A.M. Links: Obamacare Penalty To Hit Six Million Americans, Benghazi Attack Was Planned After All, $1.8T Tab for Federal Regulations

|

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

NEXT: Eurozone Recession Deepens, According to Business Survey

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. Kate Hudson’s got her mom’s genes! Hubba hubba!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..story.html

    1. Are you finished?

    2. It’s too bad she’s got A-Rod stank all over her.

      1. Ew. Forever tainted.

      2. There were some links I could have posted containing Charlie Sheen exes, but I for some unexplainable reason I fail to find those women to be attractive.

        1. Denise Richards?

          Is there something you want to tell us?

      3. A Rod? No she has Black Crows stank. And that is a lot worse.

        1. I think A-rod is much worse. At least the Black Crowes have created something that people will care about in 50 years.

          1. At least the Black Crowes have created something that people will care about in 50 years.

            People will care about bad fake soul bands in 50 years? Michael Bolton without the personal hygiene is going to be relevant?

            1. Well, we’ll see. Personally I’m hoping that A-rod has to resort to gay porn to pay his bills a few years after retirement. I’m pretty sure he’s at least dumb enough to blow through all the money the Yankees are fellating him with, and we know he’s no where near smart enough to make any other life for himself in baseball once he can’t swing a bat anymore.

              And yes, I do think that some of the Black Crowes work will have a long shelf life. Not all of it, but some.

              1. I do think that some of the Black Crowes work will have a long shelf life.

                I hope not.

              2. I’m pretty sure he’s at least dumb enough to blow through all the money the Yankees are fellating him with

                How? By buying a basketball team? $300m is a lot of money even with all the taxes owed. Besides, as a gym rat that obsesses over his mechanics A-Rod’s always going to get work as a batting coach if he wants it.

                1. A fool and his money are easily parted. A-rod is a moron so eventually he’ll be hawking some cheesey product on late night infomercials.

                  Nobody likes A-rod and no one will ever hire A-Rod as a hitting coach.

                  1. Nobody likes A-rod and no one will ever hire A-Rod as a hitting coach.

                    If being liked was a prerequisite for employment than Todd Haley would have never gotten another job. Dickhead coaches get hired all the time; just keep him away from the cameras.

                    You also forget how insular the Steinbrothers are. If A-Rod is hurting there will be a spot open somewhere in Yankeeland.

            2. Fake soul band? I’m guessing you have never listened to any Black Crowes other than what comes on the radio otherwise you would realize what a ridiculous statement that is. Of course this is coming from the guy who considers the 60’s/70’s to be the apex of American pop culture.

              1. So, in other words, the Black Crowes stuff they wanted us to hear wasn’t that good, you have to buy the CD to hear their best?

                That’s not a very good strategy, to my way of thinking.

              2. Yeah fake soul band. I have hard all of it and it sucks. It is like they wanted to be the Allman Brothers but they just were not talented or cool enough. Terrible band. Why would anyone listen to that shit when you can listen to the real thing?

          2. I need a remedy for that lousy song on the radio.

        2. What’s worse: Black Crowes + A-Rod stank, or Counting Crows + David Arquette stank?

          1. Is this a trick question?

    3. She’s a pathetic whore, who like her mother, makes her money by portraying the most stereotypical women imaginable.

  2. Talentless Hollywood bimbos for Obama!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..paign.html

  3. Victoria’s Secret catalogue!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..nsloo.html

    1. Does Miranda Kerr look a bit like Jessie Andrews, or is that just me?

      1. I don’t know what she looks like, but it ain’t human. Something of Avatar maybe? I dunno. She’s got one messed up face.

        1. From what I can see, the level of digital processing the catalog is about the same as in Avatar, for what that’s worth.

          1. I wouldn’t mind doing a close comparison/inspection. In fact, I might even volunteer for that.

  4. John has a kindred spirit!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-porn.html

  5. 23yr old woman assaults cop with stiletto. I like her already!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-feud.html

  6. The annual price tag for federal regulations is $1.8 trillion, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

    WORTH EVERY CENT.

    1. Hey, TOP MEN created them…uh, Roads! er…SOMALIA!!!

    2. At ~300M people, that is $6000 each.

  7. Why the fuck would someone date Courtney Love? It doesn’t get much trashier than that. Sorry Kurt, but I can understand why you killed yourself. If I was stuck with that woman I’d probably have done the same thing.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..y-man.html

    1. Good lord, I can’t imagine the baggage…

  8. 1,000 years of war in five minutes. Pretty cool. Europeans sure like to kill each other.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..nutes.html

    1. I think the European wars are simply better documented.

      1. They also seem to have almost entirely skipped over the American Civil War. Methinks the video is simply very Euro-centric.

    2. Racist!!!

      It left out a lot of non-European battles.

      1. It shows a completely peaceful pre-Columbian Western Hemisphere. Maybe White Indian made it.

    3. apparently there were no wars in the Americans from 1000-1500.

      1. No wars that mattered, anyway.

        1. Indeed – the Aztecs didn’t leave too many survivors to talk about anything.

        2. The dead Indians beg to differ.

          1. I’m sure they’ll vote for Obama in protest.

  9. John has a kindred spirit!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-porn.html

  10. Hobbit trailer. I think I just saw the entire movie.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..ollum.html

  11. Yes, it’s meant as a political jab. A pretty good one.

    I kind of wish the House spent all its time on biting political jabs.

  12. John won the lottery?
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-porn.html

  13. Eric Holder is quite upset over the whole affair.

    How quite upset? And how quickly did he get upset? (Follow the dots.)

    1. His expression of upset does not indicate knowledge of any events that should be pointed to as a cause of said upset.

      /DoJ spokesdrone

    2. I’m sure he’ll take responsibility for the actions of his people and offer his resignation.

      1. I’m hoping the guys who took the fall for Holder are sufficiently upset to press the issue.

        1. I think it has been arranged that they will “fall” into a nice partnership in an appropriate TEAM BLUE law firm or think tank or the like.

          1. “Why, Jerry, that would be *illegal*!”

  14. The old woman who gave us the Spanish monkey Jesus now wants royalties

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/wor…..nts-to-sue

    1. This is an interesting case. The lady ruins an old painting, which would seem to nullify any monetary rights she may have had, but the new thing she created is suddenly more of a reason to visit this town than ever. I’m gonna have to side with her getting a small share of the profits.

