Election 2012

Barack Obama Approves Message That Mitt Romney Is 'not one of us'


Remember kids: It's really terrible to "other" your political opponents. Except when it's not!

As I wrote during the Democratic National Convention, the Democratic othering of Romney and Republicans has become central to their identity, to the point where one of the biggest applause lines from the party's opening-night keynote speaker was that "Mitt Romney, quite simply, doesn't get it."

Link via the Twitter feed of Charles Lane, who also notes this altogether different-sounding Obama quote from the 2004 DNC: "Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us."

Related: Buzzfeed asks 25 college Democrats to describe Republicans in three words. Here's one of my faves: "Ignorant, close-minded assholes."

The face of non-ignorance

NEXT: CA Police To Enforce Air Regulations

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. Here’s one of my faves: “Ignorant, close-minded assholes.”

    Self-awareness has never been a liberal strong suit.

    1. All fifty million registered Republicans? That is enlightened tolerance at its best.

      Next question: Would you support a law forcibly rounding up all Republicans and shipping them to the Yukon Territories?

      1. “Ignorant, close-minded assholes.” – who want tax cuts while they increase spending.

        Now it is right.

        1. “Hypocrisy in action.”

        2. Well, beats more taxes and more spending.

          1. Even that’s what it is, it is a self-correcting thing, isn’t it?

        3. Seriously, buttplug, do you really have to put your skid marks all over the place?

          Why don’t you go to HuFFPo? They also support the kind of “liberty” that you do.

    2. From the photos accompanying that article, one guy describes them as

      selfish, inclusive, afraid

      I don’t think inclusive means what you think it means buddy. More proof that a junior high graduate from the 1920’s has greater wherewithal than today’s crop of college students.

      1. And the photo of the 20-something tween holding up the “Save Social Security Vote Democratic” poster filled me with a degree of rage I have not experienced in some time. Had to work really hard to avoid punching my laptop.

        1. Are “kick me” signs out of style?

    3. They identify with the “Pro-War celebrity-rock-stars for Obama” such as “THE BOSS”, Bruce Springsteen.

      They love the predator drones and military interventionism. Wasn’t it cool the way Valiant Obama personally shot Osama through the eye and dumped him in the Indian Ocean?

      1. Obama: making both baroque and broke chic since 2009.

  2. The first three words that come to my mind to describe liberals are hateful, intolerant and closed-minded. I’ve just been in and around Cambridge, MA for the last twelve years.

    1. Sheeit, I grew up there. Belmont, actually, next to Cambridge.

      Welcome to the People’s Republik of Cambridge! Now go get your espresso from Au Bon Pain and sit next to a chess game looking bemused.

      Charlies Kitchen still rocks though. Was there a couple years ago, and they fixed it up real nice.

      1. That entire state fell apart the moment Harvard Square lost the Tasty.

        1. At the very least that’s when Harvard Square died. I barely recognize it these days. The coop is still there though, right?

          Last time I was there I checked to make sure Leavitt Peirce were still there. Tough to beat the smells of that store on a winter day.

          The state was/is/will be a mess for a long time, but there are still some gems.

      2. I ate there last Saturday. The beer garden has last a lot of its appeal since this summer.

      3. I didn’t know Au Bon Pain was still in business. (Then again, I was going to make a Sbarro comment, only to discover that they’re still in business, too.)

        1. They’ve got one near me in Jacobi Hosp., where McDonald’s used to be.

  3. Doesn’t sound like an optimal plan of attack.

    1. Yeah. The more they attack Romney, who is if nothing else a competent and decent guy, the more they seem like the ones who are assholes. (I will be voting for someone more libertarian, though.)

      1. Same here. I’m in a solid blue state, so I will be voting for Gary Johnson. I really want Obama to lose though.

        1. Your first sentence and your second sentence come from two different universes.

          1. “Same here” and “I’m in a solid blue state, so I will be voting for Gary Johnson” are from different universes? Explain.

            1. For hack Republican partisans you have to vote for Romney even if you live in Alabama and against Obama even if you live in DC.

              1. AH, ok. Thanks!

              2. Jim Treacher is far from a “hack Republican partisan.”

                1. His comment still doesn’t make any sense, though.

                  1. Agreed. And I generally put on the pom poms for Treacher. Elections make everybody go crazy.

                2. No but only because he’s not a hack. He is a Republican partisan. Funny though.

                  1. Yep, he’s an establishment Republican partisan, who plays at being all edgy and stuff.

    2. optimal plan of attack.

      I see what you did there.

  4. Ignorant, close-minded assholes.

    In what way does this fail to describe Republican politicians?

    1. Coming from a Democrat, it’s pretty rich.

      1. 1) I’m not a Democrat
        2) I’d describe Democrat politicians more as “ignorant, principless assholes”. Most Democrats don’t have the intellectual consistency necessary to be close-minded.

        1. I think Xilano was describing the person in the picture who is supposedly a Democrat. Though, she is wearing Romney buttons.

        2. Wrong. Republicans are ignorant, unprincipled assholes while Dems are more the ignorant, close-minded assholes.

          My butthurt liberaltarian detector is beeping.

          1. I thought it was the other way around.

            1. That should be, “supposed to be the other way around.”

              1. Dem description needs more sanctimonious and self-righteous added to the ignorance.

                1. I think the confusion about Teams Red and Blue makes sense. At election time they’re more Pete and Re-Pete than Blue and Red. It’s all about who’s promising the most sugar.

      2. 3) You avoid answering the question. Just because Democrats are shitty doesn’t mean Repulicans must be good.

        1. He wasn’t trying to answer the question. Just pointing out the irony of her describing them that way.

    2. Well, it depends on what type of Republican. That Akin guy running for the Senate in Mo, sure.

      But, say Paul Ryan, I wouldn’t say he’s any of those.

      Most Republicans know that government is a necessary evil. A lot of them choose to ignore it for their own beliefs, but I think it’s far less ignorant than progressives who think the solution to everything is more government (even as they are beaten by the literal club of a police state)

      And then you have ones like John McCain who trip over themselves trying not to be though of as “close minded”, trying to constantly work with the other side.

      And of course, on a personal level, Republicans are almost always willing to talk/deal/date/interact with non Republicans, but the other way around, not so much.

      1. Please note I specifically was talking about Republican Politicians, not Republican voters. And I consider McCain and ignorant, close-minded asshole. Despite ample evidence to the contrary, he clings to the notion that the solution to every foriegn policy problem is bombing more foreignors. He was also a total scumbbag to his first wife, but manages to get by because he uses his former-POW status to excuse personal behavior that would make most people pariahs.

