Food Policy

Let Consumers Make Their Own Choices About Sugary Drinks

The Center for Science in the Public Interest asks the government to go after soda and juice. What happened to the group's recent nod to empowered consumers?

|

Earlier this week the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a group that regularly pushes for increased food regulations and considers soda to be "a slow-acting but ruthlessly efficient bioweapon," announced it would be launching "a major action regarding the regulation of soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages."

The major action turned out to be a petition CSPI submitted to the FDA requesting that the agency take action to restrict the amount of added caloric sweeteners like sugar and high fructose corn syrup in soda, juices, and other beverages. In its petition, CSPI also urges the agency to take action to limit the presence of such sweeteners in non-beverage foods.

CSPI has a long history—if not a successful one—of exercising its First Amendment Freedom of Petition.

The group has previously petitioned the FDA to curtail sales of Quorn (having also promoted its arrival in America), to restrict the use of trans fats in various foods (after first downplaying any ill effects associated with its consumption), and to mandate a cap on the amount of salt that can appear in processed foods. The latter effort has dragged on for more than three decades. None of these petitions succeeded.

This isn't the first petition CSPI has filed with the FDA pertaining to soda. Neither is this the first column I've written about CSPI and the group's dislike of soda.

In an October 2012 column here at Reason.com I applauded CSPI for a new anti-soda video because its message was to empower consumers to make up their own minds about whether or not to drink the very sweetened drinks the group is this week urging the FDA to crack down on.

"Through words and visuals," I wrote, "the video argues that individuals have both the power and responsibility… to make changes to their own diets and to those of their families."

I called the video a "fantastic addition to the marketplace of ideas—which is exactly where debates over food should be hashed out."

That doesn't mean I agree with the opinions presented in the video. Nor do I agree with some of the "facts" CSPI presents in the clip—some of which are plainly incorrect.

For example, CSPI claims in its video that the USDA's 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans report describes "soda and other sugary drinks a[s] the largest source of calories in our diet."

Yet, as I noted in my October column, Table 2-2 in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans lists "sweetened drinks… fourth on the list [of calorie sources] (behind grain-based desserts, bread, and chicken)."

In spite of these flaws, I noted the group's ode to personal responsibility was a refreshing change for CSPI, which often sues food companies and urges government otherwise to restrict food freedom. But, I cautioned, if CSPI were ever to revert to an anti-choice agenda, Keep Food Legal (the nonprofit I lead) and I would be right there to call the group out.

"But if and when the group ever reverted to its previous position—that people are powerless and… lawsuits and bans should follow," I wrote, "I'd feel empowered to refer again and again to the group's own contradictory words on the issue."

I have no specific quarrel with CSPI. Despite disagreeing with the group on a host of issues (including the FDA's Food Safety Modernization Act rules, which CSPI defended directly in response to a recent column of mine), I find its dietary advice is sometimes useful. In any event, the group deserves space within the marketplace of ideas whether or not I agree with its ideas.

But it's equally true that consumers have a right to make their own food choices, and that food producers deserve space within the commercial marketplace to meet that demand. And when a group seeks to use the power of government to restrict these basic freedoms after acknowledging the fact we have the power to change our own diets if we so wish, I have no choice but to point out its flawed logic and inconsistencies at every turn.

NEXT: Dorner May Have Killed Himself

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. Round up any denier with a microphone and shoot him. Then declare a state of emergency, have Obama crowed god-emperor for life, at which point he can personally eliminate polluting industries by fiat and direct as many resources as necessary to develop clean energy tech and convert energy production and consumption to it nationally.

    That would be a moderate, balanced approach compared to "drill baby drill" or maintaining the status quo, which will have more harmful consequences by any measure. --Tony

    1. Yeah, that is a keeper isnt it?
      The sycophant of authoritarianism laid bare. Pure and pristine totalitarianism.

      God I hate those fuckers.

    2. Tack on his advocacy for mandatory birth control for good measure.

    3. Pure delusion. Maybe Tony really is a troll.

      1. Where did that Tony quote come from?

          1. Thank you.

          2. I really wish someone would have saved the one when he went on an insane day long rant about how the gubmint is going to get all of us crazy anarchists and baggers, with their dronz and other super weapons.

            He even posted pics from Raytheon of all types of weapons, to show us that our puny little assault rifles are useless against his masters. It was hysterical.

        1. I was scrolling by and read this as:
          Ice Nine| 2.16.13 @ 10:46AM |#
          "Where did that Tony come from?"
          Which really does seem like a good question.

          1. "Daddy did a Bad Thing with Mommy, and nine months later?."

    4. I think this a slip up. One of the regulars was trying to post something sarcastic, but forgot to change the handle from T o n y. What we have here fellows, is a regular that has been trolling us. At least since the move to registration.

      1. I have suspected that for a while. I even suspect it may be one of the writers. Maybe Gillespie......

      2. So are you positing "Tony" or "Santorum" as the sock?

        1. Can't it be both?

      3. Registration sucks.

      4. Registration sucks.

    5. my best friend's step-aunt makes $77/hr on the computer. She has been out of work for eight months but last month her check was $20108 just working on the computer for a few hours. Here's the site to read more... http://www.snag4.com

  2. CSPI successfully pressured McDonald's to switch from cooking its fries in healthy tallow to using unhealthy trans fats and industrial seed oils. A decade later they decided that trans fats weren't so healthy after all.

    Here's a quote from the vegan founder of CSPI, Jacobson who is a cyborg sent from the future to destroy humanity:

    Walmart doesn't exactly conjure up warm and fuzzy feelings among many of us who call ourselves progressives. Though the company's huge footprint in the marketplace means consumers can pay lower prices for clothing, electronics, and increasingly, food -- it has also resulted in the shuttering of many family businesses.

    ( . . . )

    The liberal in me doesn't like the idea of a company as big and as powerful as Walmart. But the scientist in me requires that I put the laudatory things that Walmart is doing on the scales as well.

    Fuck CSPI.

    1. In the neck

      In 1990, in response to pressure from CSPI and others, McDonald's stopped using beef tallow in its deep fryers. But instead of switching to liquid vegetable oil, it switched to partially hydrogenated vegetable shortening. Frying in hydrogenated shortening results in increased levels of trans fats in the food. Trans fats are unsaturated but promote heart disease like saturated fat does. Numerous times in recent years, CSPI has called on McDonald's and other national chains to switch to less heart-harmful frying oils.

      1. Trans fats are unsaturated but promote heart disease like saturated fat does.

        Except saturated fats don't. In a new paper published in BMJ, Christopher Ramsden et al report that they were able to recover and analyze data from the original magnetic tape of the Sydney Diet Heart Study.

        Although total cholesterol was reduced by 13% in the treatment group during the study, all-cause mortality was higher in the linoleic acid group than in the control group.

