PM |#
                    …”But from what I’ve read, and what I see in those pictures, more people are protesting the riots than were in the riots themselves.”

                    I’d REALLY like to believe this (no foolin’), but people who had only the haziest connection to a film died as a result of that film at the hands of Muslims.
                    Do you think there’s some conspiracy to hide the ‘Muslim street’ from US viewers/readers? Wouldn’t Al Jazeera make it a front(screen) claim?
                    Again, I don’t give a hoot about which sky-daddy one or the other favors, unless one or the other starts killing people as a result. Seems the Muslims are dedicated to doing so for very slight reason.
                    And I see little denial of that effort from those who would claim to be ‘moderate’.

                    1. And I see little denial of that effort from those who would claim to be ‘moderate’.

                      That’s what happens when you ignore the examples offered. Now, these aren’t thousands of people we’re talking about here, but a couple of the photos show at least 100 people gathered into a group, in one case with a wall of signs. Considering the amount of people rioting were of comparable size, we could just as easily say that there is “little rioting” being done over this. If that’s false, then claiming the same of peace protests of comparable size is false too.

                    2. And since when do libertarians accept that the actions of other people creates some moral burden on others to prove their not like them?

        3. Prophet not Profit

      2. No one has to answer for the crimes of others.

        1. I agree on this one. I’d like to be able to say that to the people in the photo link I posted. They aren’t responsible for someone else’s actions. However, it is helpful for them to take a stand against these sort of violent actions.

        2. well, no. but there is a concept that when one is a member of a group, especially a voluntarily chosen group (vs. a group based on stuff you have no control over – like height, gender, race, whatever), and members of that group are engaging in acts of assmunchery ESPECIALLY when they are doing that and even say they are doing it based on their membership in said group, that it is a moral good to distance oneself from same and condemn them

          i’m a male. i don’t think i have any moral duty to apologize on behalf of my gender for rape.

          however, if i was a pastafarian, and a bunch of pastafarians were rapin’ and pillagin’ and especially if they were doing it in the name of pastafarianism, i’d consider it a moral good to condemn these folks and distance myself from them e.g. “this is not what pastafarianism is about. these pastafarians are distorting all that is good and toothsome about pasta. please don’t let the acts of these limp noodles cast asperasparagus on the nobility of flour and water… and sometimes egg.

          1. however, if i was a pastafarian

            Cop AND pastafarian…

            You are a complete monster.

            1. Cop AND pastafarian…

              You are a complete monster.

              No, this makes him one of the good guys. See, global warming is caused by pirates (I should know, I wrote a paper on it). Pirates are criminals? Who do you send after criminals? Law enforcement officers! So Dunphy has obviously been touched by His Noodly Appendage. Better yet, it suggests that Dunphy is also a NINJA! They are, after all, the pirate’s natural enemy.

          2. Stoned, Dunphy?

            1. no, but i realize i was babbling like a motherfucker.

              COULD be related to the fact that i had surgery yesterday, and i’m a little out of it…

        3. No one has to answer for the crimes of others.

          Condemning them when the perpetrators are claiming to represent you is still a good idea.

        4. “No one has to answer for the crimes of others.”

          Couldn’t agree more. Problem is, that’s not what I was addressing. I ‘blamed’ no one; I asked for clearly stated opinions.
          Let’s be clear:
          Xian fundy shoots someone who might allow abortion: Instant comments from non-fundies Xians trying to get at arm’s length.
          Muslim fundy shoots someone who is a citizen of a country where a film was made: Silence from ‘non-fundy Muslims’ (assuming such exists).

          Put another way, superstitionists share superstitions with other superstitionists. Some of those superstitionists claim their superstition isn’t harmful to humanity when those with a common superstition harm people.
          Others, by their silence, make no such claim.

          It’s not the individual, it’s the superstition and the bleevers thereof.

  6. “The libertarian says we should do less and have faith in human nature and the progressive says we should do it smarter.”

    *blinks*

    …..so?