    3. I will tell you how, go ask John Stossell. Stosel goes around and tells liberals and Republicans things they don’t want to hear. They all disagree with him in some way. Stosell, and I have seen him talk and say this, will tell you that Republicans will listen politely and engage in a reasoned debate even though they don’t agree with him. Liberals scream at him and tell him they wish he would die.

      Liberals are intolerant closed minded assholes. They have ceased to be liberals but are now leftists meaning they don’t think anyone on the other side can ever be anything but irrational and evil.

      Republicans are wrong. Leftists are intolerant close minded assholes to the point of being pathological.

      1. The idea that Republicans are uniformly reasonable in debate and give opposing views serious consideration is a bunch of bullshit. I also seriously doubt that a majority (much less nearly all) of the liberals Stosell ends up debating are literally “screaming at him and telling him they wish he would die”. I’m sure some are, but I’m highly skeptical that the percentage is any higher than the number of Republicans that respond to being challenged the same way.

        1. uniformly reasonable

          1. Their reasonableness has a minimum rate of convergence, I guess.

          2. Great, it ate the rest of my comment. Let’s try this again.

            uniformly reasonable

            No one said all Republicans are reasonable.

            “screaming at him and telling him they wish he would die”

            Certainly this is an exaggeration on John’s part. But I’ve both read and heard Stossel describe the way he was treated, and it was openly dismissive and disdainful. He could be wrong of course, but I’ll trust Stossel’s judgement on how he was treated.

            1. Gee, I wish it was an exaggeration. In my experience, liberals (no matter how educated) turn into irrational rabid lunatics when you challenge their delusional beliefs in the greatness of government. You present them with facts and then instead of presenting opposing facts or reason, they accuse you of being a vile racist asshole.

              1. Gee, I wish it was an exaggeration.

                Yeah, it seems (again according to Stossel) that it isn’t. My apologies to John. Here’s a Reason piece where he cites such a thing right off the bat:


                1. Oh, so one guy he ran into said it. Should all Republicans be the single worst Republican I’ve ever run into?

                  1. Oh, so one guy he ran into said it. Should all Republicans be the single worst Republican I’ve ever run into?

                    Should all commenters be considered as stupid as you?

              2. Sadly, this is true in my experience. I can’t say I’ve been around lots of die-hard Republicans and conservatives, but I’ve met many liberals who are hugely intolerant, hate-filled, and with whom it’s difficult to discussing politics calmly. E.g.: if you don’t think all health insurance policies should be forced to include birth control for “free,” then you are part of the War Against Women and must believe they should not Control Their Own Bodies.

                1. In my experience, there’s not much of a difference between average people on both sides. I’m a college student in California, so most of my friends are liberal to some extent, and most of them (when we do discuss politics, which isn’t that often) can reasonably debate without getting personal. Among the ones on each side that really care about politics, I think liberals, though not all, are definitely more prone to getting upset and resulting to demagoguery

        2. At the very least, it means that Stossel has never talked to Bill O’Reilly.

          1. O’Reilly is more “TEAM NARCISSIST” than TEAM BLUE or TEAM RED.

      2. Stossell’s experiences line up with mine as well. Obviously some Republicans are intolerant of dissent, but not even close to the level of your average lefty, to whom you are not merely wrong, but evil.

        1. I suspect that both you and Stossel are falling victim to a self selection bias here. The Republicans Stossell ends up talking to are going to be heavily dominated by his coworkers at Fox and conservative groups that have invited him to come speak to them. Democrats he ends up talking to are far more likely to be random strangers on the street. I have no doubt he’s treated better by the former group, but that has little to do with their political alignment.

          1. Stossell spends a good amount of time speaking to libertarian and conservative crowds I’m sure, but he goes to universities and other events as well. Each side has their share of know-nothing, intolerant idiots. In a climate where all is political, disagreement with the left is less often met with rational debate, but with accusations of sexism, racism, bigotry and homophobia.

          2. I suspect you are a liberaltarian flower that didn’t get the memo that liberals don’t want to be your friend.

            1. I’m a misfit among misfits: too libertarian for conservatives, too conservative for libertarians.

              I stopped believing that liberals were liberal when I realized they were the PMRC.

              1. Parent’s musical research center?

                I’m an Objectivist so yeah so goes the rest.

                1. Yes, Parent’s musical research center. I was a liberal for about a minute until I realized their talk of freedom and equality was all a lie.

                  I admire Rand (“We the Living” is my favorite of her novels) but object to Objectivism (rim shot!) as I prefer the idea of enlightened self-interest (I, Pencil.)

                  1. Objectivism IS enlightened self-interest.

                    1. And Methodism is Christian, but that don’t make it Catholic (or even catholic.)

            2. I suspect you are a liberaltarian flower that didn’t get the memo that liberals don’t want to be your friend.

              So is this an example of the “rational debate” the right is apparently so renowned for?

              1. Umm, it is short hand for “I talked to a liberal, agreed with the outcome but for a different reason and I STILL was a ‘bigot.'”

              2. Keep proving my point SD.

                1. You may not agree with my assertion that Stossel is comparing unequal samples of the two communities, but it is a rational argument. To which your only response has been 1) accuse me of not actually believing anything I saw 2) make crude innuendo about my sexuality. But I’m supposed to believe it’s the democrats who respond to any disagreement irrational.

                  In the years I’ve been here, I’ve pretty much never agreed with the leftist commenters like Tony. But I’ve also never see them responds to me with a load of trash talking insults. Meanwhile the conservatives like Cytotoxis, are some of the most gutter-mouthed individuals I’ve ever had the misfortune to come across.

                  If Republicans are such rational debaters, can we please get some of them here, because I’d love talking to them instead of the ones we seem to be stuck with here.

                  1. Wow you ARE a delicate flower.

                    I didn’t make any innuendo on your sexuality and I am neither a conservative nor a republican.

                    Self-selection bias can explain it for Stossel it can’t so much explain the experience of him and everyone else here.

                    1. I didn’t make any innuendo on your sexuality

                      You called him a flower. Which means he’s a pansy. Which means he’s a homosexual and not quite a man. Just knock it off with your homophobe dog whistles, homophobe.