        All cause: 17.6% in the linoleic group versus 11.8% in the control group, HR 1.62, CI 1.00-2.64)
        CV disease: 17.2% versus 11%, HR 1.70, CI 1.03-2.80
        CHD: 16.3% versus 10.1%, HR 1.74, CI 1.04-2.92

        These observations, combined with recent progress in the field of fatty acid metabolism, point to a mechanism of cardiovascular disease pathogenesis independent of our traditional understanding of cholesterol lowering.

        http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8707

        1. Shocking. I can't believe that something we took for granted is now called into question.

          Drink more coffee. No, less coffee. No, more coffee. No coffee at all. Wait, double doses of extra-strong black coffee.

          I dunno. How about "all things in moderation" - that works most of the time. Except for sex and firearms, among other things. Happy Saturday everyone.

          1. I prefer "a moderate amount of things in moderation".

            All things in moderation is an extremist statement, and therefore self-contradictory.

            1. Butter... Margarine... Butter... Margarine... Butter... Which one are we supposed to use now?

              1. Think in terms of evolution.
                10^6-ish years of mostly meat and leafy green vegetables, rare bits of dairy, starches, grain and fruits.
                10^4-ish of that time mostly grain and starches, dairy, fruits annually in season, with bits of meat and leafy green vegetables.
                10^2-ish of that with significant sugar.
                5*10^1-ish of industrial vegetable oils.
                What do you think we're adapted for?

          2. Drink more coffee. No, less coffee. No, more coffee. No coffee at all. Wait, double doses of extra-strong black coffee.

            ^THIS^

            I've heard this type of crap all my life.

            And it's exactly what we should expect when you have researchers getting funded by different interests, to come up with a preferred conclusion.

          3. Just got a big flyer in the mail yesterday recommending dietary tips for myeloma patients from a national organization. In the first paragraph, it says (small print) "although we have no evidence or studies to show diet has any effect on myeloma," it then goes on to say "but here are some (large print) 'common sense' recommendations." Of course, the average person flipping through this won't even see the disclaimer and think they have to do this to improve their situation, perhaps it will cure their cancer:

            1) Avoid any food that might be genetically modified.
            2) Try to eat only locally-grown, organic fruits and vegetables.
            3) Eat grains and complex carbohydrates, avoid fats except olive oil. Fish is OK as a protein but not most other animal protein.
            4) (bolded as the most important recommendation) Absolutely do not drink diet sodas, these contain commercially-produced chemicals.

            Way to recommend/impose your unsubstantiated, one-sided, crunchy advocacy, expensive ideas to a vulnerable population!

            1. Wow, not just chemicals, but ones produced for a commercial purpose. That's like, exponentially more evil.

              1. If we can't consume comercially-produced chemicals, I guess that everyone needs their own personal organic farm.

                1. *commercially

        2. PT - Why is using data from the original magnetic tape germane? Was the data corrupted unintentionally during playback and without the researchers knowledge resulting in the researchers coming to incorrect yet an honest analysis? Or was the data intentionally corrupted resulting in a biased analysis and that the only way that the unbiased data were available was by playing the original tapes back again?

    2. Y'all fuck them. I'm picky about what I touch with that part.

  3. ...considers soda to be "a slow-acting but ruthlessly efficient bioweapon," announced it would be launching "a major action regarding the regulation of soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages."

    The American Institute for Hyperbole in State Regulation Advocacy has determined that the Center for Science in the Public Interest is the most grounded activist group in the history of the universe.

    1. The author of this piece considers these sugar-sweetened drinks to be ?food,? without the scare quotes. Nothing dubious about that, right?

      1. Hey. I was reading your blog, and came across this gem:

        The gun owner buys guns out of feelings of anxiety, suspicion and distrust, especially of their neighbours.

        I disagree with your premise. Most gun owners, and especially libertarian gun owners, purchase guns because they are suspicious of, and distrust the government. I would trust and encourage my neighbors to form militias. Militias formed to fight the tyranny of The State.

        1. Thanks for your attention. And you may be right about libertarian motives for gun ownership. I hope you are.
          I think, however, that my point stands.
          Look at the incidents of Ruby Ridge and Waco. They very likely had guns out of a mistrust of government, but when the government came to take them away, their gun owning neighbours did nothing to help them, and they ended up dead or in prison. The neighbours got to keep their guns. For now.

          If I can return to the soft drink issue. The argument hinges on responsible adults having the right to make their own choices. Yet, unlike the author of the piece, no responsible adult I know of would classify these sweetened drinks as foods. There?s another catch-22 in there.

          1. Baylen is an advocate for food producers and consumers liberty. To start to narrowly categorize what is and isn't food plays into the hands of those who wish to restrict liberty. In a free society, we have the right to put what we want into our bodies; whether it is soda, rice cakes, penises, nipple rings, cigarette smoke, or ham sandwiches.

            Seemingly benign categories of what is and isn't food will lead to incremental erosions of liberty. Guaranteed.

            1. How is liberty served by the pretense that these soft drinks are foods? Why not come clean and argue that people should people should be free to consume these drinks with exactly the same freedom they enjoy when they consume cigarettes, pieces of broken glass etc?

              My answer, as you say, he?s an advocate and a little disingenuity goes a long way.

              1. I think "food" is being used instead of "food and drinks". It's all consumables, anyhow.

          2. Soda is food.

            I guess I'm irresponsible. Hell of an argument you've got there, lemme try:

            No sane adult would not classify soda as a food. You're insane now. That was fun.

            1. He's just nitpicking. Soda is a drink, but I don't think there's much of a distinction between food and drink. It's more of a distinction for everyday life than something meaningful for public policy and law.

              1. If he's nitpicking because drinks are liquid and therefore aren't food, that's an even worse argument.

                1. Yup, you'd get into some crazy arguments then. Are smoothies food or drink? Or are they drinks with food mixed into them? How about honey? You could go on like this for hours.

                  1. I think the 'responsible' qualifier on the statement in question implies that he thinks soda isn't food because of its crummy nutritional value.

              2. He's just nitpicking.

                mtrueman is a mendacious twat and nothing he posts should be taken at face value.

                1. ?nothing he posts should be taken at face value?

                  Everything I post here, I post under my name. That?s probably why I don?t sling around insults with the kind of cowardly bravado that others do.

                  Tell you what, I?ll be happy to leave if you can persuade me the commenters don?t want me posting here.

                  1. Tell you what, I?ll be happy to leave if you can persuade me the commenters don?t want me posting here.

                    I don't care if you leave or stay, but you are patently dishonest and you (so far) have never presented an argument in good faith.

                    And I will call you out for your prevarications.

            2. ?I guess I'm irresponsible?

              No, you?re tendentious. Food is nutrition. Soft drinks are not nutritious. They are essentially adulterated water.

              1. Food is nutrition.

                Define nutrition.

                Soft drinks are not nutritious.

                Define nutritious.

                1. ?Define nutritious.?

                  You don?t need me for that.

                  1. You don?t need me for that.

                    To accept you premise we need your definition.

                    1. ?we need your definition?

                      definition (without looking at dictionary) of nutritious is healthy and sustaining.