  15. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-porn.html
    John won the lottery?

    1. I’ll take your word for it.

      1. Nullius in verba, my dear odorous friend

    2. She looks like something out of Lord of the Rings, and the not the good guys.

      1. Gollum’s red-headed step-child?

        Thank The Creator for Amy Adams. She makes up for a lot of those abominations known as gingers.

        1. Redheads are almost never just okay. They are either Amy Adams gorgeous or scary.

          1. John, I think a man could live a pretty good life using that bit of wisdom.

      2. Saruman has crossed orcs with tomatoes! The monster!

    3. It looks like you SF’ed the link. I got a picture of Nicholson as The Joker.

    4. Wow, that first picture… terrifying.

    5. Carrot Top has a sister?

  16. Am I the one person who doesn’t get the point of the “OMG! I masturbate to these photos on the Daily Mail!” link-bombing that invariably takes place on all these Morning Links posts?

    1. Some consider it a public service.

    2. You’re not the only one.

    3. Geez man, I’m not even on your lawn.

      1. Get off it anyway.

    4. I don’t click the links myself, but they do serve as Jezzie repellent.

    5. No, you’re not.

  17. The U.S. government grudgingly concedes that the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack and not a spontaneous protest.

    In their defense, the initial false talking points were meant to save Patriot Day.

    1. Why would anyone think it wasn’t spontaneious? It’s not like 9/11 was some important date or something!

    1. Just wait until you reach the 33rd degree. [shudder]

      1. No revealing Warty secrets!

        1. Then make him put on some pants. [super-shudder]

          1. As if human pants fit me.

            1. “He gonna be like the Hulk, just ripping out the back of his pants.”

      2. Might give it a miss, thanks Mr Free. The golden rule: stop it if it draws blood

        1. Huh. Aussies have the no blood no foul rule, too?

    2. the parents of some pupils have come out in support of the priest. In a letter of defence they claimed that the whipped cream was actually shaving foam and nobody was forced to eat it.

      Alrighty then.

  18. Six million Americans are expected to be tapped for the Obamacare penalty/tax/whatever the hell, say congressional budget analysts.

    Good luck using that in the debates, Governor Romney.

  19. “He mailed your head to the floor?”
    “At first, yes. He was a cruel man, but fair.”

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

    1. Our first sign that Daily Mail syndrome is neuro-degenerative.

      1. jeez, one typo and you go to town. It’s late and I’m tired. Honest… I ran out of gas. I… I had a flat tire. I didn’t have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn’t come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! IT WASN’T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!

  20. The Buffet Rule Act

    See, that’s comedy.

  21. Six million Americans are expected to be tapped for the Obamacare penalty/tax/whatever the hell, say congressional budget analysts.

    SOCIAL JUSTICE

  22. PHOENIX — The results of a surprising new poll in the U.S. Senate race were released Wednesday showing Democrat Richard Carmona beating his Republican rival.

    The survey, which was conducted by a GOP-friendly firm, shows Carmona holding a 5-point edge over Jeff Flake.

    Heading into the race, Flake was considered the heavy favorite to win in a state where Republicans hold a comfortable registration advantage over Democrats.

    http://www.azfamily.com/news/P…..32726.html

    1. “Congressman Flake has tried to claim the ‘conservative’ mantel, but my dad’s brand of conservatism is not reflected by Flake or the modern-day Republican Party,” said Joanne Goldwater in a statement released by the Carmona campaign.

      http://azstarnet.com/news/blog…..f887a.html

      1. What brand of conservatism is that, the one the Democrats portrayed in the 1964 election as blowing up the world in a nuclear war ?

      2. Did we not already know that the Goldwater children fell too far from the tree?

        1. Perhaps they fell from too great a height.

          1. It’s the position upon impact that did her in, I think.

  23. Italy’s highest criminal court upheld the convictions, in absentia, of 23 Americans involved in the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program in which a victim was kidnapped from a Milan street.

    It took 23 CIA guys to snatch one dude? That’s the real crime.

    1. Probably 2 or 3 guys caught him and the other 20 toured Rome and ate expensive meals.

      1. Well, I hope they got their fill of Italy, because I seriously doubt any of them will ever be going back, unless they’re completely retarded.

        1. Lots of other countries with nice resorts and people who need kidnapping still out there

    2. Government efficencies. Somewhere south of Rome, the Mafia is laughing.

  24. the Buffett Rule Act, would ease the way for Americans concerned about the terrible plight of the federal government to donate above and beyond their tax liability.

    I eagerly await the IRS’ announcement of the amount raked in.

    1. How hard is it now to write a check to the Treasury?

      1. It was introduced by the Republicans.

  25. Save your pennies! The annual price tag for federal regulations is $1.8 trillion, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

    What approved container must I buy to follow this save penny mandate, Desmond?

    1. I throw away my pennies. I can’t be bothered anymore.

      1. You got tired of throwing them away by the time you started typing that second sentence?

        1. No, he leaves them lie on the ground for his child labor to scoop up and use to buy food for themselves – then they can get back to monocle polishing and top hat stitching.

          1. Heh. You said, “monocle polishing”.

        2. Type? Type?!?! I, sir, dictate to the nimblest fingers of my child slaves, er…employees whilst they are chained to their desks voluntarily under my care!

          1. You should consider firing (or the stricken-through equivalent) them, they’re trying to undermine you by using a strikethrough tag instead of deleting the text when you bellow “strike that!”

  26. Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, said there was “nothing wrong with this bill except the label.” The bill, he said, has “zero to do with the Buffett rule. It has everything to do with the absolute refusal of Republicans to face the basic issue,” the level of taxes that the wealthy pay.

    The label should be crafted to allow for it to be turned into an acronym. The Put All Those Riches Into Our Treasury If Caring Act, or something.

    1. I’m always impressed by people who can turn words into the names of acts.

      I have a lot of verbal and text skills, but can’t do that. The whole anagram thing escapes me, too. I tend to think these are related.

      1. They should just hire New York Post headline writers.

      2. I’m always impressed by people who can turn words into the names of acts.

        Don’t be. I’m sure they have highly-paid committees to do that.