    1. She kept doing that shit all over the place (see my post below).

      The only logical conclusion to how she thinks the united states should handle its citizens’ free speech (there was a lot of “I believe in freedom of speech [but/having said that/on the other hand]…”) was some sort of limit on our constitutional rights.

      She never provided any meaningful followup or enumerated what her implied limits would be.

      Yes, libertarians do say we should have faith in human nature and the progressive do say we should do it smarter. Unfortunately, when it comes to every progressive I personally know, “smarter” is a euphemism for “guys with guns are gonna make you…”

      1. Yeah “smarter” is always the stop gap phrase the left uses to defend government in the face of complete failure.

        “Oh yes zoning regulations have failed so lets use smart growth policies”

        “Oh yes the federal government completely failed during Katrina what we need is smarter leadership”

        etc.

      2. The only logical conclusion to how she thinks the united states should handle its citizens’ free speech (there was a lot of “I believe in freedom of speech [but/having said that/on the other hand]…”) was some sort of limit on our constitutional rights.

        The equivocation on speech goes to the heart of why I don’t consider Progressivism to be a modern movement, but instead a reactionary one with a profound dislike for individuals. Like the feudal order, it is always the other person for whom limitations are meant. Ask them, do you believe in placing limitations on your own mind, on what you can think? That is absurd on its face, but speech is merely the communication of thought. To them, at that point, it becomes a social rather than a personal matter, therefore under their control. The essential person in the modern world is the free thinker, progressives think of themselves as free thinkers, and they encourage you to be one, just keep your thoughts to yourself.

  7. Oh, and it looks like those who ‘support free speech, but…’ may have found a way to stick it to the guy who may have made the film:
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/art…..867557.php
    Turns out he may have violated a probation limitation on ‘using a computer’. Wonder how in hell that sort of condition passes A1 muster; can he also be prohibited from reading or writing?

    1. not speaking as to specifics of THIS case, but as matters of probation, these kind of things are routine, and definitely pass constitutional muster.

      i was actually reading some stuff at volokg.com a few years ago about the latitude judges have on conditions of probation, and they have pretty broad latitude

      in brief, if you consider that probation is taken as a SUBSTITUTE FOR IMPRISONMENT (US v. Forbes) and the courts have pretty broad discretion on restrictions on prisoners, it makes a little more sense.

      also, since he was convicted of bank fraud charges, i suspect his crime probably involved the use of computers, and probably internet access etc. so the restriction would be related to his crime. media articles are notoriously inaccurate, especially on details of legal stuff, so maybe his restriction only applied to using a computer CONNECTED to the internet or something like that. that would make more sense.

      1. “An otherwise valid probation condition may infringe on the constitutional rights of the probationer, who is “not entitled to the same degree of constitutional protection as other citizens.” (People v. Peck (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 351, 362; People v. Jungers (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 698, 703.) However, such probation conditions must be reasonably related to the compelling public interests of rehabilitation and protection of the public. (People v. O’Neil, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1356.) ”

        “Furthermore, where probation conditions are imposed that restrict the probationer’s exercise of constitutional rights, the conditions must be narrowly tailored and sufficiently precise to avoid unconstitutional overbreadth and vagueness. The “void for vagueness” doctrine applies to conditions of probation, and is concerned with constitutionally adequate notice. (People v. Lopez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 615, 630; People v. Reinertson (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 320, 324-325.) A probation condition “must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated. [Citation.]” (People v. Reinertson, at pp. 324-325; accord, People v. Lopez, at p. 630.) “

        1. btw, in my first sentence i am talking about usage of computers, etc. not talking about speech in general.

      2. Dunphy (the real one)| 9.15.12 @ 10:16PM |#
        in brief, if you consider that probation is taken as a SUBSTITUTE FOR IMPRISONMENT (US v. Forbes) and the courts have pretty broad discretion on restrictions on prisoners, it makes a little more sense.”

        Uh, thank you mr cummings.
        Problem is, even in prison, A1 applies.