                    2. He dresses like Freddie Mercury.
                      What is one supposed to think?

                    3. SD – there is nothing rational about arguing from ignorance. There is plenty of video of Stossel interviewing democrats and progressives (and tea partiers). Go take a look for yourself. When he just tries to ask activists their opinions at Occupy protests or union rallies he gets shouted down.

                      Don’t want to take his word for it? Check out some of the video of former MTV VJ Kennedy trying to interview attendees and activists at the Democrat National Convention.

                      Don’t want to take their word for it? Check out video from FIRE of progressives shouting down “others” on college campuses.

                      Sure, nobody likes to have someone disagreeing with their core beliefs. This is certainly behind the self-segregation into walled compounds like MSNBC, FOX, the Daily Show, Limbaugh, etc. But in public discourse you can’t pretend that the left is tolerant of dissenting speech.

                    4. I’m not arguing that the left is tolerant. I’m arguing the notion that the right is any more tolerant.

                      Let’s compare John Stossel at the tea party vs. John Stossel at occupy. When he goes to a Tea Party rally, he’s there as the headline speaker:


                      When he goes to an Occupy rally, he’s haning around at the fringest doing a “stupid liberal tricks” segment for Fox:


                      And notice in both cases he focuses entirely on the economic issues. Rather than “saying things both sides disagree with”, he tailors his speech to the Republicans to agree entirely with their world view and his speech to the Occupiers to entirely disagree with their world view. And we’re supposed to be suprised he was better recieved by the tea partiers?

                      Show me footage of, say, Rachel Madow showing up at a tea party rally to argue with them for less controls on immigration or abortion, or to legalize same sex marriage. Do you seriously think they’d react any differently then the occupiers?

                    5. I didn’t make any innuendo on your sexuality

                      “I suspect you are a liberaltarian flower”

                      “My butthurt liberaltarian detector is beeping.”

                    6. Like I said no innuendo.

                      And you’re earlier paragraph is dodging and weaving. If you go to an anti-gay marriage rally thing and argue with people there you’ll get some whining and pouting about the destruction of traditional America. If you go to a rally for Obamacare and speak against it, you’ll get shouted down for being Libertarian Hitler Racist.

          3. The Republicans Stossell ends up talking to are going to be heavily dominated by his coworkers at Fox and conservative groups that have invited him to come speak to them.

            The experiences Stossel talks about were from BEFORE he joined Fox. He’s stated multiple times that the disdain he was treated with at ABC, and the willingness to listen to him he got at Fox, is what helped him decide to go there.

            Democrats he ends up talking to are far more likely to be random strangers on the street.

            There were his colleagues at ABC, including Dan Rather, who would literally make derisive sounds if they met in the hallway.

            1. Dan Rather was on CBS. You mean Peter Jennings?

              1. I think I do. Thanks. I remembered it was one of the better-known anchors, but I don’t really know the difference between them network-wise.

                1. Here’s the Reason post. It links to a Daily Beast interview with him. There’s also a video where he talks about it a bit.

          4. I can tell you its true from random collection of friends on facebook.

            I stopped reading facebook back in the spring (at the time, I claimed I was giving it up until Jan 20, but Im probably never going back).

            It was dozens of liberals and exactly one conservative who drove me off. And I have more conservative friends than liberal ones.

            The liberals are almost universally assholes when it comes to discussing politics.

            1. They’ve had a lifetime of asshole authority figures telling them they’re right and the others are evil. They imbibe.

          5. Quick! Name the last time you heard of a conservative or libertarian group on a U.S. college campus shouting down or preventing a left leaning speaker, or even a flaming commie speaker (like a certain former green czar) from speaking. Cue the Jeopardy music. Bzzzzt. Time’s up.

        2. “Stossell’s experiences line up with mine as well.”

          Cool anecdote time:

          I joined Freerepublic.com years ago when I stumbled across them looking for articles on medical marijuana. I spent a lot of time arguing in favor of things like ending prohibition, or legalizing gay marriage. A few people were dicks, but I never got banned.

          I tried the same thing on DemocraticUnderground.com, which is sort of a mirror image of freerepublic. The instant I stepped out of line I was IP-banned.

          The hard righties at FR thought I was wrong. The hard lefties at DU thought I evil and intolerable.

          1. Yeah, just try going on FR and posting about how you think Rudy Guliani or Mitt Romney would be a great president and see how tolerant of opposing viewpoints they are:


            In fact, I find myself doubting you did spend much time on FR arguing for legalizing gay marriage, as Jim Robinson has repeatedly made clear he won’t tolerate support for homosexuality, abortion, etc. Care to point us to any of your comments on the subject?

          2. I mean heck, it says right on FR’s front page:

            “Free Republic is a site dedicated to the concerns of traditional grassroots conservative activists. We’re here to discuss and advance our conservative causes in a more or less liberal-free environment. We’re not here to debate liberals. We do not want our pages filled with their arrogant, obnoxious, repugnant bile. Liberals, usurpers, and other assorted malcontents are considered unwelcome trolls on FR and their accounts and or posts will be summarily dismissed at the convenience of the site administrators.”

            Oh yeah, they’re real tolerant of dissent. A vertiable legion of Aristotles and Socrates over there.

      3. Speaking of Stossel, on last night’s episode the very handsome woman debating in the first segment is what I imagine Tony looks like.

    4. Do you think it’s fair to generalize about all Republicans as being assholes? I wouldn’t do it about liberals, even though they make me angry. Someone may vote a particular way, but that doesn’t make them a bad person. I think it’s a cruel way of thinking.

  5. Shut the door! That dude’s name is Veronica? Not optimal at all.

    1. Not only that – (s)he’s wearing Romney buttons (Romney/Ryan; Women for Mitt).

      1. He’s being ironic.

      2. Maybe the point was Republicans be hippie chicks too. I knew a few in the late eighties. Loved them some Reagan and ate everyday at the all tofu Asian restaurant just off of the campus. Thought they entirely disappeared off the face of the planet somewhere in the middle of Bush I, but lo and behold, there she is again.

    2. It’s too bad for Giants fans she blew her start in game 4 against the Cards.

      1. Game over. You win.

      2. Number 20 also looks a lot like Mat Welch with long hair. For example.

  6. Just how close are their minds?

    1. Close enough for government handouts. Zing!

  7. Check out this insanely un-self-aware story.

    1. Holy crap. First off — it’s fucking retarded for Ryan to show up within a hundred yards of a soup kitchen. It’s a symbol of political cynicism worse than kissing babies and if Ryan thinks he is such a swell, sincere guy he can rise above that, he’s kidding himself.