        1. Fist has a highly paid committee? I doubt that. He’s far too cheap to pay anyone highly, except the hookers.

          1. I outsource my acronyms to South Korea, just like my solicitation.

            1. So what will be the content of the GANGNAM STYLE Act bill?

              1. Something to do with coffee, for sure.

  27. http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..FsXXKDdkVg

    Obama revealed to have grown up rich and to be (gasp) nothing but a thieving Chicago machine politician. This explanation always made more sense the the DeSouse he hates America one. If Obama was such an anti-imperialist, he would give a shit about Africa. As it is he gives a shit about one thing, looting as much as possible for his supporters.

    1. I eagerly await multiple H R posts on these revelations.

      1. That might be a long wait.

        1. So you’re still complaining about some perceived imbalance between the Romney/Obama coverage?

          1. We will see if they put it up.

  28. Over at Jezebel, Lindy West is right for a change. Sad, creepy virgin overshares, marries way out of his league.

    1. There are people who get to accuse that guy of oversharing and judging, but Lindy West isn’t one of them.

      1. Still, though, what a smug, vomit-inducing charade.

        1. You’re just mad he called you a mimbo. I would be too–that is a way uglier word than harlot.

    2. I have no way of determining this because anyone who puts up 47 gifs as a form of “comedy” sucks.

      1. The really twisted thing is the original poster is allegedly a comedian too. So it’s people-who-think-they’re-funny all the way down.

        Click through far enough to see the original article. The dude looks like… the kind of person you’d expect to make abstinence his primary hobby, and his wife is actually pretty hot.

        1. I looked up of Crowder’s alleged comedy. Pfft. The strained humor of the ideologue. He’s like a live action political cartoon.

          1. Maybe he’ll loosen up now he’s gotten laid for Baby Jesus

    3. It’s not so much that she’s right, as that nothing could be weirder about a dude who’s proud of being a virgin. Fuck, you moron, have the decency to be ashamed about it like everyone else was.

      1. I get what you’re saying, but my ire against the “La la la, I’m proud to be a virgin!” crowd is steadily decreasing, the more I am subjected to the “My lifestyle and sexual choices haven’t worked out for me, and I BLAME SOCIETY!” crowd that predominates at Jezebel and in the manosphere.

        1. I just don’t care what you do with your genitalia, no matter who you are. Shut up about it. Quit sharing, quit talking, and find something else to obsess about.

          Exceptions can be made for humorously traumatic incidents and pr0n.

    4. I don’t understand why it’s not okay to “slut shame” but it’s okay to “virgin shame”.

      1. Sluts provide useful services, dude.

        1. Making sure everyone else has as diseased a penis as you do?

          1. Warty doesn’t have a penis anymore – it’s a sort of erectile carbuncle.

          2. Burn off the warts with cigarettes, kill the syphilis with the penicillin, and laugh at the herpes’ pathetic attempts to harm you. It’s not such a big deal, you giant baby.

  29. I love how Fast and Furious results in some under secretary resigning three months before he was going to lose his job anyway is somehow dealing with the situation. And the IG never saw the White House documents.

    1. Most transparent administration EVER! EVER, I say!!

  30. http://weaselzippers.us/2012/0…..f-himself/

    Behold the world’s creepiest tweet. How did this guy think this was a good idea?

      1. Someone did a photoshop of it which I can’t find sadly. The caption is

        “Missing cub scouts? Don’t know nothing about it”.

    1. Here’s what amazes me: Mittens can’t curb stomp these idjits into electoral oblivion. Anybody who thinks this picture was a good idea shouldn’t be managing a campaign for dogcatcher in Bugscuffle.

      1. Jesus himself couldn’t do that. There is about 45% of the country that looks at the picture and thinks it was a great idea.

        1. That comment is going to cost you the election.

  31. I wonder if the penalty for “civilian” hitting two policemen on the side of the road with his car is the same as what a NC police chief will get for doing the same to two suspects.

    Hint: it wouldn’t be.

    1. Swisher said Gamble will have to complete a precision driving course.

      There is nothing that can’t be fixed with training.

      Gamble was driving about 20 mph when the suspects were hit.

      Being that a policeman would have shot and killed the driver of the vehicle for fear of his life, I assume that the cop will be charged with attempted murder.

      Haaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha! Please tip the waitress.

    2. Hint: it wouldn’t be.

      At least give me a chance to guess before you give me the answer.

      after his patrol car hit two handcuffed suspects sitting beside a road earlier this year.

      So his car just hit these suspects through no fault of his own?

  32. “Congressman Flake has tried to claim the ‘conservative’ mantel, but my dad’s brand of conservatism is not reflected by Flake or the modern-day Republican Party,” said Joanne Goldwater in a statement released by the Carmona campaign.

    But what does Ted Williams’ frozen head say?

    1. “But what does Ted Williams’ frozen head say?”

      Can somebody set me upright and back on my perch?

      1. That the the average voter is as drunk and stupid as ever, i would guess. It’s a popular sentiment amongst the bodiless heads, I hear.

  33. Saw this over at national review. nice to know I’m not alone in feeling this way:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..m-geraghty

    “Democratic pollster Peter Hart and Republican pollster Bill McInturff conducted the NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey and isolated the respondents whom they classified as “up for grabs” ? either undecided or leaning only slightly to one of the candidates. Several demographic indicators suggest that the remaining voters are ripe for the picking for Romney: 68 percent are white, 57 percent are married, 53 percent are men, 70 percent think the country is headed in the wrong direction, and 60 percent disapprove of how Obama is doing his job.

    “They suck lemons,” Hart said with a chuckle on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown on Wednesday morning. “I mean, they are the sourest people I have ever ? beyond really negative. ‘Neither’ is their favorite answer. . . . We’re talking about ‘up for grabs’ people, but in reality, a lot of these people are not going to vote.”

    1. “But white, married men who hate Obama and think the country is headed in the wrong direction were supposed to vote for us no matter what kind of asshole we nominated! That’s the fucking deal! How dare they defy us?” #GopRage

      1. They generally are.

    2. Are these pollsters required to only list the two major candidates?

  34. the remaining voters are ripe for the picking for Romney: 68 percent are white, 57 percent are married, 53 percent are men, 70 percent think the country is headed in the wrong direction, and 60 percent disapprove of how Obama is doing his job.