        1. sure it does.
          but when one is on probation, much like when one is in prison, restrictions CAN be imposed that are 1st amendment expression issues AS LONG as they are related to the crime etc.

          for example, refer to page 104 here…

          (and fwiw, i have seen similar restrictions when i ran somebody through NCIC after a GOD FORBID TERRY STOP)

          this is form the nationalgangcenter.gov in regards to conditions of probation for gang related offenses. note that wearing of gang colors, is an expressive act, and thus 1st amendment related…

          however…

          members convicted of a gang?related crime called gang terms of probation. In addition
          to the normal conditions of probation, gang terms have a number of stringent
          restrictions designed to curtail further gang activity. Following are some of the
          restrictions included in gang terms of probation:
          ? No presence in a known gang gathering area.
          ? No possession of spray paint, any etching device, a “slim?jim,” a dent
          puller, a cell phone, or a beeper.
          ? No clothing associated with or signifying membership in a street gang.
          ? No appearances at any court proceeding unless a party in the action, a
          defendant, or subpoenaed as a witness. (See the attached Gang Terms
          and Conditions of Probation, Exhibit 4.)

          http://www.nationalgangcenter……Manual.pdf

          1. to be more clear, “related to the crime, narrowly tailored, etc. etc.”

            iow, just because something is a 1st amemdment expressive activity does not mean it cannot be the subject of a probationary restriction

            it merely means a high level of scrutinty is applied vs. something that is clearly not constitutional rights related.

            higher leve of protection?

            yes

            off limits from restrictions?

            no

          1. you don’t think what?

            look, courts can impose probationary restrictions on certain activities that (for a person not on probation) they would not be able to do. and some of these activities may be related to free expression

            as one example, i cited above, people convicted of gang related offenses can and have had restrictions imposed during probation that prevent them from wearing clothing that signifies membership in a street gang

            the wearing of said clothing is CLEARLY 1st amendment expressive. and the govt. could not pass a law saying the wearing of same is illegal

            however, they can prphibit the wearing of same FOR a probationer WHO was convicted of a gang related expense

            the point is that restrictions placed on 1st amendment activities are viewed with a higher level of scrutiny than those that are not related to constitutionally protected activity.

            but there is no bright line that prohibits ANY such restrictions. as demnostrated above.

            the other example given was prohibition against attending certain court hearings. gang members often do this as a show of support. and our court system is open, and with rare exceptions, you have the right to attend hearings of other people

            but if you are on certain kinds of probation you can be restricted

            cheers

            1. My reply of I don’t think so was to the person that said prisoners still have 1st amendment rights.

              The linked article supports my opinion, albeit with some wiggle room.

              1. apologies. got it now

                i believe we are on the same page here.

                of course prisoners still have 1st amendment rights.

                however, it’s just clear that in the case of both prisoners and probationers, that certain restrictions can be placed on them based on their status as same that could not be placed on FREE MEN. so to speak.

  8. 2 hours of hockey left
    http://sports.nationalpost.com…..scheduled/

    1. I don’t follow hockey…

      …but I’m not gay.

      1. …but I’m not gay.

        Shouldn’t we let STEVE SMITH be the judge of that?

        1. Do you really think that the sexual desires and emotions of STEVE SMITH’s hiker victims even register? All he knows is rock and good… and rape.

  9. Hurlburt keeps saying (paraphrased only slightly) “can’t we say ‘it’s not ok to produce those videos’?”

    She offers no mechanism to shut these down. She has a right to complain about them. I have a right to post response videos. And that’s where it ends.

    Then she says, “No one’s going to get killed based on a statement from the state department”

    It’s wishy-washy relativism all the way down.

    She’s also unzipping her progressive fly which shows that she knows… she knows that people in the middle east are batshit crazy.

    When progressives get the vapors anytime someone starts hovering around the fringes of saying something untoward about The Prophet Muhammed, they’re essentially admitting, “These people are nuts… if you say what you’re going to say, they’re going to storm our embassies, so you need to shut up”

    1. The sad thing is that there will only be bad quality criticisms of Islam like the YouTube guy as any serious film maker or writer will take these comments from official channels as “We will not defend your free speech from violent attack by fanatics and will probably pursue legal means to shut you down”.