                    2. Sustaining, hmm, much like sugar provides calories?

                      Healthy, much like nutritious, is vague and allows you to mean whatever the fuck you want it to mean.

                      Here is a definition of food for you:

                      any nourishing substance that is eaten, drunk, or otherwise taken into the body to sustain life, provide energy, promote growth, etc.

                    3. ?Here is a definition of food for you:?

                      That?s a fine definition and I have no problems with it. I thought it was pretty much in agreement with the definitions I?ve offered throughout this thread. Your preference for nourishing to nutritious, notwithstanding.

                      So your embracing of soft drinks as food comes down to their having sugar added?

                    4. So your embracing of soft drinks as food comes down to their having sugar added?

                      Or caffeine, or any of a variety of other consumables.

                      Why don't you tell us what your dog in the fight is, exactly? Or is this just another of your exercises in being a leftist Tulpa?

              2. No, you?re tendentious

                And you know how to use a thesaurus, congratulations.

                Like redman says, define nutritious.

                If pepsi added 1 microgram of vitamin C to their formula would it be nutritious?

                1. Apologies for using a word like tendentious at Reason. I?ve used it on other boards without raising any eyebrows.

                  ?If pepsi added 1 microgram of vitamin C to their formula would it be nutritious??

                  For all I know pepsi does add a microgramme of vitamin C to their formula. Does it make pepsi nutritious to you?

                  ?Coke adds life!?

                  I think if you believe in the literal truth of the slogan, as in coke sustains life, then I can see how you would believe that coke is indeed food, and the actual amount of vitamins is not relevant. I don?t believe in the literal truth of the slogan. I think they mean that coke increases fun or zest, largely due to the caffeine, I suspect. This has nothing to do with food, nutrition or vitamins.

                  1. I'm so glad you don't think water and carbohydrates are nutrients.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient

                    You're either a mendacious twat, an ignoramus, or a moron.

              3. Food is anything a human consumes that the body can break down and convert to fuel you mendacious twat.

              4. They are essentially adulterated water.

                So is gruel.

      2. "The author of this piece considers these sugar-sweetened drinks to be ?food,? without the scare quotes. Nothing dubious about that, right?"

        The drinks contain sugar, which the body uses as fuel. That's food, yes?

        GOOD food? THAT can be argued.

        1. ?The drinks contain sugar?

          So coke is a food, diet coke is not food... You really want to run with this adding sugar to an admixture of chemicals makes it food line of argument?

          1. You really want to run with this adding sugar to an admixture of chemicals makes it food line of argument?

            So far your argument is based on a lack of "scare quotes" and a definition that disproves your own argument.

            Tedious mendacious twat is tedious, and mendacious. News at 11.

          2. First, sugar is a chemical. Second, nutrients are things we consume to live or grow. Both water and sugar are nutrients.

            1. ?Both water and sugar are nutrients.?

              I?m not convinced that anyone here believes that adding sugar to something makes it a food, or that people consume soft drinks in order to live and grow. That?s preposterous. Do you honestly believe that ?coke adds life? in a literal sense? Talk about drinking the kool aid!!

              1. I?m not convinced that anyone here believes that adding sugar to something makes it a food, or that people consume soft drinks in order to live and grow. That?s preposterous. Do you honestly believe that ?coke adds life? in a literal sense? Talk about drinking the kool aid!!

                It doesn't matter whether we believe sugar water is food or not, for the sake of the proposals being fronted by CSPI to the FDA for regulation, it is a food. So why do you persist with this ridiculous pretense?

                Oh, I know why.

                Because:

                Tedious, mendacious twat is tedious and mendacious, and a twat. News at 11.

              2. Sugar is a food, or rather is a component of food. Saying that we consume it when we don't need to, and put it into things that we consume when we don't need to, don't change these facts. Please abstain from all sugar and water, since according to you we don't need them.

          3. Either "Food" is what which the body can use to either build itself or run, or it is a value judgment with strong moralistic overtones.

      3. Sugar-sweetened drinks contain sugar. Sugar is not a food?

        And are you implying that, because sugar-sweetened drinks are not food, therefore the Food and Drug Administration can regulate them? My socks aren't food, either, does this mean the FDA can regulate them?

        Of course, I can understand the logic - if I am consuming sugar-sweetened beverages rather than food, the act of not consuming food would bring my act under the purview of the FDA. Just like by not buying health insurance I was affecting interstate commerce and therefore by not engaging in interstate commerce I was engaged in interstate commerce, according to some experts.

        1. I?m not concerned with the FDA, its purview or interstate commerce. I?m not interested in loosening legal loopholes.

          1. I?m not concerned with the FDA, its purview or interstate commerce. I?m not interested in loosening legal loopholes.

            So, uh, what the fuck are you on about, other than getting your panties in a wad over epistemological flourish?

            1. What purpose is served by the pretense that these soft drinks are food? Food is something we take to sustain life. Nobody I know consumes these drinks with that in mind.

              Why do you continue to curse me, call me a liar, a twat, and talk about my panties? I sincerely don?t mean to make you or anyone here so angry. Argument should be enjoyable. If there?s something I?ve said in the past, you should bring it up and we can discuss it reasonably.

              1. What purpose is served by the reality that these soft drinks are food?

                Fixed your sentence there. The point is accuracy in understanding what helps sustain our lives.

                Food is something we take to sustain life.

                And both water and sugar serve that purpose.

                Nobody I know consumes these drinks with that in mind.

                That's probably because our bodies give us incentives to consume things without our having to think about the ultimate purpose of sugar and water. Sugary substances are tasty. Water is refreshing. We find these to be the case precisely because water and sugar are necessary for our continuing existence. That we take in levels of these in excess of the amount needed to sustain life doesn't mean they don't serve that purpose.

                1. Darius404, meet Redmanfms. Redmanfms, Darius404. I?m you two will have much to talk about.

                  1. And now that people have arrived in this thread who see through your mendacity and recognize you and your specious argument for what it is, I fully expect you to vanish like a fart in the wind like you usually do.

                    1. ...I fully expect you to vanish like a fart in the wind like you usually do.

                      And as I suspected, this is exactly what you did.

                      I now expect that you'll come back to this thread in 3-4 days (long after it has fallen off the front page) to start posting rebuttals when you know you won't get any challenge in return, because (upon today's review of our other interactions) it is another favored and dishonest tactic in which you indulge.

                      Which yet another reason I call you what you are, a mendacious twat.

              2. What purpose is served by the pretense that these soft drinks are food?

                What purpose is served by the pretense that failure to use "scare quotes" has some underlying meaning?

                Food is something we take to sustain life. Nobody I know consumes these drinks with that in mind.

                Well aren't you just fucking special.

                In the terms of what this article is addressing, namely the CSPI attempting to push for FDA bans on soft drinks, they are food for sake of regulation. Read the fucking article and comprende dipshit.

                Why do you continue to curse me, call me a liar, a twat, and talk about my panties?

                1. Because you are a liar.
                2. See 1.
                3. I know you speak English and can understand colloquialisms asshole, so see fucking 1 again.