    In other words,

  35. What do you mean tazering a suspect 15 times, some of them up to 28 seconds long, can result in a heart attack and death? I guess the guy will need some more training in UOF on a guy with obvious mental issues that called for their help.

    Also, this is FTA: Results of Neill’s autopsy show he died of cardiac dysrhythmia, or abnormal heartbeat.

    Lancaster County Coroner Dr. Stephen Diamantoni has said his office could not determine what caused the cardiac dysrhythmia. There was no alcohol or illicit drugs in Neill’s system, according to a toxicology screening.

    Yeah, I’m not too sure that coroner is in the right line of work. Somebody might want to look and see if he actually has a medical license.

    1. Coroner is different from medical examiner. They can usually find out what happened, but typically are not able to make the jump to what the root cause was.

      Example:
      Body found with smashed in skull. Coroner would say “blunt trauma to the head”; medical examiner could probably make the guess as to what type of weapon was used.

      1. If the Lancaster County coroner, Dr Steve Diamantoni, MD, can’t put two and two together and come up with four, then he’s not deserving of the job.

        “Man intentionally electrocuted 15 times, some of them up to 28 seconds in duration, has a heart that goes crazy on the scene and dies. Gee, what could have caused his heart to go crazy? I guess we’ll never know.”

  36. Drat you, Skwurlz!

    the remaining voters are ripe for the picking for Romney: 68 percent are white, 57 percent are married, 53 percent are men, 70 percent think the country is headed in the wrong direction, and 60 percent disapprove of how Obama is doing his job.

    In other words,

    RAAAAAACCIIIIIIIISTS!

  37. http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..n-scandal/

    Apparently White House aides were getting it on with hookers in Columbia with the Secret Service as well. Human trafficking rules are for the little people.

    1. To be fair, the hookers (and Colombian women in general) are/were hot

  38. “U.S. government grudgingly admits Pearl Harbor Raid a planned military action.”

  39. http://bostonherald.com/news/p…..1061161664

    Brown pulling ahead of Warren in Mass Senate race. Her losing is just going to be wonderful.

    1. I’ll keep my fingers crossed…

      But Obama may have even bigger coattails in Massachusetts than people think, and his coattails there run from Fenway to Amherst, at least.

      1. Brown is currently getting 22% of Obama supporters. If that holds, she is done. And I am not sure Obma has any coattails anywhere. The only state races Dems are winning are places like Missouri where the R candidate is terrible. Meanwhile Republicans are winning in places like Connecticut.

        1. Like I said, I hope so.

          I’ll believe it when I see it.

        2. Warren’s ads are unwatchably bad. They condescend and seem intended to raise the blood pressure of anyone with an IQ 90.

          I would be surprised if wins comfortably. She might eke out a marginal victory, if she’s lucky, but my money is on her losing by a small margin.

          1. I spent a long weekend on the Cape this summer. I saw her ads. They were horrible. The ones about student loans were especially infuriating. Does she think people have forgotten she works for one of the most expensive schools in the world?

          2. They condescend and seem intended to raise the blood pressure of anyone with an IQ 90.

            You mean they’re aimed at the local police officers?

    2. It’s closer than I’m comfortable with.

      The whole Cherokee thing happened too early.

      1. It wouldn’t have mattered when it came out. The media covered up for her.

        1. Dude,

          The whole Cherokee thing is a running gag here.

          I’m serious, there’s a slow drip of laughter at her hapless flailing on the issue.

          1. Then maybe it is better it came out early. Had it come out late, the media could have more effectively covered it up. As it is, it has slowly caught on.

      2. Dunno, Fluffy.

        By happening early, it has been a suppurating wound on her campaign, and the early denials/coverups have aged out.

        I’ve been amazed that the conversation has apparently only just now gotten to looking at the actual federal definition for affac “minorities”, which she plainly doesn’t meet. There was fraud committed somewhere along the line, either by her, or Harvard, or both.

  40. ‘Neither’ is their favorite answer.

    ERROR! ERROR! ANALYZE!

    ANALYYYYYYYYYYZE!

  41. Six million Americans are expected to be tapped for the Obamacare penalty/tax/whatever the hell, say congressional budget analysts.

    Despite what his campaign is saying about Romney, my guess is that Obama’s really happy about that.

    Since Obama thinks that people who are too poor to buy health insurance are all a bunch of blood sucking parasites.

  42. http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..or-attack/

    Ex GUITMO detainee behind Libya attack.

    1. Perhaps *NOW* you’ll support indefinite detention?!

    2. If Bush Jr. had treated them all like POWs (even if they weren’t), that ex-Guitmo detainee would still be in a POW camps. …’cause you don’t need a trial to detain POWs. And you don’t have to release them until hostilities cease.

      But noooOOOooo. Bush had to advance some novel legal theories.

      That’s just further evidence of the Bush Administration’s profound incompetence.

      1. No. He shouldn’t have treated them like POWs. Those assholes are not POWS. You have to wear a uniform and abide by the laws of war to get POW status.

        Bush Jr. should have told the Dems to go fuck themselves, held military tribunals and hung this asshole as the criminal he is.

        1. There isn’t any law against treating them like POWS if they’re captured on a battlefield.

          He could have treated them AS IF they were POWs if he wanted to…

          And he chose not to! Why?

          1) Because he wanted to interrogate in ways that the Geneva Conventions would allow.

          2) Because he wanted to continue to hold them after hostilities ceased.

          As a result of his foolish attempts at novel legal theories…

          1) His interrogation methods became public and disgraced our war efforts both here at home with average Americans–and in the battle zones where we were trying to win hearts and minds away from various insurgencies

          2) He was forced to release many of them BEFORE hostilities ceased!

          That’s called doing a shitty job.

          See what he tried to do in objective 1)? That’s an abysmal failure.

          See what he tried to do in objective 2)? That’s an abysmal failure, too.

          If he’d done the smart thing, and treated them like POWs regardless, he would have succeeded in both of those objectives.