      1. Rushdie was the pulizer-level criticism of Islam and we know what happened there.

        Had Rushdie published Satanic Verses today, the literary world would be calling for him to be arrested.

        1. right.

          it’s ok to rape 13 yr old girls.

          if you are an ARTIST

          but writing shit that offends muslims?

          oh HELL NO

        2. They weren’t particularly thrilled with Rushdie back in 1988. Some on the port side came to his defense, but many did not.

          1. yea. you are right. i was looking over the wiki entry and some other stuff, and history has helped the fuckitude from the left to fade in my memory

            actually looking back, they were doing the same crap they are doing now. a lot of “we respect freedom of speech, BUT…”

            there was a good article at volokh.com where some leftist was talking about the ‘narcissism of the 1st amendment’ and essentially how we need to cowboy up, shut the hell up, and recognize that the “international community” believes that sensitivity to muslims trumps free discourse and we need to get on board etc.

            it’s disgusting as hell, but it’s there. from the very roots.

        3. “If Shakespeare were alive today, he’d be in prison.”

          /SNL

          1. If Shakespeare were alive today, he’d be 448.

            1. If Shakespeare were alive today… he’d be clawing at the inside of his coffin and yelling “remove me from this horrid box!”

              1. screaming for your life sounds so much less desperate and so much more poetic when it’s done in iambic pentameter

        4. The Satanic Verses wasn’t even a criticism of Islam though. It was a novel that contained some historical fiction about Muhammad, but not really in a critical manner.

          Of all the things that Muslims have protested over since the 80s, Rushdie’s book is probably the least deserving.

          1. have you ever met anybody who has READ it?

            i haven’t. from what i can glean from reviews, it almost sounds like some sort of quasi jame joyce’an stuff. and probably damn hard to read.

            a lot of “important literature” is

            1. I’ve read parts of it. There isn’t anything particularly abstract about it. It’s just a novel that includes some magical realism (“miraculous” things happen to the main characters) and symbolic dream sequences. One dream revolves around Muhammad and the story of the Satanic Verses, which is part of Muslim canon.

      2. I was also happy that Welch put up the intellectual cock-block to her “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose”.

        That analogy was inapt as NPRs iternate liberal mistrels, David Brooks and E.J. Dionne (admitting, by the way that Obama and his administration are making apologies) that “The U.S. apologizes all the time, we apologized for Abu Graib, we apologized for Slavery”

        Yes, dumbasses, the U.S. should have apologized for Abu Graib and Slavery. Those were crimes perpetrated by the United States… some guy producing a video in his basement saying some mean stuff about the Prophet Muhammed isn’t a crime.

        1. yea, and also unlike the two mentioned crimes, it’s also not the doing of the US anyway.

          that’s what makes ‘the US’ (iow our fearless leaders) apologizing for it, doubly stupid.

          like mickey, from snatch

          M:”didja doe it?”

          Turkish: “no”

          Mickey: “thin whadderya serry fer?”

          exactly.

    2. “Then she says, “No one’s going to get killed based on a statement from the state department””

      Yeah, it take Obama to wiggle his worry beads to be selected for death.
      But, he claims to do it ‘carefully’, whatever that means.

      1. The Korean War occurred because of a misstatement from the State Department. What the Hell is she talking about?

        1. +1950

        2. There’s also a case to be made that Saddam Hussein thought he had a green light to invade Kuwait after a meeting with the US ambassador in 1990. During which she reiterated several times that the US does not have a defense alliance with Kuwait and that the US does not get involved in the internal affairs of sovereign states (Saddam was claiming that Kuwait was a break away province).

      2. “No one’s going to get killed based on a statement from the state department”

        So we have a state department dealing in foreign affairs which in this world we live do have life and death consequences…yet no matter what the state department says it will have no affect as to the outcome of those life and death consequences…

        One wonders why we have a State Department at all.