                I sincerely don?t mean to make you or anyone here so angry.

                I'm not angry. I don't respect people who use false pretenses as a basis of argument and to disguise their own biases. My response to your mendacity is not out of anger, but contempt.

                If there?s something I?ve said in the past, you should bring it up and we can discuss it reasonably.

                Why? You were just as dishonest then (on a different topic) as you are now. Reasonable (DRINK!) discussion is not to be had with a person who argues in bad faith, which is precisely what you do.

  4. Enjoy your time in prison, Jesse Jackass Junior. Hope you don't take it in the bunghole too often!

    1. Not that there's anything wrong with being gay, you should keep your fantasies to yourself.

  5. "a slow-acting but ruthlessly efficient bioweapon"

    Don't forget about the *carbonation* aspect. Soda is also causing global warming!

  6. I had been scratching my head wondering who the fuck sits around obsessing about what other people are eating until PS was kind enough to post the background info on CSPI. I got to this; "...from the vegan founder of CSPI..." and then the anti-corporation bullshit. OoooooK.

    More fucking fascists masquerading as concern trolls. I am betting malthusians also. Got it.

    1. It's no surprise, considering CSPI's founder calls himself progressive. Controlling others seems not only to be the means but the end as well for these assholes.

      Eternal vigilance is not enough to stop them.

      1. "Controlling others seems not only to be the means but the end as well for these assholes."

        This.

        See Santorum's T o n y quote at the head of the comments. AGW, obesity, over population, gun violence, heart disease etc are only pretenses for these control freaks. Each and every time their pretenses are shown to be false they simply morph it into a slightly different fabrication and run with it. Each time the solutions they propose are identical.

        http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles 2007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf

        First it was global cooling, then global warming, then climate change. In the link above the architects of this bullshit admitted publicly and on the record that it was all a fabrication with the end being population reduction. Of course population control is about getting the numbers of people down to a size they can actually manage. Total and complete control is what it is all about. All of it.

      2. "Eternal vigilance is not enough to stop them."

        That's what the guillotine is for.

    1. "Long smooth taste"

      Priceless.

  7. CSPI, another authoritarian group.

    Why can't these fascists just leave us the fuck alone?

    1. because screwing with us is what fascists do. Obama's re-election has emboldened a good many of them to believe they can come out of the shadows and be clear about their desire and intent to control us much of our lives as possible.

      1. Well, at least now they're honest.

  8. I recall a few CSPI 'studies' that, dissected, demonstrated no grasp whatsoever of the scientific method, and crackly smacked of pure publicity stunt. Maybe I'm not being fair - these incidents took place more than a decade ago - but when I see the CSPI name associated with something, I immediately dismiss it from serious consideration.

    Politically active intellectuals please note; cut corners,fake numbers, and ballyhoo may actually permanently damage your ability to move your agenda forward. I don't trust people who I have caught lying to me several times. I think that a lot of people agree with me.

    P.S. If you REALLY want to overcome this kind of resistance, you might start by trying to get the book HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS off the market. I find it invaluable, and recommend it to all my fellow Cranks.

    1. Lying is what they do. As noted above they are fully aware that if they are honest about their agenda they will be soundly rejected. Take lying away from them and they have nothing.

      http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012.....an-lakoff/

      I think those two books should remain on the market so that people can see them for what they are.

    2. HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS

      Oh, thank you for reminding me about that book! Great timing! I need to dig that one back out and give it to my youngest. She'll love it. And it's the kind of thing to make you notice that how you take statistics is enormously important. I love a recent example about US vs. British crime stats: 3 men are charged with shooting a woman, killing her outside a bar. The gun cannot be positively put to any of the three men. There are no other witnesses.
      Because all three are charged with murder, the US statistics show 3 murders.
      But all are found not guilty for reasonable doubt, so the UK statistics show 0 murders.

      1. Well, any feminist would say they're all guilty, and you could probably find some expert witness coroner that could prove that all three had their fingers on the trigger.

      2. I haven't read that one, but it is now on the list.

        bought one for my boy who is getting ready to graduate HS. He will need that prep in college. He is naturally skeptical, which is good.

  9. I think you give these statists assholes too much deference Baylen. There actions have never had consumer choice as the focus. He is another person who likes to control other people and his ban boner doesn't come from using any scientific evidence.

    1. Baylen has to play nice in the sandbox with these assholes. He can't go around calling them slavers, assholes, etc. That's what the Reason comments section is for. 😉

      Fuck the CSPI! Fuck Michigan!

  10. OT: Phillipino boxer won't fight in Vegas because of US taxes.

    But Arum and Koncz say Pacquiao is balking at the additional money he'd lose to the government if the fight were held in Las Vegas. Arum said Pacquiao would not have to pay taxes if the fight takes place in casinos in either Singapore or Macau.
    "Manny can go back to Las Vegas and make $25 million, but how much of it will he end up with ? $15 million?" Arum said. "If he goes to Macau, perhaps his purse will only be $20 million, but he will get to keep it all, so he will be better off."

    1. Say what you want about Pac, but you can't deny that he's no dummy.

    2. I think we are going to start to see more of that. You are going to really see it in California. Why would an NBA or NHL star sign with a California team and pay 13% state taxes? The Lakers think they are going to sign LaBron in a couple of years. I bet they get a huge shock. A few percent here or there is one thing. But 13% is going to make LA a much less desirable free agent destination.

      1. "But 13% is going to make LA a much less desirable free agent destination."

        Does the NBA have salary caps? If not, they just have to offer enough to offset the loss.
        Pretty sure the football and baseball teams aren't going to be able to do so.

        1. The NBA and NHL both have pretty hard salary caps. And they both have max contracts. So someone like LaBron James is getting a max contract no matter where he goes. LA can't up their offer beyond the max.

          1. And it's a good guess LaBron has tax advice, and that advice is "forget any CA team".

            1. And of course if you sign with LA you become a CA resident and get to pay the 13% on all of your endorsements, which for someone like him is probably more than his salary.

            2. And the NBA players can get a much-higher square-foot "crib" in the low-tax states than in CA on their salaries as well, and that is apparently a big deal to them. There was a story in a Bay Area rag not long ago about why the Warriors can't get marquee free agents -- and one main answer was you can't get a local five-acre plot with a 20,000 square-foot new house, complete with indoor basketball court and 12-car garage, anywhere around here -- with the only exceptions costing over $50 million.

          2. There is a reason LeBron (notice the spelling!) signed with Miami.

            What is the Florida state income tax rate?

            And Im surprised the unions arent pushing hard to get all CA teams out of the leagues, so they dont have to pay the taxes for the road games there.

            1. Florida doesn't have a state income tax.

              1. Exactly my point.

                That question was rhetorical.

                1. That question was rhetorical.

                  Sorry. Just started my second cuppa' joe. Maybe I should switch to bourbon?

