Chicago City Councilman Wants to Ban Energy Drinks

Powerful Chicago Alderman Edward Burke has pushed for the city to ban trans fats, foie gras, and Four Loko. His latest target? Red Bull.


Little well-known fact just learned on the Googles: In 2007, Jepsen placed third on Canadian Idol.

Chicago Alderman Edward Burke may be the staunchest elected opponent of food freedom in America whose name you've never heard.

While New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg gets all the press—often with good reason—the fact that Ald. Burke commands little or no national attention is likely more a function of his Second City residence and second-banana title ("Dean of the Chicago City Council") than it is of any lack of regulatory zeal.

In recent years, Burke has used his vast sway as the aforementioned dean, longest-serving and most powerful member of the city council, and chair of the council's finance committee increasingly to undermine the right of Chicagoans to make their own food choices.

In 2006, he introduced an ordinance that would have made Chicago the first large city in the nation to prohibit restaurants from cooking with trans fats.

"If the restaurants won't voluntarily change their policy and adopt a healthy means of preparation," Burke told PBS NewsHour after introducing the bill, "then I think that it's clear that municipal government has the right to step in and legislate."

That same year, Burke voted in favor of the city's foie gras ban—though his parliamentary skills later helped to sink it.

But even Burke's rationale for this seeming reversal is a telling nod to power, rather than to freedom.

"Apparently, the mayor decided it was time" to end the ban, Burke told Mark Caro, author of the book The Foie Gras Wars, "and that was it."

Then, in 2010, Burke co-sponsored a proposed ban on caffeinated beers in Chicago—where Four Loko maker Phusion Projects is based.

The latest target for Burke, 69, who has held the same alderman's chair since 1969—nearly two-thirds of his life—is popular energy drinks like Red Bull and Monster. An ordinance Burke introduced last week would ban from the city all sales of energy drinks containing more than 180 mg of caffeine and also containing either guarana or taurine (common energy drink ingredients).

Burke's proposed ban is part of a larger move against energy drink makers across the country. In New York, for example, state attorney general Eric T. Schneiderman has subpoenaed a handful of energy drink makers, claiming the industry may be "deceiving consumers with misstatements about the ingredients and health value of its products." The FDA is investigating up to five deaths over several years that the agency claims may be tied to energy drinks. Congress is considering new regulations pertaining to energy drinks. And papers from coast to coast, including the editors of the San Jose Mercury News and The New York Times (in the form of reporter Barry Meier, who Jacob Sullum notes has been crusading against energy drinks for some time) have pushed increased regulations.

The penalties in Burke's proposed ban on energy drinks mirror those he recommended for selling caffeinated beers—a fine of up to $500 and the potential loss or suspension of a city-mandated license.

"These energy drinks, if they're consumed in large amounts, especially by kids, can have serious health implications," Burke told WGN last week.

That's probably true of energy drinks—but also of coffee, tea, soda, juice, alcohol, water, and any other beverage.

And, in truth, energy drinks look a lot like a lot of other beverages.

On an ounce for ounce basis, popular energy drinks often contain much less caffeine than coffee and other, more genteel beverages. An 8.5 ounce can of Red Bull, for example, contains 80 mg of caffeine. That's 100 mg less than a comparable (short) cup of Starbucks coffee, which boasts 180 mg of caffeine.

So why didn't Burke propose to ban coffee? Here's one hint: Burke apparently likes coffee.

If Burke's ordinance were to pass, its unintended consequences would be manifold. It would harm Chicago's struggling economy while enriching the coffers of suburban convenience stores, grocers, and other energy drink sellers—which would gain customers who normally bought their energy drinks in Chicago.

The ordinance would also likely result in the introduction and dominance of new players into Chicago's market. City stores that could no longer stock drinks banned under the law would simply switch to selling higher-caffeine products that don't contain guarana or tuarine—like SK Energy shots and others on the horizon that contain oddball additives like "synthetic Asian hornet larvae secretion."

In a recent interview with, noted food and beverage attorney Justin Prochnow called the ordinance deeply flawed and predicted it would not pass.

Prochnow said the language of the ordinance contains "false statements" that are "clearly untrue"—including a patently false claim that energy drinks are "unregulated."

Prochnow's right. And, in my opinion, the ordinance contains several other seemingly fatal flaws. But they're ones I'd rather not share in print (lest Burke simply revise the ordinance). In that spirit: Hey Red Bull—call me, maybe?