      But those people, ugh. The writer, and the people posting below it. Goddamn, they are a scourge on the human race. The lengths they go to be outraged twist their heads in ways that snap rational minds.

      1. How many times did BO appear with white coated individuals who may or may not be doctors in the background when speaking about Obamacare?

        It’s political cynicism because it works. That’s also why the Dems are so up in arms about it.

        1. Worked? Doubt it. He looks like a putz back there running water over a clean bin. Lucky for you, Ryan isn’t at the top of the ticket.

          Dems would be up in arms no matter what Ryan did short of quitting the GOP and joining their cult.

          1. That’s bullshit. The dishes were dirty; the guy who runs the kitchen is a die-hard Dem, has voted in 17 consecutive Dem primaries, and flat-out lied about them being clean. He had to walk back that claim after volunteers for the kitchen said they were indeed dirty dishes.

            1. It’s still bad optics. No need for Ryan to look desperate.

            2. Yeah, that’s the shirt of a man working his ass off at those dishes.

              1. Pay attention kids: that’s what moving the goalposts is.

                1. I started out criticizing the putz in the phony photo op in my first post.

                  I did so again in the next, and then again in the last. The goal post stayed exactly where I placed them the first time. Hint, it doesn’t matter if he rubbed some grit off of a pan. We know it isn’t something he would be doing that day if he wasn’t running for VP.

                  Hence, you’re the bullshitter here trying to defend this political cynicism on display here, not me.

                  1. Besides, you are missing the overall point. Republicans need to avoid soup kitchens because it makes them look queer. They should be promoting an alternative to soup kitchen dependency. Hobo hunting lodges. Teach them how to build their own bows and arrows, and they’ll never have to suffer the indignity of lining up for a free meal. Liberalize hunting laws near cities so the hobo hunting lodges are close enough as not to be inconvenient to the hobos.

                  2. Moving the goal posts means that you make one argument, and then when disproven you switch to a different (usually less significant) argument while acting as if you were right all along. The fact that you were criticizing Ryan both times doesn’t mean you weren’t moving the goal posts.

                    1. You said absolutely nothing to disprove my claim ‘He looks like a putz back there running water over a clean bin.’

                      In the next post I did not move any goalpost. I underlined what I said with ‘Yeah, that’s the shirt of a man working his ass off at those dishes.’

                      Take a look at the pic: http://www.addictinginfo.org/w…..60×375.jpg

                      See, when they snapped that pic he does indeed look like a putz back there running water over a clean bin because that is exactly what you see if you take the partisan glasses off.

                    2. Dude, have you ever washed dishes? At some points during the process you have clean dishes in your hands. Even if they weren’t originally clean.

                      And you can’t even see into the “bin”. LOL. Look at your own glasses. If BO were in the same picture I would think he was just normally washing dishes, not make up shit about how the dishes were already clean.

                    3. Have I ever washed dishes? That’s the reason I’m not buying it. Look at his clothes. The apron is still bleach white, the threads of his shirt are immaculate. He has not done a significant amount of activity in that picture.

                    4. Hell, he is running a strong stream of water there and nothing on him is wet. The creases on his shirt are unruffled. He hasn’t even bothered to remove his watch. How much more proof do you need than what your eyes tell you that it is just a photo op with a guy pretending to do something he isn’t?

                2. This is what your brain looks like on partisanship. It looks desperate and reaching.

                  1. Wow, that story is mind-numbingly retarded. Why would anybody be upset if somebody decides to help out at a soup kitchen, even if it’s a politician? Seriously?? WTF?? Everbyody in the story, except Ryan, appear to completely retarded immoral assholes.

                  2. The only partisans here are the third partisans who rip into anyone who bears the slightest odor of R or D.

                    I’ve criticized Ryanmey plenty on these pages and have been very up-front about the fact they’re just better than the alternative.

                    1. You are not doing yourself any favors going all out defending Ryan’s political hackery here. Republicans use to disdain this wearing your heart on your sleeve pandering as being beneath them before the blubbery Kemp came along.

                    2. Come on. A photo op washing dishes at a soup kitchen is about as harmless as you can get. BO’s posing with fake doctors was much worse.

                      Cynical? Probably. But that’s the biz he’s in. How much more cynical are the dirtbags who are lying about it to make him look bad.

                    3. I don’t think it hurts Ryan beyond making him look too eager to accommodate. As I said those people making hay over it are so twisted I can barely follow where their offense is coming from. It seems that it is enough for Ryan to exist to piss them off.

                    4. The only partisans here are the third partisans who rip into anyone who bears the slightest odor of R or D.

                      I am aware of and don’t care for these folks. This does not make you any less of a Romneybot. You may criticise him but you will also come up the most insane bullshit. Your anti-Johnson quest is all the demonstration we need.

                    5. I’ve criticized Ryanmey plenty on these pages and have been very up-front about the fact they’re just better than the alternative.

                      Exept they arent. Johnson is a better alternative.

      2. So you are saying a Vice Presidential candidate cannot speak to all the the people. Or are you saying that only certain candidates are entitled to that privilege?

        If Biden requested to address an NRA convention (or even just appeared outside) he might get booed, but he’d get to speak.

    2. Debbie Brooks Luke ? Ashburn, Georgia
      the organization should INVITE Obama to come.
      Reply ? 3 ?
      ? 8 hours ago

      Jeff Binion ? Miami Beach, Florida
      Great idea, let’s hope some of his people see this and put a little bird in his ear. What better way to show these Assholes what real human beings act like.

      1. Are they really this dense? They don’t seem to realize that the reason people are pulling their charitable donations is because they see the soup kitchen as having set Paul Ryan up. But the fact that that has caused so much charity to dry up, shows who fucking gave to the damn charity in the first place. They all seem incapable of recognizing this. Moreover, it is so LULZ worthy that half of these commenters seem to think that Paul Ryan actively stole money from this soup kitchen. The level of stupid in these people is beyond belief. I would’ve thought a person would lose the ability to breathe before becoming this stupid.

        1. The asswipe who runs the kitchen flat-out lied about Ryan “forcing his way in” and washing clean dishes. He deserves to burn for it.

          However, withholding donations doesn’t hurt him at all, just the people who depend on the kitchen for their meals.

          1. But Ryan touched the dishes … ooh, cooties!!!!!

        2. But the fact that that has caused so much charity to dry up, shows who fucking gave to the damn charity in the first place.