      2. I suspect that factored into James' decision to go to Miami in first place

        1. I don't see any reason for Lebron to leave unless he is bored of Miami. What could LA have to offer?

          1. Beautiful weather. Beautiful homes. Beautiful people. World class dining, shopping, and educational institutions. Arguably the most successful professional sports franchise in history...

            1. Arguably the most successful professional sports franchise in history...

              Not even remotely true.

              Arguably the most successful in its league, but I would go with the Celtics.

              Arguably the most successful in the US, but I would go with the Yankees.

              And not even arguable vs something like Real Madrid.

              1. Well I did say arguably.

                Arguably the most successful in its league, but I would go with the Celtics.

                Despite the 2008 Championship (over the Lakers), there was a drought of 22 years. The meantime, the Lakers were continually excellent and winning championships.

                Arguably the most successful in the US, but I would go with the Yankees.

                OK. I can concede that. But if we look at the percentage of championships each team won in their respective leagues, it's even. Lakers = 24%, Yankees = 24%. Both teams have contributed all-time great players to their leagues. Both teams are one side of heated rivalries (ironically against Boston teams). Let's call it a push.

                And not even arguable vs something like Real Madrid.

                I said professional sports franchise. Soccer is not a sport. 😉

            2. Hmmmm let's see how Miami compares: yes, yes, yes, yes, debatable, and fallen off. You forgot shitty traffic which is a wash. Oh and Florida allows you to have scary takticool semi auto death bringers.. In any color you want.

      3. What we are going to see is efforts in congress, over the next few years, to limit the movement of individuals(except for the elites, of course).

        They will make up any excuses they can to violate our rights, AGW, security, lost revenue, whatever. One of the main end goals of the progressives is to make us serfs stay put where we are, so that they can control us better. To them, we are just 'biological resources' for them to exploit.

        1. Is there explicit talk of that?

          I got the impression that they were slimier than that. I think by increasing property tax and making property requirements more and more expensive they are trying to price people out of private ownership and into apt. complexes.

          It seems like the perfect solution as they can then justify regulating behavior more closely and keep people concentrated in small areas. I wasnt aware that they were wanting to restrict individual's movement so much as just herd us all together in small places.

          1. wasnt aware that they were wanting to restrict individual's movement so much as just herd us all together in small places.

            As more and more people vote with their feet, leaving states and even the country, to avoid crushing taxes, you will see it.

            Yes, they want to herd us into confined spaces, that is what sustainable development is all about.

            But they also want to stop us from moving around to avoid more taxes. Don't you recall Chuckie Shumers rant after the guy from PayPal moved to Singapore? They start big, but they will keep moving down the scale because there is not enough revenue from 1 percenters to satisfy their gluttony for spending.

            We will eventually be a lot like the Soviet union, no one will be allowed to leave, except for the elite party members. This is just inevitable, you cannot maintain a totalitarian fascist police state(which is exactly what the political elite want), and allow folks to escape.

          2. There's effectively an exit tax for people who want to give up their US citizenship.

      4. I dunno. To some stars it's simply about having a huge contract number, regardless of how much money they make.

        Albert Pujols took a little more money to play for the Angels instead of the Cardinals, but after taxes it's going to be quite a bit less. But he had a chip on his shoulder about being drafted so low, so he wanted the biggest contract numbers possible

  11. Dear CSPI: My body, my choice

    1. But it isn't a woman's body so they don't care.

    2. You are free to have all of the gay sex and abortions you want. The rest of your ass belongs to the collective.

      1. You are free to have all of the gay sex and abortions you want. The rest of your ass belongs to the collective.

        Until the collective decides there aren't enough future workers, then sodomy is a capital crime and abortion is outlawed. (e.g. Mao in 1920's Shanghai vs. Mao in control of Revolutionary China)

        1. You know, I could totally see them doing that. They are that evil and that crazy.

          1. Indeed. History proves that will be the most likely outcome. Mao is one example. Lenin's policy of complete sexual freedom being completely overturned by Stalin is another.

            Homosexuality would remain illegal until Yeltsin; although it looks like Putin is just waiting for the right time to ban it again.

            "With regards to what the heads of regions say, I normally try not to comment. I don't think it is my business. My relation to gay parades and sexual minorities in general is simple ? it is connected with my official duties and the fact that one of the country's main problems is demographic. But I respect and will continue to respect personal freedom in all its forms, in all its manifestations."
            President Vladimir Putin, when quizzed on the ban of the Moscow Pride Parade, 1 February 2007.

            On the other hand, the abortion ban only lasted as long as Stalin and his successor returned the title of "Abortion Capital of the World" to Russia, which continues today as the countries in the Russian Federation have the highest rates of abortion in the world. No mean feat considering China's draconian enforcement of the One Child Policy. (Though they tweak the stats by merely starving infant girls to death after they are born.)

            CHOICE!

            1. Russia is killing itself with abortion. Their birth rates are horrible. Russia is going to die if it doesn't change.

              1. The same thing is happening all over Europe. The only group having babies there, are the Muslims, who will overtake the native populations in less than 50 years.

                Like it will matter, because the Europeans will be slaves to an Islamic caliphate in much less time than that.

              2. Or maybe just become less crowded and more liveable.

            2. Of course, nothing stops homosexual activity like prison.

  12. You guys are too dumb to know what's good for you. CSPI, the SPLC and Mayors Against Legal Guns are here to save you from yourselves.

    I was just listening to somebody saying, "Americans are too dumb to appreciate the awesomeness of electric cars; that's why the government has to step in and restructure the market to create the illusion of an economic justification for buying/owning one. After all, when the automobile was first invented, a lot of people refused to immediately abandon their horses and wagons."

    How can you possibly turn your back on that sort of logic?

    1. The bread the party gives you is much better than the cake you would like to buy for yourself.

      1. bread?
        so now you're force feeding gluten on everyone, you MONSTER

    2. I just need powerful speakers for the open header sound.

  13. If there's anybody hasn't already figured this out, "Zatoichi" = same shit in a different bag.

    1. The worst part is that the name of such an entertaining fictional character is sullied by the troll and its puerile nonsense.

    2. If there's anybody hasn't already figured this out, "Zatoichi" = same shit in a different bag.

      Well, people keep responding to it.

      1. Yes, and they should stop.

    3. It's somewhat similar to crayon, except for the heh heh heh, as opposed to Hur Durrrr, that's punny.

  14. Pacquiao is balking at the additional money he'd lose to the government if the fight were held in Las Vegas. Arum said Pacquiao would not have to pay taxes if the fight takes place in casinos in either Singapore or Macau.

    This is why the IRS needs drones.

    1. And SWAT Teams. And Assault vehicles (loaded with 'assault' weapons)

  15. One of the NRO writers named Jim Gerehty sends out a daily web briefing. In yesterday's he included this about the Dorner fan club and OWS. Pretty true and really pretty scary.

    You'll have to forgive me here; at this point I'd like to cite a report I read that put together a psychological profile of the leaders and rank-and-file of the Occupy Wall Street movement, but for some reason, it has completely disappeared. I've Googled like mad and been unable to find it. So, feel free to take the following with a grain of salt, since I'm describing something I read probably a year ago and can't find now; if you happen to know who wrote this and have a link, please send it along.