NEXT: NYC Soda Ban Said To Threaten Minority Businesses

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m so Goddamn sick of Chicago and all the vile scum that comes out of there to plague America.

    1. so… not a bears fan then?

      1. Maybe he just hates deep dish like every other American with good taste.

  2. There comes a time, I think, when a long entrenched politician stops doing things simply to line his pockets and starts believing he knows what’s best for everyone in his realm. The idiots of Chicago have been voting this asshole into power again and again since 1969. He’s probably at that point. Making decisions for other people is all this guy knows, and I doubt he takes much input.

    1. That or he’s simply bored and getting into mischief. I wonder if a nice I.R.S. audit would take his mind off other peoples business?

    2. I think there comes a time when you have to look at the voters and admit that they are comfortable with people believing that their elected officials know best.

      Politicians are gonna be politicians. I don’t blame the dog for approaching a plate of food sitting on the coffee table; I look at the person who set it there.

      1. I blame both. Placing slavemakers into positions of power and then complaining that they’re conducting themselves precisely as slavemakers are likely to is what many people do, and it bewilders me.

        1. Placing slavemakers into positions of power and then complaining that they’re conducting themselves precisely as slavemakers are likely to is what many people do, and it bewilders me.

          Easy, RPA. Simple formula: “Freedom == Freedom from Wants and Bad Things Happening.”

          Even some (I dare say most) libertarians are not entirely immune from this blind spot.

          See also: Euro-landia

          1. Doc, I need to talk to you. Is there an old thread we can go to so I don’t muck up this thread with medical questions? We went to the doc yesterday and I just wanted your opinion on a couple of things.

            1. Email me please.

              1. Yeah…. this message board is random as fuck…

                1. Welcome to Free Minds and Free Markets. It is not for the weak of constitution.

                  1. I see what you did there, Doc.

                    Horoshow, ochen horoshow.

              2. I wish y’all had hashed it out here.
                I would have liked to see a Hit and Run version of Dr House

                  1. Treat for somaliosis. If the patient stops craving roads, diagnosis is correct. If not, rifle through their personal effects for more clues.

            2. That’s no good – we know that the patient always lies.

              Instead, send him your address and the go shopping for a couple of hours so he can break in and snoop through your stuff.

      2. ” I don’t blame the dog for approaching a plate of food sitting on the coffee table; I look at the person who set it there.”

        My version; You cant blame a wolf for being a wolf. You blame the sheep for feeding him. But you still have to shoot the wolf.

    3. Hmmm. That helps explain Obama.

  3. I get gut-bustingly outraged at my home state’s permit requirement for purchasing handguns and NFA may-issue, and there are places in this country awful enough that they’re proposing bans on energy drinks?

    If I lived in Chicago, I would have hanged myself years ago.

    1. Wouldn’t it have been easier to move out?

      1. I would have probably been too depressed for that. My faith in humanity would have been utterly spent.

        1. I thought you came here from Russia or something.

          1. As a child. Parents ran to the US.

            1. Ah, I see. Thanks.

              1. In other words, I was too to have seen much of Soviet life.

                Enclaves of tyranny and DERP in the US like Chicago and DC have the same repellent effect on me that modern Russia does. Screw them all.

                1. *young

                2. In other words, I was too to have seen much of Soviet life.

                  I am constantly amazed at the dichotomy of how folks like want nothing to do with what was left behind, and how folks who know nothing of Soviet-style systems rush headlong to embrace them.

                  I can only wonder what the statists in your midst say or do when you point out the foreseeable consequences of their actions.

                  1. Usually that their particular flavor of totalitarianism is uniquely suited to practical effectiveness — unlike, say, the Soviet or Red Chinese systems, which were hellish, total failures because they were simply implemented incorrectly.

                    That’s usually followed by “tea-bagging racist”, but that’s just the standard reflex.

                    1. To be strictly fair, one has to admit that both Russia and China have been governed by systems that treat people like farm animals for most of recorded history. On the other hand, communism was supposed to change that, and didn’t.

                    2. On the other hand, communism was supposed to change that, and didn’t.

                      Communism’s Achilles Heel is disregarding human nature, such as love, envy, and individualism.

                      Conversely, Libertarianism’s Achilles Heel is the inability to market itself better WRT accounting for those who are left holding the bag, figuratively speaking.