  10. Anyone remember what Ron Paul said and why we should get out and stay out and simply trade without getting involved (much like China and Russia)? By getting out I mean cutting foreign aid (why are Libya and Egypt still getting aid?) as well as foreign embassies.

    Let Israel play cop in the middle east, which they can do quite effectively without our help (see the 1988 strike against Iraq; and RP’s response against everyone else who condemned it).

    “Some of our moderate Arab allies will be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists.”
    — April 24, 2002, U.S. House

    “Gaddafi may well be every bit the “bad guy” we are told he is, but who are the rebels we are assisting? Do we have any clue? Will they bring freedom and prosperity to Libya if they are victorious? We might like to hope so, but the fact is, we don’t know. Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, explained in a recent article that there is plausible reason to believe the rebels are current or former Islamist mujahedin, eager to engage in jihad.

    Indeed, Gaddafi has fought against Libyan Islamists for years and is seen by them as a bitter enemy. Astoundingly, it may well be that we are assisting al Qaeda in this new war!”

    March 28, 2011

    (On that later point, see: http://www.vice.com/read/al-qa…..g-in-libya)

    1. However, this would not preclude private citizens flying drones or planes at their own risk to say drop leaflets, effigies, or whatever over mid-east countries, whether you want to propagandize, proselytize, or just troll for the lulz. See the incident were private Swedes flew a plane over Belarus dropping teddy bears promoting free speech.

      Likewise with letters of marque and reprisal, private mercenary or defense (purely) and rescue operations. (undercover, guerilla tactics, heavy bribes to rescue journalists, etc)

      1. np| 9.15.12 @ 10:22PM |#
        “However, this would not preclude private citizens…”

        Doing whatever they damn well please, presuming it causes no physical harm…

  11. I think Mark Steyn’s take on this is spot on http://bit.ly/NuSgC9

    1. He isn’t often wrong.

      1. And he’s certainly not here.

    2. We’re ALL HitandRunpublicans now.

      1. Woah! Let’s not take it too far. If Romney is ever president, he’ll find ways to suck, the big difference being the mainstream media will actually take notice and then some.

  12. If depicting Mohammed is so bad, why is that the most common first name in the world?

    1. Mohammed Suxdik, meet Mohammed Blowsdogs.

  13. Time for the main event. Go ChavezJR!

    1. All Martinez after 4 rounds tho

      1. All Martinez after 8 rounds. Signs of life from ChavezJr, but short of a knockout he can’t win this.

    2. ChavezJr is waiting for Martinez to tire. That’s not happening.

    3. and in the 12th round, ChavezJr knocks down Martinez 2 times but fails to win.

  14. SnL Obama: Stick with what’s been barely working or take your chances with Mittens.
    *BARF*

    1. the devil you know is better than…

      ok, the craptastic, statist, war mongering, simpering, hypocritical, lying but clean and articulate devil you know is better than the devil you don’t

  15. hahah SNL cutting edge comedy with Clint Chair
    *barf*

    1. I watched an episode of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea while SNL was on.

      1. Seth MacFarlane as the stuttering Drill Sergeant was fu-fu-fu-funny

        1. Bride of Frankenstein was wrapping up when SNL began. I’m about to go to sleep as soon as Barbara Feldon quits prancing about in a black neoprene wetsuit on Get Smart. Television, reflecting our civilization, reached apogee at some point in the mid-1960s.

        2. I was surprised by the drill sergeant bit. It was very old-school, in a predictable sort of way.

      2. That show was Star Trek before Star Trek

        Sure, it was underwater, not in space, but almost the same thing happened.

        And ST:TNG stole even more from it – having the young guy go on the away team, the ship being able to separate, etc

    1. And rather thinks libertarians have mental problems…

        1. Rather aka rectal aka pale squaw is before your time, I’m afraid.

          1. youth has its privileges

  16. Sounds pretty legit to me dude. Wow.

    http://www.AnonWays.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.