    The report said that your average member of Occupy Wall Street sleeping in a tent somewhere was primarily driven by a need for a sense of community. Yes, they had passionate beliefs about the economy and fairness and opportunity and the ills of society and so on, but that generally, what kept them staying in those leaky tents night after night as the weather chilled was a sense of being part of something greater, a sense of connection with all the other folks around them. For whatever reason, these folks had found the other, traditional forms of connection -- family, neighbors, friends, religious groups -- lacking, but in Occupy they had found what they felt they needed.

    1. The leaders were a different story. The leaders weren't driven by a need for connection; the leaders were sitting on a massive psychological stockpile of rage. They were consumed by grievances toward a society that they believed had ignored their obvious genius and talents, believed that every corner of modern American society shared in the guilt for the injustice against them, and were ready to lash out, oftentimes violently, against those who they deemed their enemies. They found leadership of the Occupy movement thrilling and invigorating, and saw it as an opportunity to settle the scores against a world that had done them wrong. Frightening stuff.

    2. So the Occupy movement is a cult.

    3. For whatever reason, these folks had found the other, traditional forms of connection -- family, neighbors, friends, religious groups -- lacking, but in Occupy they had found what they felt they needed.

      In the 70s and 80s those people joined real cults and at worst killed themselves.

      Now they join progressive political operations and try to enslave the rest of us.

  16. OT, but some good news:
    "Inmate exonerated in '06 Oakland shooting"
    ..."he was the innocent victim of shoddy police work and lying witnesses who have since recanted."...

    You can forget the cops suffering for the shoddy work, but at least he's free.
    http://www.sfgate.com/crime/ar.....283889.php

  17. the name of such an entertaining fictional character is sullied by the troll and its puerile nonsense.

    Exactly.

    1. He is not even a good sophist. If there is a more tired and over used piece of sophistry than saying "just because this isn't the worst sort of (X) it is okay", I am unaware of it.

      1. You're being way too charitable with its motives. Its thought-process is no more complex than "I'm going to be the ultimate contrarian to affect a persona of the Diogenist gadfly. Aren't I such a badass?"

        1. I'm pretty sure it's Mary.

        2. Its thought-process is no more complex than "I'm going to be the ultimate contrarian to affect a persona of the Diogenist gadfly. Herrr I troll you. Aren't I such a badass?"

          FTFY.

          I think you're seriously overestimating its intelligence.

  18. considers soda to be "a slow-acting but ruthlessly efficient bioweapon,"

    I'm so glad to hear that Timecube guy is alive and well.

    1. Kill it. Kill it now while it is down!!

      http://www.showbiz411.com/2013.....medy-block

      1. Two and a half men?

    2. sorry. that was not meant to be in response to you DB

  19. http://blogs.the-american-inte.....obamacare/

    Dems turning on Obamacare

    1. They will get back into the herd, once their master smacks them on the head.

      1. It's not even that. They're going to loudly criticize it for the record and then they'll have soundbites for TV ads in reelection campaigns. But they'll never vote to repeal it. It's Iraq all over again: "this was a terrible mistake" "the war is lost"....but yet they also voted to keep funding the war.

        It's a way for idiot progressives to soothe their consciences. Actual conversation between an idiot and myself:

        Idiot: "Look, Obama has on many occasions spoken out against the Patriot Act"

        Me: "He signed it back into law. He could have vetoed and he didn't."

        Idiot: "No, he is opposed to it."

  20. I get some really nasty reactions to soybean oil, and all I know is that I have far fewer options on where to go out than I used to.

    Bring back the animal fat, please?

    Barbeque joints that use soybean oil are an abomination. Authentic Mexican restaurants that use soybean oil are an abomination.

    1. I don't know much about barbeque, but if you're ever in Indiana try to check out Bird's Smokehouse BBQ, they have the best barbeque ribs I've ever had: only meat on the bone, almost no fat or gristle at all. I can't stand most ribs precisely because of the poor percentage of meat on them, but Bird's are almost pure meat. They apparently order it special for their barbeque.

      http://www.birdssmokehousebbq.com/

      1. The wife and I will be in Indianapolis the weekend of April 20/21. Is it really worth the drive? We like some BBQ. This is important, Darius. Is. It. Worth. It?

        1. I don't have much of a frame of reference here, but they're seriously the best ribs I've ever had. My whole family (mom, brother, grandparents, their siblings) absolutely loved their food.

          If there something in particular you're curious about, I suggest calling them. It's Daleville, just a little east of Anderson. If you think good ribs are worth the drive from Indy, than it's worth it. I'm honestly not sure how to weigh the length of the drive against the quality of the food, I just think they have delicious ribs (and other pork products) is all. I hope that's at least a little bit helpful.

          1. Just messing with you d404. I grew up in New Castle, IN. I'm very familiar with the area. I'll definitely drive 20 minutes to get quality BBQ. Thanks for the heads up!

            1. Glad I could help.

  21. I quit drinking soda a little over a year ago and it's responsible for up to half of the 40 pounds I lost. Nobody made me do it; I wanted to make the change, and it gets easier all the time.

    If we really want to use public resources to promote healthier habits, we could just do an education campaign, "the more you know" kind of thing. That's not market regulation, but if it succeeds, companies will have to adapt to changing trends to stay competitive, and no government coercion will have been needed.

    1. I used to sometimes drink a two liter bottle of Pepsi a day.

      But then I run about four miles every other day, too.

      My weight drops when I start eating more or stop working out, for a while, anyway, since muscle weighs more than fat, I guess?

      So why should any of these bureaucrats be making choices for me? I do not fit into their stats, anywhere. When I'm at my healthiest, with the least amount of fat, according to their BMI, I'm obese! When no sane person or blood test would see anything wrong with me.

      1. Kind of like DUI laws that assume every human body has the same metabolism and tolerance.

        1. Exactly!

  22. I agree in personal choice and responsibility. But when you have scientific evidence to support that a substance is addictive beyond the control of those who use it, then use psychology to produce adds to get people to use it, you may create a situation where government needs to intervene. Using a scientifically proven method to make someone unwillfully addicted to your product in a way denies them their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

    I'm not convinced this is true for soda.

    1. Fuck off slaver.

      1. Hey at least they didn't bring up externalities. I've heard that one a million times.

        1. Basically he did. Addiction would the the externality.

        2. For some reason, the observation that we all have to pay for fat people's heath costs never seems to translate into the solution that we should just get rid of Medicaid.

          1. And even that has been debunked, at least for cigarettes. Sorry, too lazy to look up the study, I think it was Danish. Total cost for smokers was lower.

            This was countered by another Danish study (and I was easily able to find that looked at, hey, indirect costs and the entrails of sheep and decided that, yes, smoking has more externalities.

            1. I have to admit, by the way, that I'm getting sick of seeing all the "EBT Cards Accepted" signs that seem to be creeping up all over...