          How are we gonna avoid such stupid mistakes in the future if we refuse to acknowledge the ones we made in the past? Bush’s stupid policies forced us to release terrorists into the wild–and those policies were chosen! …not forced upon us.

          1. Yep. Bush was just trying to be a nice guy. The standing order should have been: If you capture an irregular combatant on a battlefield, summary execution.

            1. That would have been a war crime, too.

              Not qualifying for POW status makes you subject to the UCMJ. It doesn’t mean any corporal who catches you can just shoot you.

              The ludicrous thing about what the Bush administration did is that we already had a series of mechanisms for dealing with people who don’t qualify for POW status, and they (extralegally) decided not to use it.

            2. Again, nothing gets occupied peoples to accept occupation like war crimes.

              If he had treated them like POWs, they’d still be in a POW camp somewhere.

              What exactly was treating them like something OTHER than POWs supposed to achieve anyway?

              1) Allow elaborate interrogation methods like waterboarding.

              2) Keep them detained after hostilities ceased.

              Both objectives blew up in Bush’s face–and ended up hurting the war effort. The detention photos of our interrogation methods helped ensure that the locals would never accept occupation, and he ended up being forced to release terrorists before hostilities ceased!

              That’s what incompetence looks like.

              1. Hey, I’m not saying Bush did the right thing. It was a shitty decision to have to make and there was no good alternative. What do you propose as an alterntaive? Indefinate detention? That would be better?

                1. What do you propose as an alterntaive? Indefinate detention? That would be better?

                  There were/are only two options.

                  1. They are war criminals. Charge them, try them and let a jury decide their fate.

                  2. They are POWs with all the benefits thereof.

                  If you want to do something else, get Congress to agree on a new status.

            3. I’m not sure about this particular individual, but the overwhelming majority of the Guitmo detainees weren’t captured on the battlefield.

          2. There isn’t any law against treating them like POWS if they’re captured on a battlefield.

            Yes there is. It is called Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions. To get POW status you have to abide by the law war. To give these people POW status would have not only been illegal, it would have been pissing on everyone uniformed soldier in the world and telling the world the laws of war don’t matter.

            Treating them like POWs would have been the absolute dumbest thing to do. There is a system for dealing with these people. It has worked for over a century. You have a tribunal determine if they were fighting lawfully. If they were not, you then have another tribunal to determine if they committed a crime and then deal with them accordingly. You do not ignore the laws of war and treat criminals as POWs.

            1. Who did we declare war against again?

              1. The government of Afghanistan. We also had a UNSC resolution authorizing any country to make war against Al Quada.

                You know that legality of it. Denying it just makes you look stupid and uniformed.

                1. The government of Afghanistan.

                  False. Find the text that declares war against the nation of Afghanistan.

                  We also had a UNSC resolution authorizing any country to make war against Al Quada.

                  Also false.

                  You know that legality of it.

                  I don’t, and apparently neither do you.

                  1. False. Find the text that declares war against the nation of Afghanistan.

                    It is called the authorization for the use of force that was passed in September of 2001. The fact that it didn’t say “declaration of war” doesn’t make it invalid and you know it.

                    1. It is called the authorization for the use of force that was passed in September of 2001. The fact that it didn’t say “declaration of war” doesn’t make it invalid and you know it.

                      You said that the United States declared war against “the government of Afghanistan”.

                      Go find that declaration, please.

                2. Denying it just makes you look stupid and uniformed.

                  Well, at least he gets the protections of the Conventions that way.

                  1. Well, at least he gets the protections of the Conventions that way.

                    Maybe you can use your google-fu and find the Declaration of War against the Nation of Afghanistan.

                    Unless Google spider-crawls through John’s ass, I doubt you’ll find it.

                    1. Yes you will and you know it Randian. That say the Congressional Authorization is not a declaration of war for the purposes of international law is a completely fucking retarded argument.

                    2. Randian,
                      In your everlasting desire to argue against everyone, you have completely misread T’s statement.

                      Let me help:

                      Denying it just makes you look stupid and uniformed.

                      Well, at least he gets the protections of the Conventions that way.

                      I chuckled, T.

            2. Right, but we didn’t do that.

              First of all, anyone apprehended in an area not subject to military justice is immediately subject to the criminal law in place in the area where they are apprehended. We just ignored that, to declare the whole world subject to military justice.

              But after that, we refused to even subject these prisoners to military justice, until after we had rewritten the law to try to deny them even the rights they possessed under military law. The federal government can’t apply retroactive law, either under the criminal law or under military law.

              And even after we had rewritten the law and declared that we would apply retroactive law, we still haven’t applied it. And Obama has declared that even if suspects aren’t convicted under our illegal post-hoc tribunal system, we still won’t let them go.

              1. None of that is true.

                First, the UCMJ is not military law. It is a Congressional statute passed to deal with our own soldiers. It is not international law. There is nothing to say we can’t make other rules for military tribunals. In fact the world does it all of the time. The rules for the Court in the Hague or for the war crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia look nothing like the UCMJ.

                Second, we did pass a military tribunal law which was really fucking liberal by international standards. But Bush never used it because of political pressure and people like you throwing a fit. That was the mistake Bush made. He should have had tribunals. But to blame him for that when civil libertarians were the ones throwing a fit about it at the time is a bit fucking rich.

                I have explained this about a hundred fucking times on here. And you guys continue put out the same erroneous bullshit. It is like you don’t want to know the truth or understanding anything.

                1. No, dude.

                  The Geneva Conventions make it plain that anyone not eligible for POW status is subject to the criminal laws of the jurisdiction where they commit their acts.

                  So if someone fights you as an irregular in Afghanistan, they are subject to the criminal law of Afghanistan if they don’t qualify for POW status.

                  If there is no civilian government capable of applying criminal law (as there wasn’t for a period of time in Afghanistan), then the suspect is subject to military law.

                  When the military invades a country and takes over direct administration of a geographic area, it is responsible for policing that area. Do you think that in areas administered directly by the US military, suddenly plain old vanilla crimes like robbery and rape suddenly aren’t policed?

                  1. Yes, fluffy you try them in a military tribunal. Those things that I keep saying Bush should have done but didn’t.

                    You just restated exactly what I am saying.

            3. Yes there is. It is called Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions. To get POW status you have to abide by the law war.