          Intentions matter. Results? Not so much.

    3. Addicting Info might be the worst liberal site out there

    4. The organization that runs the facility told Huffington Post that donors have been pulling their money out of the charity.

      I’m calling bullshit on this one. The only people who would be offended by Ryan’s appearance are lefties, and we all know that the left doesn’t believe in giving money to charity, unless it’s someone else’s.

  8. Like the pic in #3: Bate 20!

    BATIN! BATIN 20!

    1. WOW, I hadn’t looked at it from that angle at first, but upon re-examination and in light of your comments, I laughed nearly hysterically. Y’know that laugh, the demonic “muahahahaha” that we all bellow out when we spy some act of unfathomable cruelty to poor people through our monocles.

      1. Tell me more about how monocles can bring about unfathomable cruelty to poor people.

  9. “Selfish, inclusive, afraid”


    1. I liked 16 “short-sided”…Which side is short?

  10. Progressives have nothing to sell. All their policies are failures. So they just sell the brand. Being Progressive is a way of showing you are not them. “Othering” is essential to the marketing.

    1. Talk about selling the sizzle. I predict that chop house is gonna go totally broke some day.

  11. If I had to guess, I’d err on the side of that being a guy.

    1. Isn’t it that kid from the Home Alone movies, but with long hair now?

      1. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001334/

        Wait, the dad is 67 years old?

  12. Politics feeds on the worst parts of human psychology, tribalism included. At least it’s less hypocritical in the overtly pro-tribalism party. Coming from the touchy-feely, pro-inclusion crowd it’s just nauseating.

  13. Just for the record, it’s highly likely that I would boink 11, 14, 22, and 23. Numbers 1 and 2 would do in a pinch.

    1. In person, 25 could being better than 1 or 2. But I will agree with the rest.

      1. For me, just 2, 14, 23. I didn’t realize I was that selective compared to everyone else.

        1. 2, 11, 14, 23, ampersand 25.

    2. Sadly, however, they would be anatomically incapable of having their brains fucked out of them.

  14. Yankees players: Our fans made us choke

    Look for more of the same from Team Obama in the coming weeks. There’s just not enough pep and zest in the base! Americans aren’t rooting for us! Mean old Romney sowed the seeds of discontent! Why don’t they love us anymore!?

    another player privately made a far more indicting observation: that the ballclub was affected by the hostility from the fans at Yankee Stadium last weekend.

    “I really think the booing spooked a lot of guys,” the player said. “A lot of guys hadn’t been booed before, and they couldn’t believe how nasty it got in the stands.”

    Obviously Nick Swisher admitted to being sensitive to such treatment after Game 2, but the player said Swisher was far from alone in his reaction.

    “A lot of guys were talking about it in the clubhouse,” he said. “I was surprised by how much it bothered them. I really don’t think they ever recovered.”

    1. If this doesn’t lead to A-Rod being showered with beer bottles in the Bronx this offseason, its only because they had to go up to Manhattan to find him and do so.

  15. ‘Hypocritical, clean-cut, sheep’

    Holds up a sign ‘Save Social Security Vote Democratic’

    That’s a real thinker there.

    1. Didn’t the citizens of Gotham have to learn the hard way to be skeptical about the charismatic mad man that promises free money?

  16. Whining about “otherization” hasn’t stopped republicans from continuing to suggest Obama’s a secret muslim foreigner.

    So fight fire with fire.

    1. Serious question, has Romney approved of those messages?

    2. And it hasn’t stopped at least some democrats from saying that Romney is the grandson of a polygamist.

      Then they took those Democrats aside and explained a few things, and we haven’t heard so much of that line.

    3. Yeah, I heard some pretty despicable things about from not just a few conservatives between 2007-2011.

      But what I equally couldn’t stand were the atheists who claimed that Obama was a secret atheist, because they could not imagine how someone that (seemingly) intelligent could be a Christian. I think even Christopher Hitchens made the claim when he was justifying his decision to vote for Obama in 2008.

      1. http://whyevolutionistrue.word…..n-atheist/


      2. http://whyevolutionistrue.word…..n-atheist/

        The blog post is more tongue-in-cheek, but the comments are pretty silly.

        1. From the comments:

          It seems pretty clear to me that he actually practices the most popular form of American Christianity ? “Apathetic Christian By Default”. Almost a form of “Ceremonial Deism” as a personal religious non-choice. You don’t go to church, but if anyone asks your religion you respond with Christian. You believe in God but you don’t really give it much thought. Religion is kind of a background “pop cultural” element in your life. You wouldn’t think to take the Bible literally, but you also wouldn’t think to argue that the Bible was false. Mostly because religious just isn’t that important.

          Sounds about right.

        1. The newly released old clip of Obama introducing Rev. Wright suggests that there may be something to this lefty suspicion that their guy is an atheiest. Or something to the “used to be a Muslim” charge. Or something.

          He says “Rev. Wright introduced me to Jesus Christ” in the clip. So whatever his beliefs were and became, at some point after leaving law school and moving to Chicago he says he became a Christian at that point. What he was before, he doesn’t say. We know what mom and grandma believed. We know what daddy believed.

          Personally, I don’t really care either way – it won’t really affect my opinion of his presidency. I do find it interesting that the press spent so much time talking and asking Bush about his faith and yet has spent most of their energy in this area with Obama in deriding those who would ask such questions.

          1. Cynical theory:

            Wright’s church may have been Obama’s first encounter with “liberation theology” – a philosophical Christian movement that embraces class struggle and Marxist economics and interprets Christ’s teachings in that light.

            For examples, Jean Bertrand Aristide was (at one point) a Catholic priest who embraced libertation theology. He got thrown out of the Church for it, and he went on to become a politician, preachiong pretty much the same philosophy – Christianity with a heavy dose of revollutionary communism.

            The stuff was all over Latin America in the 70s and 80s and is the hidden backstory behind various incidents of Catholic priests and nuns being killed by right-wing militias.

            So it could be that Obama was an atheist Marxist, like his parents, and then upon encountering liberation theology in the form of Rev. Wright saw an oppuntunity – or maybe had a genuine conversion – since this was a plausible way for him to be both a Christian and a Marxist.

            1. If I remember right, didn’t Michelle introduce him to Wright’s church? And Wright’s church was popular with a certain crowd at one time, so an up and coming politician would be wise to be at least politically supportive.