                      When the best laid plans of mice and men FAILS (and there is no such thing as a market FAILure.) some people just can’t hang with that.

                    3. I was doing an economics test, and there was a question, “List the three types of market failure”, so i did answer the question… but before that i wrote in tiny tiny tiny letters, “Markets never fail, they only send signals”. But i think my teacher had gotten so used to my libertarian bullshit that she probably expected something like that.

                      Communism’s achilles heel is disregarding human nature, but not necessarily love, or compassion, i think that may even be one of it’s strengths, the main problem with communism is that it assumed social justice can be carried out through the barrel of a gun, rather than the goodness of one’s heart, it appealed to those who cared but didn’t have enough to give. This is coming from someone who used to flirt with anarcho-socialism.

                    4. Communism’s achilles heel is disregarding human nature, but not necessarily love, or compassion, i think that may even be one of it’s strengths

                      Many a dead Kulak, Jew, and Gypsy disagrees. By starvation too, in keeping with the nutritional topic here.

                    5. No doubt about that. But Communism did appeal to the average social-justice concerned college student who hated seeing 8 year olds toil away in sweatshops, just so they can eat a can of beans that night. It convinced people that the best way to feed the poor food, was to feed the rich bullets.

                    6. It convinced people that the best way to feed the poor food, was to feed the rich bullets.

                      Eventually the lamprey and the tapeworm will kill the host. Problem is, the average Social-Justice minded Concerned College Student can’t see past their own nose. Usually by turning up that same nose at the poor to whom they profess so much Concern.

                    7. It’s blind compassion without insight that leads people to support destructive social programs.

                    8. Problem is those college students only HEAR about 8 year olds toiling away in sweatshops. They’ve never actually seen one, and especially haven’t seen the ones that DON’T work in sweatshops but beg on the streets or end up as prostitutes.

                    9. That’s the worst part about it, they will unknowingly worsen the condition of those they are trying to help.

                      I’ll tell you a short story, i come from and live in Australia, I’m a full time student so i can only work part time/casually, recently i was let off from my job because it was too expensive for my boss to pay me minimum wage while training me, this, combined with the fact she pays a 30% corporate tax, and is experiencing energy price rises due to the recent Carbon Tax, is making it hard for small businesses to hire more people.

                      We have a government that submitted a budget that was supposedly meant to create a surplus by 2013 (it didn’t), and on the campaign promised not to push for a carbon tax (it did). As someone who used to buy into all this socialist bullshit and grew up lower class I am absolutely 100% sympathetic with the cause of social justice, but it’s painfully obvious that these policies are not helping me or any other young person struggling in this economy, they are there for old age pensioners, fat cat unions and thuggish public workers. Sorry for the long post….

                  2. I am constantly amazed at the dichotomy of how folks like want nothing to do with what was left behind, and how folks who know nothing of Soviet-style systems rush headlong to embrace them.

                    Not entirely true, witness the rise and continued relevance of Putin in post-Soviet Russia.

                    The simple truth is, most people wish to be ruled, preferably by a benevolent tyrant, but will still pine for autocratic all-invasive rule even after they’ve had a taste of the malevolent.

    2. When thinking of tyrants, please remember transitive rather than reflexive.

    3. wouldn’t it be easier, less painful and more effective to hang the city council?

  4. Sometimes dude, you jsut gotta roll with it man!

  5. the language of the ordinance contains “false statements” that are “clearly untrue”

    Guess Burke needed more caffeine.

    1. I don’t think all false statements are clearly untrue.

  6. The Onion posts a story about a ceremonial drone flyover at Obama’s inauguration.

  7. Another f***ing dogooder law that goes after something that is not in any way a major cause of health problems. I am downing a red bull as i type this comment. The diconnect between wanting to ban energy drinks, with no clear insight into what an energy drink is, simply targeting drinks that contain guarana and taurine, and a of caffeine (taurine is produced in the human body, and guarana is a natural f***ing fruit), is there any provision to ban PEP pills, downunder there is a flavour of SOLO Lemon Soda that contains Guarana and added caffeine, would that be banned? The thing that bothers me most about this… is how terribly written the law is, and how un-uniformly it will probably be enforced.

    1. Based on your typos, odd capitalization, run on sentences, and tenuous coherency, I would recommend you put the Red Bull down and step away from the keyboard.