              There isn’t anything in the Geneva Conventions that prohibits the president from treating people captured on the battlefield as POWs.

              He could have treated them any way he wanted to–and based on outcomes, he chose to treat them in the most idiotic way possible.

              If he’d chosen to treat them as POWs, all those terrorists would still be in a POW camp!

              1. Yes there is. It is called Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions. To get POW status you have to abide by the law war.

                There are millions of things in the world that are both perfectly legal and profoundly stupid.

                This is probably what was wrong with the Bush Administration in a nutshell: whenever you asked them whether what they were doing was stupid, they always answered with the observation that the stupid thing they were doing was perfectly legal.

                There isn’t anything in the Geneva Conventions against treating people better than they deserve–and if it was in our best interests to treat them better than they deserved, then that’s what we should have done!

                This isn’t rocket science.

                1. But the answer can never be that the Cheney Administration was incompetent.

                  The stupid things the Bush Administration did can’t have been stupid–they just couldn’t have been!

                  Because, because…

                  Am I supposed to think the stupid shit the Bush Administration did with originating TARP, am I supposed to pretend that wasn’t stupid, too? Or is it only in relation to Iraq and terrorism that whatever Bush did has to, by definition, be entirely ingenious?

                  1. But the answer can never be that the Cheney Administration was incompetent.

                    Sure it is. They were totally incompetent for not having military tribunals. I have only said that about a thousand times on here.

                    Are you that fucking stupid Ken or just that dishonest?

              2. If we had tried them as criminals Ken, they would be convicted and hung or locked up. And the problem with declaring them POWs is that they never get a trial. They just get locked up. And some of those guys were innocent. Some of them were guilty of very minor crimes. Not all of them deserved to be locked up forever.

                That is why you have tribunals and don’t treat people like this as POWs. It is not just that the bad ones don’t deserve POW status, it is also that you will have some that are innocent and also don’t deserve to be locked up forever.

                1. Then why are you on here whinging about this particular case? They lacked evidence and let him go, ergo “treated him as an (alleged) criminal”.

                  If we had tried them as criminals Ken, they would be convicted and hung or locked up

                  Or let go.

                  Oh wait, never mind. I forgot that declared Terrorists get to go into the Black Hole forever and ever amen.

                  1. Or let go.

                    Oh wait, never mind. I forgot that declared Terrorists get to go into the Black Hole forever and ever amen.

                    Did you not notice the rest of the post dickhead? Let me repost it for you.

                    nd the problem with declaring them POWs is that they never get a trial. They just get locked up. And some of those guys were innocent. Some of them were guilty of very minor crimes. Not all of them deserved to be locked up forever.

                    I made that exact point. It is not so much that you are silly and ignorant about this subject Randian. You are most certainly that. It is more that you like the fact that you are and have no interest in being anything but ignorant about it. That makes you a troll.

                    1. John, if you support them being let go on the basis of “not enough evidence”, then why are you crying over the guy allegedly behind the Libya attacks?

                    2. Because we didn’t let him go Randian. We just gave him to the Libyans and told them to lock him up, which was really stupid.

                      If this guy had been tried in a tribunal and cleared or served his time, then I would have no complaint.

                    3. He was Libyan, John.

                      I really don’t understand your problem here. He was cleared pre-trial, which happens all the time, and we sent him home with a warning to the Libyans that they may want to take an extra-hard look at this guy (*wink wink*).

                      I fail to see how that is ‘stupid’.

                    4. He wasn’t cleared. We gave him to the Libyans on the condition he stay in jail there. We didn’t turn him loose.

                2. And the problem with declaring them POWs is that they never get a trial. They just get locked up. And some of those guys were innocent. Some of them were guilty of very minor crimes. Not all of them deserved to be locked up forever.

                  There isn’t anything in the Geneva Conventions against trying POWs for war crimes–to the contrary!

                  There isn’t anything there against releasing people before hostilities are over either–if that’s what you want to do.

                  The main “advantage” in declaring them noncombatants was in the way you get to interrogate them. What they did with interrogation took the air right out of the war effort. Their interrogation efforts were probably the most incompetent thing they ever did…

                  The Bush Administration in its interrogation methods managed to create sympathy in the world for fucking terrorists!

                  I didn’t think that was possible! But that’s what the Bush Administration did.

                  1. The main “advantage” in declaring them noncombatants…

                    *EDIT*

                    “The main ‘advantage’ in declaring them [non-POWs]…”

                    But you probably already knew that.

                  2. The main “advantage” in declaring them noncombatants was in the way you get to interrogate them. What they did with interrogation took the air right out of the war effort. Their interrogation efforts were probably the most incompetent thing they ever did…

                    That is a total non sequiter. Just because the Bush administration fucked up the interrogation doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have interrogated at all, just not the way they did. And the fact that they didn’t interrogate properly doesn’t mean they should have ignored international law and declared illegal and non combatants POWs

                    Again, we have a system here. Bush should have used it.

                    1. So, John, you want the AUMF to serve as a declaration of war against “persons” and “networks”, but you then want to deny them the protections of war.

              3. There isn’t anything in the Geneva Conventions that prohibits the president from treating people captured on the battlefield as POWs.

                Yes there is. Not everyone you police up on the battlefield is a criminal or a combatant. If you just unilaterally declare people to be POWs and lock them up, you are going to be locking up some innocent people. And that is illegal.

          3. 4/5 would read again

      2. You are right, of course. Bush was just being a pussy. These ‘irregulars’ aren’t covered under the rules of war and should have been shot on the battlefield.

        1. What about the ones who weren’t so much found on a “battlefield” as they were found “on a street in Italy”?

        2. You are right, of course. Bush was just being a pussy. These ‘irregulars’ aren’t covered under the rules of war and should have been shot on the battlefield.

          Yeah, gets occupied peoples to accept an occupation like war crimes.

    3. Well if he wasn’t radicalized before the waterboarding, he sure is now…

  43. In other words,
    RAAAAAACCIIIIIIIISTS!

    I think I was 17 the first time I was called a racist. That word has lost all meaning for me.

  44. Ex GUITMO detainee behind Libya attack.

    If I had been kidnapped and held for years in an island prison, you can bet your ass I would seek revenge if I got out.