              Personnaly, I think Barack was there when Wright said all those controversial things. And he wasn’t listening so they didn’t sink in. I also think Barack worships the god he sees when looks in the mirror.

    4. Tu qoque.

    5. Actually, secret muslim foreigner is old hat. The new one is that he’s a closet pink-teamer, and Rev. Wright’s church’s basic mission was to set professional and political gay black men up with women who were destined to become “old hags”. Seriously, I have heard this from several fairly active Republicans.

      1. It would be worth some speculation, except we all saw Obama’s eyes all over that Brazilian teen’s ass.

        1. You’ve never heard of bisexuality?

          1. I was responding to this post:

            BoscoH| 10.19.12 @ 8:37PM |#

            Actually, secret muslim foreigner is old hat. The new one is that he’s a closet pink-teamer, and Rev. Wright’s church’s basic mission was to set professional and political gay black men up with women who were destined to become “old hags”. Seriously, I have heard this from several fairly active Republicans.

            A bisexual dude would not have the problem describe there.

            1. Sure he would. He’d have to get married to someone who wouldn’t mind him being on the down low.

              The main source for this theory seems to be Kevin DuJan at hillbuzz.org. I don’t know how seriously to take it, but he has entertaining posts about his talks with a group of “prominent” Chicago blacks who call themselves “The Think Squad”(!)

              1. Alright, I’ll take a look. Obama could very well be bisexual. I just doubt he would need a front operation to hide it. Marrying Michelle imho was more about making inroads in the Chicago political establishment given her pappy was on the inside of that machine. But, could have been killing many birds with one stone.

              2. Being bisexual doesn’t need you need to cheat on your spouse to be happy any more than being straight means you need to have affairs with other women to be happy.

        2. It was a great ass.

          1. I give him props for being subtle about it. In the video he slowly moves his head as he gazes in the direction of the fine derriere, but then over emotes when he reaches for the other girls hand. A classic ‘I’m not looking at anything move!’ that we all are guilty of at one point or another. Without that snapshot at just the right time, he would have totally got away with it.

          2. It was ass… in Brazil, of course it was great.


        1. They’re wrong, it’s the Irish. You know that old joke about liquor being invented to keep the Irish from taking over the world? WELL IT DIDN’T WORK.

    6. Re: The Derider,

      Whining about “otherization” hasn’t stopped republicans from continuing to suggest Obama’s a secret muslim foreigner.

      Madonna is a Republican?

      Stop the presses!!!

    7. “The future must not belong to those who would insult the Prophet of Islam”

      –Barack Obama

      What ‘secret’?

  17. Political junkies may recall how in 1972, running against Nick Galifianakis (uncle of comedian Zach) in North Carolina, said that he (Helms) was “one of us.” The official Wikipedia page says that this was a Hellenophobic reference to Galifianakis’ Greek heritage.


    Indeed, the “one of us” phrase is part of Jesse Helms’ Darth Vaderesque origin myth in the minds of progressives. It is a summing-up of everything evil about Helms – his divisive, othering, mean, doo-doo head-ness.

    Now not only Obama appropriated the term, he’s given it an extra twist – instead of the arguably positive spin that he (Obama) is “one of us,” he went directly negative and said his opponents is *not* one of us.

    I can guess this much – while Helms’ “One of Us” is still quoted with horror 40 years after the event, Obama’s “One of Us” is going straight down the memory hole after the election.

    1. “running against Nick Galifianakis (uncle of comedian Zach) in North Carolina, *Jesse Helms* said that he (Helms) was”

      Fixed that for you.

    2. I figured “One of Us” was just a reference to Freaks.

  18. Barack Obama
    Not One of Us

    Can you imagine the spittle flecked ranting rage liberals would great a Romney ad like that with?

    1. Yes, but it’s not surprising. After all, they see a huge difference between Hitler exterminating vast numbers based on their race, and Communists exterminating vaster numbers based on their ideology or wealth. Racism is the #1 sin, so equivalent or worse crimes committed for ideological reasons somehow aren’t really as bad.

  19. Notice in the background of #23 there’s a sign which seems to advertise “Rednecks for Obama.” This makes since, since it *is* Long Island, where the redneck population is as thick on the ground as in any given county in Alabama.

    1. duh, it makes *sense*


  21. Is stormy on a vacation from the DailyPaultard? I swear, I sometimes cant even believe I aligned myself with those nuts at times.

    1. Who’s stormy? StormyDragon?

      1. yessir

  22. “The same guy that had a Swiss bank account…”

    Uh… OK. And?

    Also, when did Obama get all pro-coal?

    1. When PA went back in play.

      1. PA’s not even the biggest producer, but the UMWA’s endorsement is something he needs to pick up votes in western PA.

        1. With the exception of one county (Greene), Pennsylvania’s coal production has been declining since the 1920s and is a tiny fraction of what it once was. Natural Gas is more of an issue in PA, due to the Marcellus Shale discovery, than coal.

          1. Well, yes. As a lifelong resident of PA I know this. But the gas fields are, thankfully, staying non-union in large part so far.

  23. Well this is an odd complaint by Mr Welch, when Reason has been pushing the line that Romney is not one of us from day one.

    1. That is true. I’m still waiting for the “Reason Votes 2012” that we were promised last week. By any logic that they used four years ago, they should vote Romney to “punish” the Dems.

      1. No, they (at least one of them) also used the logic that they should vote for Obama cause it’s cool to be part of the “historic” election of the first black president. Which would mean it’d be cool to be part of the “historic” reelection of the first black president.

        1. Don’t forget that it is super extra way cool to vote to reelect the first black president after a demonstrated record of failure, because it shows how super unracist you are.

        2. People here can criticize Johnson and Paul when they need it.

          You can’t even admit this was a stupid photo-op.

          1. Wow. I hit “reply”, and it automatically pulled up a reply I typed earlier, and decided the target wasn’t really worth speaking to, and posted it by itself.

            Anyway, I WAS going to say that, in 2012, Mormons are probably much more of an outcast than African Americans.

            It’s time to reverse our shameful mistreatment of the Mormons.

      2. Maybe there’s a hold up while they ask their lawyers if they’ll automatically be red-flagged by Homeland Security for voting Libertarian?

      3. Only a few of them said they’d vote for Obama. Most cited other preferences.

      4. The election where they were all about “punishing the GOP” was 2006, actually, with Dave Weigel the pied piper of liberaltarianism. Those of us who questioned whether the Dems were really going to still be interested in cutting the deficit and promoting states rights after they finally got some federal power back after 6 years were brushed aside like yesterday’s breadsticks.