      But yes, energy drink bans are ridiculous. This is the act of a vapid politician, who want to project the image that he is “doing something”. If he can get a little bribe money on the side, hey, bonus.

      1. Alright, sorry about the typos, just a little enraged because i consider myself more than just a regular drinker, i consider myself a f***ing fanatic. The big deal is, beyond the fact that he’s trying to take away something very personal to me, is that this law is so badly written, it will only target most marketed energy drinks, creating loopholes wherein Soda companies will simply market these drinks as something else and remove the taurine and guarana. You can get a Mountain Dew called Energized where i live that has a high caffeine content (somewhere between most energy drinks and the original mountain dew), that is essentially that, it’s not classified or marketed as an energy drink, and does not contain enough caffeine or micronutrients like taurine to be an energy drink. This is just another bureacracy which will create ridiculous loopholes. I disagree with the last sentence though, i cannot see any corporate/lobbyist interest in this, it’s just some dumb dogooder law.

      2. I live in Australia, and down here we recently passed and begun enforcing mandated “Plain Packaging” for tobacco, and two months in people are claiming it has already started working. It is strangely similar to this. Because this law will not stop people from drinking highly caffeinated soft drinks, but they will no longer be calling them energy drinks, the same way, of course, the plain packaging law is not in any way a deterrent for smoking, it’s a meaningless do-gooder law that really does nothing but forces businesses to re-market, and does, slightly, reduce consumer choice.

        1. I

          1. I AM Cornholiio! Give me TP for my bunghole!

            hehehehehe FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!

          2. I was just giving you a hard time, man. Your taurine-fueled rants are quite fun to read. You’re like the excitable little brother I never had. Also, fucking feel free to write fuck. In fact, there is not much you could write here that would be offensive. If you like our little corner of liberty, here is a link you may find helpful:


            Welcome to Reason!

            1. Thanks man, i mostly spend my time on the internet on music forums and i need a place to go and say, FUCK THE GOVERNMENT, once in a while, because saying it to the face of my teachers while i tag the whiteboard with an Anarchy sign has gotten me in trouble more than once.

              1. Well, you’ve come to the right place. As much as H&R is populated by a bunch of wierdo assholes, it is also some of the better liberty oriented political discussion you’ll find. Also beer, pizza arguments and fried chicken.

                1. Fried Chicken!

            2. Just don’t mention sheep fucking in conjunction with a certain Lawyer that Shall Not Be Named…

              Although, seeing names like “Warty” in official court documents is always fucking hilarious.

      3. And no one cares if you write “fuck”.

      4. The Alderman is the Barbara Boxer of Chicago, banning scary drinks.

    2. And this is Reason. You can say “fucking.”


  8. And when old age becomes the main cause of death, our betters will solve that problem by preventing anyone from reaching old age.

    1. That’s just giving them ideas.

    2. Ogan’slay Unray

    3. You can’t prevent anyone from dying of old age. You can however rotate your main causes of death and therefore always have a “crisis” to solve and always be able to point to a “crisis” you have solved.

      1. Arguably if I killed you today you would not die of old age.

        1. Logan’s Run

          1. I CALLED IT ALREADY..

            1. That was pig latin? I thought the Red Bull was making you speak in tongues. 🙂

              1. Sillyness aside, can anyone see some kind of motivation behind this ridiculous law besides dogoodery, i don’t know if there is some corporate lobby or union or some s*** hat benefits from a law like this in any way shape or form….

                1. You know you can say shit and fuck on here, right?

                  1. But for the love of God, DON’T. SAY. THE. C-WORD!

                    1. +1 ken doll?

                    2. But for the love of God, DON’T. SAY. THE. C-WORD!

                      That’s only half true.

                    3. That’s only half true.

                      Indeed. With our munts, anything they can do, we can do better.

                    4. But for the love of God, DON’T. SAY. THE. C-WORD!

                      Yeah, Ken doesn’t like it when you say…


                    5. So you’re not even gonna acknowledge the PWNAGE I got on your last comment, are you?

                      [narrows eyes]

                    6. I thought we were to never speak of it. Any reference is triggering and othering.

                    7. But for the love of God, DON’T. SAY. THE. C-WORD!

                      Either one of them.

                    8. VG, see my turkey comment downthread. That goes for any of the California people on here, by the way.

                  2. Shit, really, FUCK YEAH!!! I guess reason supports basic human rights in theory and in practice as well. Shit fuck shit tranny shemales.