              I saw a flashing electronic sign advertising cut rate prices on a carton of cigarettes, yesterday, and at the end, it started flashing "EBT Cards Accepted!"

              If you can buy a carton of cigarettes at the gas station with an EBT card? Then that's a great reason to get rid of the EBT system. But it's not the health benefits that bug me, it's buying other people's cigarettes--are you kidding?! I want to know how much money those cash benefit EBT cards go to buying people cigarettes--like now.

              1. Here we thought we were feeding hungry children, and we're actually buying their parents cigarettes?

                The United States is probably the only place in the world where the poor are disproportionately obese.

                You want to talk about perverse incentives? Giving obese people all the free food they can eat is about the most callous thing we could do. ...even if they're poor!

                1. Why does the government have to feed poor people? I was driving through Compton two weeks ago, and there was a line of about 80 people waiting to receive food donations from the local iglesia. Seems like there was a solution, long before there was a problem.

              2. I don't think anyone's buying cigarettes with EBT cards in my state, but clearly the stores are goading beneficiaries into spending more than they need to on food items priced for convenience. The store owners are neither responsible for the opportunity nor obligated to care if their customers are unwise, of course; the situation exists because too many Americans don't have a firm grasp of basic consumer economics.

                1. My state (Indiana) only allows EBT usage for food, can't buy anything else with it. There's probably still unapproved market activity with EBT though.

                  1. Apparently, there are two different programs with two different criteria:

                    "Common benefits provided (in the United States) via EBT are typically of two general categories: food and cash benefits. Food benefits are federally authorized benefits that can be used only to purchase food and non-alcoholic beverages. Food benefits are distributed through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly the Food Stamp Program. Cash benefits include state general assistance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits and refugee benefits."

                    With those cash benefits, I guess they can buy whatever the hell they want.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.....t_Transfer

                    1. When we qualified for that stuff, it was for SNAP and not TANF. Food money was all we were offered.

            2. I think it was a Czech study, and it was of course buried because the conclusion wasn't PC.

    2. "But when you have scientific evidence to support that a substance is addictive beyond the control of those who use it, then use psychology to produce adds to get people to use it, you may create a situation where government needs to intervene."

      I have a few questions about that.

      Some of them have to do with which addictions are really out of someone's control. People and do stop snorting cocaine and stop shooting heroin. Just because a lot of people choose not to resist their addictions doesn't mean it's completely beyond their control.

      Some of the other questions have to do with how effective the government can be in intervening in people's addictions. I suppose we all see how futile their attempts at intervening in heroin and cocaine addictions have been, and if you're talking about a food addiction--well, there are so many substitutes!

      How are you going to stop people from eating every form of sweet thing out there?

      P.S. Using psychology? You mean trying to convince people to do something?

      1. "But when you have scientific evidence to support that a substance is addictive beyond the control of those who use it,"

        I've never seen such. In fact, I can't e4ven imagine an experiment that would prove it.

        1. Now you're using psychology!

      2. It seems to be true for crystal meth, which has a very low recovery rate, but of course, that problem wouldn't exist without cocaine prohibition. Classic example of government turning a perceived problem into a real one.

        1. Jon Lester| 2.16.13 @ 1:12PM |#
          "It seems to be true for crystal meth, which has a very low recovery rate..."

          Regardless of the rate, it still not "scientific evidence to support that a substance is addictive beyond the control of those who use it,"

      3. With enough force you can 'convince' people to not eat or produce sweets. I bet it's difficult to find a good cupcake in North Korea, so we need to figure out what they are doing right and copy it.

    3. Using a scientifically proven method to make someone unwillfully addicted to your product in a way denies them their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

      Mind control is scientifically proven?

      The Prison Planet website is that way -----

      1. subliminal advertising!
        Haven't you heard? Why, since the '50s, all the theaters use it to make you buy popcorn!

        1. Theaters? I haven't been in one since Xenu forced me in one on Teegeeack!

    4. "I agree in personal choice and responsibility. But ...."

      You can stop right there because everyone here knows what you are saying - You dont believe in personal choice or responsibility.

  23. we could just do an education campaign, "the more you know" kind of thing.

    That's not very satisfying for people who have a compulsion to impose their beliefs on others. Cigarettes were called "coffin nails" for a long time, but that did not stop the unenlightened dirty-fingernailed proles from smoking them.

  24. Today's dose of New Deal nostalgia from the New York Times.

    Those weekend adventurers, riding a surge of interest in backcountry skiing, may not realize it, but they have the Great Depression to thank for those fresh tracks. The Thunderbolt is one of more than a dozen semi-hidden gems tucked throughout the hills of New England, the legacy of a trail-cutting frenzy conducted in the 1930s by the Civilian Conservation Corps, a signature program of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal.

    From 1933 until 1942, the C.C.C. deployed almost 3 million unemployed men between the ages of 18 and 25 across the nation to plant trees, hew trails and build roads, bridges and park structures. Workers lived in camps run by the Army, were clothed and fed, and received $30 a month. Communities across the country benefited from new state parks and infrastructure.

    If only we had some forced labor camps, we could make this country as great as it once was.

    1. Amazing!
      Why, there would be no trails at all without that sleazy FDR asshole!
      Nope, nobody ever blazed a trail through a forest until the government paid them to do so.

      1. You didn't build that trail!

    2. If only we had some forced labor camps, we could make this country as great as it once was

      Well, our president is doing all he can. He's not emperor, yet, you know?

      He's being constrained by bitter clingers, to some document written 200 years ago!

    3. forced labor camps

      Ahhem...the correct term is "service" and you usually have to add something about Martin Luther King Jr. as well.

    4. FDR hagiographics aside, even if they got the CCC going again it'd never be able to actually do anything because of years-long environmental impact report holdups that end up concluding the livelihood of the spotted owl or whatever takes precedence over the livelihood of man.

      1. It amuses me how all of the leftist policies and goals are contradictory to each other.

    1. Doesn't every true baseball fan hate both the Red Sox and the Yankees?

      1. And this is why no one should blame Mets fans: Growing up between Isengard and Rohan, we sided with the dickwad steward of Gondor (who in this case would be the Wilpons, which fits because they also suck at their jobs.

        Given the lesser of 4 evils (Red Sox, Yankees, Phillies*, Mets) we chose the least evil one.

        *Little Known Fact: All teams from Philadelphia are pure evil, and the Phillies are the most evil of them all.

        1. In this metaphor, Philadelphia is Mordor and Red Sox are Rohan because while they may seem cool and different, at the end of the day they're just a bunch of horse fuckers.

    1. I like the comment:

      this is revenge? for protesting putin power. all hail putin

  25. the correct term is "service"

    How about "Youth Socialization and Acculturation Camps"?

  26. "...In any event, the group deserves space within the marketplace of ideas whether or not I agree with its ideas."