    1. Yeah Brooks. I am sure he was just a law abiding guy before he was captured. He probably taught Sunday School or something.

      We know. the US is responsible for all evil in the world.

      1. The flip side of that is that if you don’t have sufficient evidence to convict someone as a criminal, letting them go doesn’t turn into the wrong decision if they commit a crime later.

        We shouldn’t let anyone found not guilty go, if that decision is always reflexively invalidated if they commit a crime later.

        1. Except we didn’t let him go. We turned him over to the Libyans on the condition they kept him in jail. The Libyans then turned him lose in a trade with the rebels.

          We had plenty of evidence and knew this guy was a criminal.

          1. Well, shucks.
            How were we supposed to know that containing dangerous terrorsits wasn’t Qaddafly’s #1 priority!

          2. Well, then, there’s even less reason to find fault with the decision.

            You can’t say “This guy was released and now look what happened!” when he wasn’t even released.

            1. Except that giving a terrorist to a known sponsor or terrorism was pretty fucking stupid. It would be like turning over a Soviet Spy to the old soviet union and then being surprised they let him out of jail despite his crimes in America.

              1. I was thinking more along the lines of turning Abu Nidal over to the Italian govt…

          3. I submit that “sending him to Libya” and “letting him go” are functional equivalents.

            Those are the people who threw a party for the Lockerbie bomber, after all.

            1. It depends on whether he was an enemy or servant of the regime.

              Sending someone Qaddafi didn’t like to Libya strikes me as an effective way to get that person punished.

              Naturally when you do that you’re taking a chance that someone might storm the Bastille and let the guy go.

              If the government of Afghanistan falls tomorrow, there are probably lots of guys the Afghanis are currently torturing for us who will get busted out of jail. That doesn’t exactly mean that turning people over to the Afghanis for torture is lenient treatment.

        2. So, if they let him go, they didn’t have enough evidence to bring him to trial, right? Yeah — that’s an easy call. Let ‘im go.

          1. Ah. So why didn’t we charge him? Guess I should RTFA

            1. No no, do not destroy the delicate bloom of ignorance!

          2. If only he had been an American citizen: then Obama could have ordered his death without due process. Bush was a dipshit.

  45. http://latimesblogs.latimes.co…..vreau.html

    This is an old picture. But it got posted on Instapundit today. I am not sure I have ever seen so much douche bag concentrated in one photo. Every time I see it, I notice something even more douchy about it. Who wears their “Obama Staff” T-shirt to a house party?

    1. I wish I could reach through my screen on punch at least one of those assholes.

    2. Who wears their “Obama Staff” T-shirt to a house party?

      Someone trying to pick up a girl with an eating disorder she calls veganism, a thatch of patchouli-drenched pubic hair the size of a bicycle seat and cries after sex in between bouts of vomiting on her dreadlocks.

      1. He said house party, not Phish show.

        1. In Obama’s America, all the white boy parties look the same.

    3. Jon Favreau writes Obama speeches? Huh.

      1. And makes 172K a year doing it. Yeah, our political class sucks that bad.

      2. Wrong Favreau, thank God.

    4. This is why I occasionally remark that Obama’s speeches sound like something a college undergrad would write–because that’s exactly what they are.

  46. Police officer, in pursuit of a drunk driver, hits and kills pedestrian. Cop did not have his siren or flashers activated. Also, it looks like they were camped out stalking drivers in the downtown area very late at night.

    1. Penny Lane owner Rob Cosaert said his workers have often seen deputies in the Restaurant Row parking lot watching for drunken drivers, then pull onto the road with headlights off so the other driver isn’t immediately aware of being followed. He said it made Malacara nervous about walking or bicycling home after work.

      That is real safe.

      1. No way dude. Aggressive DUI enforcement is the only thing preventing your drive home at night from turning into a demolition derby. That guy rolling down the road doing 30 while half in the bag is as much a threat to your safety as a man with an automatic rifle firing blindly into a crowd.*

        *Paraphrase of actual quote from some troll on this board.

        1. You don’t have to be tactful. Everyone knows that’s Tulpa.

          1. First sentence was, second one wasn’t a regular. I think it was some dude from MADD that stumbled into a thread. I treated him respectfully, clearly I need to get my troll game up.

            1. No, Tulpa has said the “spinning around in public park wearing a blindfold and firing a rifle” line many times.

              And he wasn’t joking, either, because commenting here is very serious business and there’s no place for glibness.

              1. By the way…

                Tulpa| 12.31.10 @ 1:53PM |#

                I take it you think it should be legal to stand in the middle of a park, spin around a few times, and then fire a bullet in whatever direction you’re facing.

                After all, there’s a chance the bullet won’t hit anyone or their property.

                1. Shoulda figured he put out that canard at one time or another. Between that guy’s choice of car and attitudes about traffic enforcement, I have to assume that he is one of the most tentative drivers in the history of mankind, the sort that I make it a point to cut off so that they might be sufficiently scared to never get behind the wheel again.

        2. I’m outraged that you use the tired clich? of an automatic-weapon-wielding man in a pejorative fashion! It is well known that the vast majority of automatic weapon owners in this country are law abiding, stable professionals who would never fire blindly into a crowd.

      2. I have noticed some bizarrely unsafe practices like this. It was several months ago now, but I was on Lakeshore Drive in the left lane, and there are lots of spots where cops use the median to sit and watch for speeders. I had one pull out of the median and onto the road to go after some guy in front of me, no lights or flashers, and without actually looking to see that I was coming right at him. It was completely terrifying and ended in my coming to a dead stop in the fourth lane of an expressway (thank god no one was behind me), at which point the cop clearly laughs about how freaked out I had gotten before continuing on his way. I guess that makes it worth it even without the ticket he wrote the other guy.

        1. I worked with a guy in high school whose wife was severely injured by some ape doing a high speed chase. They are poorly trained, of low intelligence and even lower judgement.

          1. They have learned a little, a number of places have banned high speed chases except in extreme emergency circumstances.

  47. Police officer, in pursuit of a drunk driver, hits and kills pedestrian.

    I think we all know what happens next. The civilian subject of the pursuit will be charged with first degree murder.