                    1. Shit fuck shit tranny shemales.

                      If that’s what you’re into, have I some videos for you!

                    2. You have videos of trannies going back-front-back?

                    3. I can neither confirm nor deny.

                    4. It is the hottest shit i have ever seen, just imagine it, awesome bods, sweet faces, no guy in sight, and penetration as well.

                    5. I can neither confirm nor deny.

                      The correct response is, “They may be videos of men, women, ladyboys or all three. They may contain spacedocking, or they may not. At this point, what does it matter?”

  9. You guys are so lucky you don’t live in australia, where you cant buy a pack of Marlboros that says “Marlboro” on it, it’s f***ing 1984 down here man.

  10. FoxNews writes a good article on overcriminalization in America.

    Perhaps even “Law And Order Libertarians” Team Red supporters are waking the fuck up.

    1. FoxNews is only good for Stossel, Red Eye and the Five…

      1. Blind hog/Acorn=FoxNews/This story.

        That doesn’t make the problem less real.

    2. Only until they’re in charge again and find something they want to get tuff on.

      1. Remember when Napolitano got fired….

  11. There are quite a few techies on here, so maybe one of you can explain the significance of this Anonymous hack to me.

    It looks like a really big deal, but it’s in a field I don’t understand at all. Some clarification, please.

    1. They “stole” encrypted information and distributed it freely, encrypted meaning DATA that has been conceiled, and requires a decryption key to be intelligible, which they will release to the public if the US government doesn’t comply with their demands. I don’t know what’s to get, if you understand the term encryption and decryption it should be plain and simple.

      But to put it simply, the files they are distributing cannot be read unless you have the decryption key, which they claim to have.

      1. I suspect sloopy wants to know a little more about this attack than about the fact that one can’t easily read the contents of the encrypted files without the decryption key. However, sloopy can speak for himself.

        In theory one could try to figure out the decryption key, but if Anonymous used decent strength encryption the chances of finding the decryption key before the heat death of the universe are slim. It’s been a while since I’ve studied factorization theory (and to be honest I wasn’t that good at it), but I doubt advancements in factorization theory and computing power have been able to keep up with the ability to use bigger (and thus more difficult to break) keys.

        Speaking for myself, I am much more interested in the contents of the files and how Anonymous got a hold of the file contents. I see that they have warheads named after each Supreme Court justice. I suspect Anonymous might have a mole or a sympathizer inside the Federal Government, a la Bradley Manning.

        1. I suspect sloopy wants to know a little more about this attack than about the fact that one can’t easily read the contents of the encrypted files without the decryption key. However, sloopy can speak for himself.

          Yes, this. And I’m also mostly interested in knowing the contents of the files, as well as how the sentencing guidelines will be implemented going forward if they’ve all been potentially corrupted and/or modified by outside parties.

          Also, the statement from Anonymous was brilliant and eloquent: not what I expected at all. Looks like they’re growing up and are making themselves more sympathetic figures.

          1. Im watching the statement, and it is absolutely compelling, i think the generation of apolitical, disengaged kids with too much technical knowledge, have grown up and experienced this fucked up predatory justice system first hand and realized that they could do more with this knowledge than spread nude pictures of the hot chick from school.

            1. I’m not as positive as you. Yeah, they’re engaged in this instance but only because one of their own was the target of an overcriminalization-witch hunt. If it had happened to you or me, they would still be planning their next Occupy ________ protest or DDOS attack on a private company.

              1. Fair argument, but it doesn’t really matter what tipped them over the edge, at least they are doing something about it.

                1. My point is that I hate the selective outrage and fear their energies will revert back to fucking up the free market as soon as this is concluded.

                  1. Yes, any apparent alliance between folks like us and Anonymous is temporary at best.

                  2. I think there is a large representation of Libertarian thought in Anonymous though, and they’ve taken up a good cause here.

                    It doesn’t matter whether it is a white cat or a black cat, a cat that catches mice is a good cat.

                    1. It doesn’t matter whether it is a white cat or a black cat, a cat that catches mice is a good cat.

                      Unless it’s a feral cat with rabies that will attempt to claw your eyes out when you’re asleep.

                    2. Reminds me of a feral cat we once adopted called pizza, long story short she took a massive shit behind my computer while i was on it.