    Uhhh, Once someone goes from advocating an idea in the marketplace to advocating for government's coercive regulation (and the then necessary use of force), they then deserve to be kicked out off their seat at the big people table and sat down with the kiddos to re-learn to mind their own fucking business. Seriously, there is a wide gulf between advocating and educating for one choice and advocating the use of government to enforce your idea of right. This article was way to light handed, they deserve a world class liberty minded bitch slap.

    1. ..."they then deserve to be kicked out off their seat at the big people table and sat down with the kiddos to re-learn to mind their own fucking business."...

      Exactly.
      School-yard bullies.

  27. Good news, everyone!

    Lawmakers on Friday moved closer to passing a package of new gun restrictions in Colorado, a state that has lived in the shadows of two of the worst mass shootings in United States history.

    ---

    "We continue to hear that responsible gun owners do not commit crimes," said Representative Beth McCann, a Democrat from Denver, who co-sponsored the background check legislation with Ms. Fields. "So it's hard for me to understand how responsible gun owners would have any objections to this bill. All this is doing is requiring everyone to go through the same background check."

    -------

    Two other gun measures put forth by Colorado Democrats also received preliminary approval on Friday by House lawmakers. One bill would ban concealed weapons on college campuses. The other would charge gun buyers for background checks.

    Background checks for everyone (for a nominal, completely reasonable fee- what are you whining about?); if you're not doing anything wrong, what are you trying to hide?

    1. Do you have any more good news? Did the cops shoot any puppies?

      1. "Did the cops shoot any puppies?"
        Yeah, but that's not news.

        1. That Pomeranian was coming right at us!

    2. This ruined my morning as well...

  28. If all those Wild West Cowboy types in Colorado can see the benefits of sensible reasonable gun control, why can't you? If you oppose these rules, you're just as bad as the guy who pulled the trigger in Connecticut!

    1. Propose an Amendment to the Constitution, or flake off.

  29. Do you have any more good news?

    Urban Democrat Californicators are bringing their enlightened version of society to rural hicks all over the West.

    Hallelujah!

    1. Stop, we can't take any more of this good news. Next thing I know, you will be telling us that the orange one has informed dear leader that the GOP will agree to extend the debt ceiling to infinity.

  30. So in another corner of the Internet that has been co-opted by self-described "progressives" but is still occasionally amusing to read, some guy steps out of line to say, "yeah, I'm pretty left-wing, but the budget really is getting out of control and we're going to have to do something about it." Cue almost two dozen people dogpiling into a nice cheery browbeating session calling him a dupe and a drooling moron for daring to concede any point.

    Ah, for those halcyon days when a certain Senator said that adding more debt was "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic" and "that is helping to undermine our economy. And it's going to change when I'm President of the United States."

    1. Why do you hate the children, bagger?

  31. I'm certain you will all be pleases and relieved to know the Air Force intercepted a terrorist in a Cessna who was undoubtedly on some sort of kamikaze mission to disrupt the President's peaceful golf holiday.

    Eternal vigilance is the price of Freedom.

    1. Phew! That was a close one.

  32. This is boring. I'm going to the bar and watch college basketball.

    1. Come on, it's a beach day today! You can go to the bar tonight.

      1. I'm more of a smoke and whiskey guy. As opposed to a salt-air and sunshine guy.

  33. "If you want to work, if you want to become an American, we welcome you."
    Rand Paul

    Am I the only libertarian who has a problem with this? How many hundreds of millions of people would would want to work in an America that "welcomes them." The question isn't why an African peaseant living on less than a dollar a day would want to immigrate. It's why he wouldn't want to immigrate.

    1. No.

    2. And ...?

  34. Those rascals at the Obama Justice Department are at it again. Remember how they lost 9-0 in a case involving the rights of a religious organization to hire its own ministers. Recall how they're insisting on the right to force the Catholic Church to provide contraceptives to its employees.

    Now, the Justice Dept's "religious freedom-what's that?" approach is manifested in the case of the Romeiki family from Germany, which is seeking political asylum from Germany's prosecution of homeschooled families like theirs.

    There's no religious freedom issue, claims the Justice Dept, since after all Germany prohibits everyone (except gypsies and itinerants) from homeschooling.

    http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2013/201302110.asp

    1. The Justice Department endorses Germany's anti-homeschooling compulsory education law because it vill force eferyone to being tolerant, ja?

      "The general public has a justified interest in counteracting the development of religiously or philosophically motivated "parallel socieites" and in integrating minorities in this area. Integration does not only require that the majority of the population does not exclude relgiious or ideological minorities, but, in fact, that these minorities do not segregate themselves and that they do not close themselves off to a dialogue with dissenters and people of other beliefs. Dialogue with such minorities is an enrichment for an open pluralistic society. The learning and practicing of this in the sense of experienced tolerance is an important lesson right from the elementary school stage. The presence of a broad spectrum of convictions in a classroom can sustainably develop the ability of all pupils in being tolerant and exercising the dialogue that is a basic requirement of democratic decision-making process."

      Because ve all know how important it is being to integrate der German minorities.

      http://www.firstthings.com/blo.....-refugees/

  35. my neighbor's step-mother makes $64 hourly on the computer. She has been without work for seven months but last month her pay check was $17761 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this site http://WWW.FLY38.COM

    1. Tricky, trying to conflate auto-bot income with American Independence. So your neighbor's milkman's cousin's stepmother made $(1776)1 last month? Your company may indeed have found the pulse of the Tea Party.

  36. I hate to sound like a hillbilly (though I am), but isn't sodi-pop without sugar just flavored water?

    1. Pretty much. I've heard it has some of that evil carbon in it though.

      1. I've heard it's improved with Vodka, but then, what isn't.

    2. Yeah, it's "seltzer water" and it tastes like shit. Might work in a cocktail, I suppose.

      1. Yeah, the sugar is needed to make it taste good. Carbonated water on it's own is bitter-tasting. That's why flat soda tastes funny, the lack of carbonation changes the flavor and weights it too much in the direction of sweetness.

  37. Sometimes dude you jsut have to rol with it.

    http://www.RealPrivacy.da.bz

  38. Nolan. if you think Edith`s blog is something, yesterday I bought a great Jaguar XJ since getting a cheque for $7846 this last four weeks and more than ten thousand this past-month. it's actualy the most-comfortable job I've ever done. I started this 10-months ago and straight away was making more than $78 per hour. I went to this website, http://WWW.FLY38.COM

  39. my best friend's mom makes $60/hour on the internet. She has been out of a job for 9 months but last month her check was $20409 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this web site http://www.fb26.com

  40. If you think Edith`s story is something,, five weeks ago my dad earnt $5937 sitting there a fifteen hour week an their house and their best friend's step-sister`s neighbour was doing this for four months and made over $5937 in there spare time from their laptop. the instructions available here... http://WWW.FLY38.COM

  41. the video argues that individuals have both the power and responsibility? to make changes to their own diets and to those of their

  42. Kickoff to you with the online store 2013

  43. my co-worker's step-mother makes $68 every hour on the computer. She has been laid off for nine months but last month her check was $19197 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more here http://www.WOW92.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.