      5. I will say this: Any Reason writer who says they are going to vote for Obama this year should get canned. There is NO excuse this time.

        1. Why do you hare beltway cocktail parties and lucrative legacy media jobs?

        2. “Anyone who says they’re going to vote for Obama should be fired immediately”

          Yet more of the right’s commitment to rational debate and toleration for opposing viewpoints.

          1. The point of Reason magazine is to espouse libertarianism. Anyone who votes twice for Obama is not a libertarian.

            1. The point of Reason magazine is to espouse libertarianism. Anyone who votes twice for Obama is not very bright

              Fixed your post for you. There ARE libertarians who plan to vote for Obama (not me, though) because they think Obama paired with a Republican Congress would be better than Romney paired with a Republican Congress. Being foolish doesn’t mean they aren’t libertarian.

    2. Different ‘us’; same shitheel Tulpa.

      1. So we aren’t one of us either.

        1. So we aren’t one of us either.

          Proclaiming yourself royalty, are you? And no, I’d say you’re not a libertarian. If it makes you feel better though, I’ll TOTALLY consider you to be an honorary Democrat.

    3. Romney is not one of us

      Unless this is Bizarro World, he ISN’T a libertarian. Do you also get upset when Democrats say he isn’t a Democrat?

  24. Libertarians: Feudal, glib, city-statist.

    1. +1gambol

    2. Nerdy, male, wiseasses.

    1. John pron.

      1. John pron

        Granted the blonde wins, but this chick is HOT!

        1. They’re all chubbies.

          1. Only if you date anorexics and fap to the shower scenes from holocaust documentaries.

            1. Skinny Jews are way hot.

    2. I like the blonde chick in the background better. There’s something wrong with the brunette’s face, even besides the awful eye shadow she’s wearing.

      1. It’s her facial expression. It’s not working for her at all.

  25. Interesting that for the young Democrats every word out of their mouth was White, White, Jive-Ass Honkey; but the young Republicans didn’t bring up race at all.

    Which party attracts more racists again?

    1. Woah to #7

      1. #10 is more my speed.

      2. 3, 7, and then if it’d been a dry spell, 10.

    2. The very first comment ‘Michael Maxey
      That’s a awful lot of privileged white people.

      That’s a shit load of bias disguised as an argument, Mikey.

    3. Maranie Alonso Warren
      They’re all white…big surprise.

      Jeff Rue
      Matt took these photos himself so what should you be asking yourself right now? Hint; he’s extremely liberal.

      Maranie Alonso Warren
      That he couldn’t find a black, Asian, or Hispanic Republican? ‘Cas I know I’d want to hear what one was thinking.

      Melanie Markovina
      you’re also white. SURPRISE!!!!

      1. Whites invented furies? I did not know. I just did not know.

        1. Yes. And they puke in the ball pits at Chuck E Cheese’s in disproportionate numbers, as I discovered in my first job.

    4. 14. “Incompetent, malkavian, weak”

      Democrats are schizophrenic vampires? I was going to poke fun, but that actually makes sense.

      1. Some got snooty about the guy making an RPG reference on that board. In 2012? In what bubble do they live that RPGs and video games are not as common if not more prevalent than more traditional media? Or, have they failed to notice if you really want to be cosmopolitan and communicate across the globe knowing the milieu of video games, anime and RPGs is going to serve you better than listening to NPR. The world of tweed jacket wearing lit profs art fag cultural dominance is dead, old timers.

  26. Anyone know how the plant in the ad was supposed to be killing people?

    1. I’d guess mercury emissions.

    2. Typically these claims are made based on an estimate of the impact of SO2, NOx, and other emissions on the incidence and lethality of respiratory ailments. Then they scale that to the amount of emissions from a plant, and voila! X plant kills Y people. It’s highly suspect because it doesn’t take into account whether prevailing winds drive plumes toward or away from population centers or whether people are ever even exposed to those emissions.

  27. Hmmm.

    “Ignorant” – I think this describes social conservatives, and many progressives and Democrats. Social cons are ignorant of the world and other cultures/races/religions.
    Progressives and liberals are ignorant of what Republicans actually believe, including the fact that not all Republicans are social conservatives.

    “Closed-minded” – Describes many progressives and Democrats to a tee. They will proetty much shut out any information that isn’t from an approved left-liberal source. And if an approved left-liberal source says something they don’t agree with, said source instantly becomes unapproved. Progressives are BY FAR the best at filtering out any ideas that challenge their worldview. Some old-style social conservatives are closed minded, but the mainstream Republican is actually much more open minded than many Democrats are aware. Which is probably why they are able to live undetected in left-leaning communities.I’ve never seen a progressive sucessfully manage to avoid blaring his opinions to the universe when he lives in the middle of a right-leaning community. Concealing one’s political opinions seems to be something that progressives simply CANNOT do.
    Republican politicians and partisans are unprincipled, as are most Democratic politicians and partisans.

    “Assholes” – there are definitely assholes on both sides, but only progressives excell at being sanctimonious assholes.

  28. If it makes you feel better though, I’ll TOTALLY consider you to be an honorary Democrat.

    Left wing authoritarianism is all the rage.

  29. nice job by the local cops to take these suspects into custody and help bring them to justice…

    couple rammed the cop car, etc. during pursuit but no shots fired. pursuit and capture. wanted for homicide as well as attempted homicide of a deputy sheriff in cali



    good heads up police work and a no muss no fuss arrest of dangerous homicide suspects by local cops. and is the case with the vast majority of arrest of violent felons, such as in this case, no shots fired. successful pursuit and capture.

    and yes… finally life imitates CSI… cops in my area getting handheld fingerprint scanners. this will definitely help us when the name game doesn’t (and sometimes it doesn’t, although any street cop tends to get damn good at name game shenanigans)

    (can only do two links)

    bring it on and bring me one fingerprint scanner!

    1. That is indeed newsworthy, the restraint of those gun-toting enforcers.

      I’m sure you can collect fingerprints voluntarily, without the threat of imprisonment, right? From any innocent passerby? WTF? Is there a law that says anyone must give you the correct name? No, there isn’t.

      You can always bring in the sniffer dog to give you some good false positives and “probable cause”.