                    3. Deep dish.

                    4. Deep dish.

                      Kill it with fire!

                    5. Chicago Style…

          2. Take this over to this article…..nt_3510117

        2. But judging by the “there are a few techies here” part i think it was about the technical aspect.

          In regards to the content, so am i, i don’t necessarily plan to download those files but i definitely want to know what is on them. I don’t necessarily think the contents are important, the point is to get the DOJ and whoever else has an interest in the files that the Sentencing Commission were holding to think they are.

          1. Thinking more about how Anonymous might have pulled this off, I think hacking the website was an outside job.

            Find an improperly secured webserver, break in, change a few pages. Done. Or maybe poison DNS servers to redirect traffic to your website. Given that attempts to access the Sentencing Commission’s website by IP address showed a hacked site, I doubt Anonymous went after DNS.

            Getting the data could have been an inside job, and I still suspect it might have been an inside job, but they could have broken through a VPN server. I wouldn’t be surprised if government workers worked remotely on occasion, so that means there’s a VPN server running somewhere to allow those workers access to the internal network from outside the office.

            1. They might have pulled a Bradley Manning, I hope gods protecting whoever was on the inside…. I can see it already, “Sentencing Commission Insider responsible for Anonymous Hacking of USSC Website and leak commits suicide in jail cell”

    2. This is absolutely big news, but expect the MSM to play it down, “Ohh that Anonymous, just a bunch of basement dwelling kooks who achieve nothing, hahaha, no need to report this”

      1. Some news agency will most certainly want to see what is in those files, and will be willing to print the contents to find out. Either way, the fact that the sentencing guidelines are now editable by anybody is gonna throw a huge monkey wrench in federal jurisprudence, as it’s highly unlikely many judges have a hard copy.

        1. Some news agency will most certainly want to see what is in those files…

          Unfortunately, it will not be a US news agency. Good luck seeing this lead on CNN or at The New York Times. Kim Kardashian is having Kanye’s baby!

          1. There’s always hope the OC Register or WSJ will take an interest, but you’re probably correct.

            BTW, I’m taking turkey orders for Thanksgiving. Do you and the better half want us to raise one or two for you? Pick what you want.

            1. Well I suppose we would be interested in a Narrangansett. The catalog describes it as, “A Calm Turkey with Exceptional Foraging and Mothering Qualities”. Calm, mothering, slaughtered, consumed. At this point what does it matter?

              1. Just so you know, those don’t grow quite as large as the domesticated breeds. But if that’s OK with you, it’s OK with us. Also, we’ll probably get some eggs out of it pre-Thanksgiving (if they send us a hen). So BONUS for you as I’ll give you guys the huevos as well.

                Also, coming up for the slaughter will be optional. We’re gonna bring them down south post-slaughter for you guys and a couple other people, but you need to come up here at some point anyway.

                1. This message board wasn’t what i expected……

                2. V has committed us to the slaughter.

                  1. I…. I don’t get it.


            Meanwhile some kids are getting their bodies ripped to shreds by shrapnel in Mali, but they’re brown, who cares.

            I bet you RT is all over this though, anything that pokes at the US government, they are on it in a heartbeat.

          3. It’s still the lead over at “‘Anonymous’ Threatens Justice Department”. I wonder how that will change if/when Anonymous sends out the decryption key.

  12. These energy drinks, if they’re consumed in large amounts […].

    “This water, if consumed in large amounts…”

    “This air, if consumed in large amounts…”

    This guy must get an erection raining down the banhammer.

    1. Government, if consumed in large amounts, can be lethal, especially if you are the son of some farmer in Afghanistan who happens to attend the same mosque as some guy whose cousin was a member of the Islamic brotherhood.

      1. But he was probably going to be a terrorist any day, so score one for the good guys.

        Four Loko, on the other hand, that shit kills!

        1. You sound like Cytotoxic.

          1. Who’s cytotoxic

            1. A guy that calls himself a libertarian but would bathe in the blood of murderdroned children if given the chance.

              1. Like is he a Beckertarian or some shit? I invented that word, i hope it hasn’t been used before

                1. Damn it, Beckertarian has been used a hundred times before, i though i was so clever.

  13. I saw the headline this morning and thought the Anonymous story was a “big fucking deal.” (thanks uncle Joe) But I throughout the day I have seen very little mention/discussion of it on the interwebz.

    You know those guys will die for this if they are ever identified.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.