    1. And the officer given a commendation for bravery.

    2. Only if they actually pulled him over and tagged him with a crime of sufficient severity.

      I didn’t see anything in the story about a subsequent arrest, but I did love this detail:

      Malacara died at the scene. [Officer} Stalzer suffered a minor scratch on one hand, Caldwell said.

      Awwww. Poor baby.

      1. Had the pedestrian lived I bet he’d been charged with assault on the police officer, and forced to fix the car.

    3. That’d be funny if it weren’t 100% accurate.

  48. It’s a damn good thing those noble policemen were out there making sure nobody was harmed by somebody who may have had a drink or two with dinner.

  49. Pittsburgh policeman found to have been molesting children on the job since 1999. Was suspended for 20 days when it first started happening, but the department kept him on duty and working at the same school. The pattern of abuse continues, and the stories have finally resulted in him being charged in a 23-count indictment.

    Way to go, Pittsburgh PD. You find an officer sexually molesting 12 and 13 year olds and your solution is to suspend him for 20 days and put him back to work in the same fucking school?

    Can you say “Sandusky II”?

    1. I am sure the media will cover it just like if it was the Catholic church. Funny how police departments and schools always get a pass for their sexual abuse problems.

    2. ATFPAPIC, you need to read the CONTRACT before you can properly ASSESS the situation.

    3. There’s obviously something wrong with Pennsylvania west of the Poconos. I blame fracking.

    4. The school board tonight voted 7-1 to accept his resignation

      What asshole wanted to keep him?

      1. I don’t know the details but it’s possible it was 7-1 in favor of letting him resign vs. firing him.

  50. These ‘irregulars’ aren’t covered under the rules of war and should have been shot on the battlefield.

    Or blown up at a wedding.

    1. Forget about pushing cake into the face…

  51. I maintain my low opinion of the Romney campaign. Can’t they even gin up a few quick reaction commericals, even if only for web release?

    Every day, there are headlines that make Obama look like an incompetent fool. Yet the Romney campaign doesn’t even seem to be trying to play off of them.

    And these aren’t high production value commercials that would be expensive or take any time. All you have to do is stitch together news footage. All the flopping around on the Middle East should be a goldmine.

    Sure, he’ll get attacked for it, but attacking him for it just draws attention to the ad, which, today, would be nothing more than footage of various administration apparatchiks making fools of themselves and being subsequently shown to be fools. Gosh, Romney wouldn’t want to draw attention that, would he?

    1. It’s like the campaign is actively trying to be as awful as possible.

    2. And why not an ad juxtaposing Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on the middle class with the report that 6mm people (many of them unemployed) will be slammed with the OCare tax?

      C’mon, guys. A 6th grader could do this.

  52. I don’t think you understand the definition of ‘irregular’. Or of ‘battlefield’, for that matter.

    I am 100% opposed to drone strikes. I’d rather let them hit us, and then hit back twice as hard, and without mercy.

  53. the department kept him on duty and working at the same school.

    Nothing says, “Social Contract” like paying some pig the union rate to sit in a school and ogle young girls’ (and boys’) asses all day.

    1. He was doing a bit more than ogling, apparently.

      1. I say ogling, you say stat rape, let’s call the whole thing off

  54. The authorities in Pakistan have called on the army to control protesters demonstrating against an amateur video mocking Islam outside the US embassy in the capital, Islamabad.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19660294

    Here we go again.

    1. Wasn’t the problem in Libya that a heavily armed and organized group of Islamists showed up at the protest? How is arranging the same thing supposed to help in Pakistan?

  55. footage of various administration apparatchiks making fools of themselves

    I’d have Apparatchik Numero Uno’s “Spread the Wealth Around” statement on an endless loop.

  56. “U.S. government grudgingly concedes attack on Fort Sumter a planned military action.”

  57. “Hug Me” Jesus replaces “Touchdown Jesus” which was destroyed by act of God:

    http://www.daytondailynews.com…..day/nSFct/

    My daughter says that if his hands were a bit lower, it would be “Suck It!” Jesus.

    1. Maybe Jesus just didn’t like the first statue.

  58. Jury deliberating raw-milk case against Stearns County farmer

    A Hennepin County jury will resume deliberating on Thursday whether a Stearns County farmer violated the state’s food safety laws when he distributed raw milk from an Amish farm to Twin Cities customers.

    Alvin Schlangen of Freeport is charged with three misdemeanor counts, including selling unpasteurized milk, operating without a food license and handling adulterated or misbranded food. After three days of trial, the jury began deliberating on Wednesday afternoon.

    Schlangen, an organic egg farmer, doesn’t produce milk himself but operates a private club called Freedom Farms Co-op with roughly 130 members who buy various farm products, including raw milk. Schlangen picks up milk products from an Amish farm and delivers them to members who lease the cows.

    http://www.startribune.com/local/170392636.html

  59. Why can’t I post?

    1. Anything from the news, that is.

    2. Why should I post?

  60. Aung San Suu Kyi, who has dedicated her life to opposing the dictatorial regime in Burma/Myanmar, finally got to collect her Congressional Gold Medal.

    Maybe Obama could give her his Nobel, too. She deserves 2 more than he deserves 1.

  61. A bizarre story of a potential murder of a lawyer that was ruled a suicide by a police department the victim was known to go after.

    A former officer is finally talking, and his words are pretty damning.

    1. Her feet were up on the dash and investigators said the house smelled of carbon monoxide.

      It smelled of a colorless, tasteless and odorless gas? Neat trick.

      1. That was my first thought. Also, did they not have a CO detector handy, because that could have been deadly to the officers if the house was full of CO, the windows were closed and they were walking around in it. Were any of them treated for CO poisoning symptoms on the scene?

        The whole thing astinks.

    2. A former officer is finally talking, and his words are pretty damning.

      How long before he commits suicide, I wonder.

  62. Has this shown up here?

    “Hey, Jeff, you’re in the doghouse.” He meant: with his wife.

    “Why?” I asked.

    “That Politico piece by your boss.”

    I was taken aback but tried to downplay the matter. “We just want the SEC to get its work done.”

    “Remember,” he said. “We all wear blue jerseys and play for the Blue Team. I just don’t think that helps.”

    RTFA

  63. Sometimes you just have to roll with it dude.

    http://www.PrivacyPros.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.