      1. ill ignore the trolling aspects of your post.

        this isn’t about collecting fingerprints. it’s about verifying identity VIA fingerprints, which IN THE FIELD is impossible w/o these scanners. USUALLY, when somebody is playing the name game, it’s because they have warrants under their real name, and we play the name game and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt

        when it doesn’t work, we have to drive them to the station to use the livescan and then wait, and that process can take 45 minutes, including drive time, etc. whereas the hand scanner can do it in the field in a few minutes. it means you don’t tie up a patrol car for an hour or so when you can accomplish the task in a couple of minutes.

        it’s not about developing PC (trolling aspects of your post). it’s about determining identity and if there are bookable warrants.

        and there IS a law that somebody must give me the correct name. i’ve gotten convictions for “false material statement” when they don’t. actually 3 convictions in the last year, so… yes there is a law. in some circ’s, they must provide a name, etc. – like traffic stop, being a driver in a collision, etc. but even if they are not obligated to give me a name, giving me a FALSE name is a chargeable crime.

        1. here’s the charge. and again, i have gotten MANY MANY convictions and sentencing for this crime, so yes… it holds up in court

          RCW 9A.76.175
          Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant.

          A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. “Material statement” means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.

        2. While the case in question seems to have plenty of probable cause, I’m rather disturbed by your suggestion that even in the absense of such, you’re empowered to detain people for the purpose of going on fishing expeditions.

          1. i’m authorized to detain people based on reasonable suspicion of a crime and/or a traffic infraction.

            if it’s the latter, they are compelled by statute to provide a name, etc. for the purposes of writing a citation, etc. and that allows me ot run their name for warrant.

            if the former, my state does NOT have a “stop and ID” statute, so given the former – a terry stop- i cannot compel them to provide a name.

            if they provide a FALSE name, and i can prove it , i can them arrest them for 9a.76.175.

            however, sometimes i can’t prove the name is false, etc. if it just comes up no record. a fingerprint scanner can take care of that.

            what some of us do now, which is VERY useful is to take a digital photograph of the guy i am stopping, and zzgroup email it out to a list of guys i have that are active cops from my agency, a nd few neighboring. chances are about 95% that if the guy is a LOCAL frequent flyer, somebody will recognize him and then i can check his name for warrants (and again, about 95% of the time they refuse to provide a name, or provide a fake one – it’s cause they have warrants)

            there are other situations where i do not have RS or PC and thus have no stop. i can then ask THE PERSON for a name. again, if he gives me a fake one, i have a crime, assuming i can confirm that

            1. if he refuses to provide one, that’s fine. we let plenty of people go if we have no reason to compel a stop and they refuse to provide a name. digitial photo’s are useful.

              but again, the threshold for stopping is RS not PC

              rcw 46.52.020 compels fwiw only the driver IN A COLLISION to provide info. so, what if i have a collision and two passengers, who are both witnesses and party to the collision refuse to provide name, etc.

              i have seen cases where officers charge them with obstruction (and arrested them since you can’t charge an unkown name very easily) and the case held up. it’s probably going to vary district to distrcit, but at least in my district, the judge ruled if they are a party TO a collision, not merely a witness,then their refusing to provide a name, etc. constituted “obstructing”

              fair enuf

              in bried, if stopped by police, it’s fair to ask if and when HE asks for ID – ‘are you demanding ID pursuant to law and if i refuse to provide name or ID what are the consequences? is this a voluntary request or a demand?”

              i recommend that if you are stopped by the cops and not sure if you have to provide name, etc. that’s if you care. many people have no problem providing same, but if you do, a question like that is respectful and well within your rights

              if he says it’s a demand, provide it. if he says it’s voluntary, it’s up to you.

            2. i’m authorized to detain people based on reasonable suspicion of a crime and/or a traffic infraction.

              Yes, but dragging them back to the station to see if their “might” be any warrants out in their name doesn’t say reasonable suspicion to me. If you can’t even say what crime you think they’re responsible for, you’re fishing.

              1. i can “drag” them back to the station only if i have PC of a crime.

                in no case did i say i did, nor have i dragged them to the station based on less than PC

                the nice thing about the fingerprint scanner is that it is a tool, much like a breathalyzer, that helps protect the innocent and convict the guilty.

                for example, in WA state, it is arrestable offense (NVOL w/o id), if a person is driving, without a valid driver’s license in this state or another state AND they don’t have id.

                if they merely don’t have a valid license, but HAVE ID , it’s an infraction.

                note: if they are suspended its always arrestable, this just refers to not having one at all

                so, assume i have a NVOL w/o ID.

                i am going to issue a citation *if* i can confirm that i am talking to who i think i am talking to. but it may be hard w/o id. often,i can confirm (like if they have been booked, i can pull up a booking photo on my dept. laptop and compare it to them).

                with the fingerprint scanner, i can save them a trip to jail, since i can confirm they don’t have any outstanding warrants, etc.

                that’s an example of where it is a help to the person in the field AND the cop. saves time. saves paperpwork. saves a trip to the jail

                1. also, assuming citations are (or are int he future) supported by field fingerprint (like a single electronic print taken with one of these machines) saves INNOCENTs from the not uncommon scenario:

                  johnny dirtbag gets pulled over for speeding. johnny dirtbag has memorized his former roommate john mostinnocent’s name and dob, address etc.

                  cop asks dirtbag for id. dirtbag claims he doesn’t have any and provides his name, but actually provides mostinnocent’s name, dob, etc.

                  cop, noting the physicals are close (the roommates are both 5’10’ish brown eyes etc.) writes the citation

                  dirtbag never pays it. mostinnocent has moved, so when the summons/warrant gets mailed to his former address, he doesn’t know that there is now a warrant out for his arrest for fail to appear based on dirtbag’s traffic stop pretending to be him

                  a month later, mostinnocent gets pulled over and gets ARRESTED for a warrant.

                  later on, in court, they prove it wasn’t him that got stopped in the initial stop, but that didn’t save him from arrest and having to get bailed out of jail

                  1. does this happen? yes. in fact, people have to get their name flagged in DOL to get the cops to provide extra checks in cases where others have fraudulently used tehir names on traffic stops. brothers do it to their brothers all the time

                    fingerprint support of citations prevents this from happening and/or gives the innocents protection, since THEIR fingerprint won’t match the one given on the original citation, assuming the fingerprint ID on the original didn’t deter such chicanery, which it most likely would.

                    it’s a win/win

  30. The ironic thing is that most Republicans probably wouldn’t describe Democrats in such negative insulting terms. They would say “misguided, naive, communists”.

    1. Now who’s being naive?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.