Foreign Policy

Chuck Hagel Not So Hot as Non-Interventionist, American Conservative Explains

Don't believe the hype?


birds of a feather?
White House

In an article on the Hagel confirmation, "the most depressing episode in the Republican foreign-policy debate since George W. Bush was president," The American Conservative asks whether there might be a peace caucus in the war party and offers an explanation of why Chuck Hagel's non-interventionist credentials might be overrated:

Hagel himself represents the kind of realist Republican who hasn't always been particularly antiwar. He voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, and national surveillance. In 2004 he called for reinstating the draft, albeit on the grounds of shared sacrifice across socioeconomic lines. Hagel's gradual shift on Iraq was certainly important, but less decisive—and less reflected in his voting record—than Rep. Walter Jones's.

Moreover, Hagel's own performance at his confirmation hearings left much to be desired. To be sure, much of this had to do with the fact that the Obama administration pushed him to disavow rather than defend many of his positions. Few of us would sound eloquent disowning our own opinions and embracing someone else's.

But how strong of a voice for foreign-policy restraint will Hagel be within the administration if he has already walked back many of his stands before taking office? And he seemed ill-prepared for obvious questions, something that cannot necessarily be blamed on White House efforts to censor him.

The American Conservative compares the former Republican Senator's foreign policy record (and how he's run from it) to some current ones:

By contrast, Paul and Lee have voted against the Patriot Act, in favor of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, and for measures designed to remove or dilute the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act. They have both sought to impose checks on warrantless wiretapping. Paul introduced and voted for a resolution to revoke the authorization of the Iraq War.

For his part, Paul has argued that the issue of extrajudicial killings under the domestic drone program is of more importance than the Hagel confirmation fight. And he has implied that his Hagel vote was motivated in part to win Republican support for extracting information from CIA director nominee John Brennan.

Brian Doherty wrote about the criticism Rand Paul has faced from the anti-war right for voting against cloture on Hagel. Chuck Hagel's nomination looks like it'll be approved in the Senate despite the "historic" filibuster; John McCain, one of Hagel's fiercest critics, has said his confirmation is now imminent. No such word, yet, for John Brennan.

NEXT: Nick Gillespie on The Grammys, Obama's State of the Union, and What's Really Wrong with Today's Youth.

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. Few of us would sound eloquent disowning our own opinions and embracing someone else’s.

    Unless you happen to be a sociopath. By the way, doesn’t the prez change positions so eloquently?

    1. Or unless you’re trying to get laid.

      1. Conclusion? Only sociopaths get laid.

        1. I resemble that remark.

      2. Or unless you’re trying to get laid.

        You’re trying to fuck someone all the same.

    2. The only eloquence Obama has ever exhibited has been in the minds (and the legs) of follower’s legs.

      But he certainly doesn’t get any more mediocre when he changes positions.

      1. The only eloquence Obama has ever exhibited has been in the minds (and the legs) of follower’s legs.

        This made my head hurt.

        1. Just cut a legs off, and it works

          /Hannibal Lechter

    3. my neighbor’s aunt makes $79 hourly on the computer. She has been out of a job for nine months but last month her paycheck was $12494 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this site…

      1. Lies

  2. But you guys, Hagel said pretty pretty things about a less aggressive foreign policy even while he was seeking a job working for an unrepentant and secretive warmonger.

    Obviously Rand Paul is some kind of Nazi or something for opposing Chuck “Wavy Gravy” Hagel.

    1. Right, and despite the fact that analysis* suggest he wants more answers on Benghazi, I guess it’s still OK for a certain breed of liberal(tarian – ha ha) to manufacture reasons not to vote for Rand Paul.

      *chickenbones, IIRC

      1. You think you could beat Messrs. Raimondo and Wenzel in debate?

        How’s the ole Scott Brown the perfect is the enemy of the good narrative doing these days?

        1. I don’t think I have any interest in perpetual losers whining about this or that. Raimondo’s apologia for dictatorial regimes disqualifies him from making any holier-than-thou argumentation.

        2. Scott Brown was the best Massachusetts could be expected to do, believe me.

          1. You mean his support for Dodd-Frank?

            How about his support for Sarbanes-Oxley?

            How about his failure to support a shut down of the government?

            How about his support for various gun control proposals?

            How about his failure to support an elimination of the income tax?

            How about his failure to support an elimination of the IRS?

            How about his failure to call for an end to empire?

            How about his support of VAWA?

            How about the fact that he has spent most of his adult life in the public sector?

            1. Blah blah blah all that is bad obviously. Still the best case scenario.

              1. As I noted at the time (gosh, three long years ago), I voted for the Kenedy in the race.

            2. Yes, we mean all that.

              If you choice is between Spam and shit, guess what you should eat?

              1. Good one. Made all the better in that LM seems to be implicating those who do not lap up Hagel Shit with enthusiasm are NEOCONS.

                1. Let me correct any misperceptions:


            3. Yes, all of that. I’m not saying I would have voted for him, but I’m glad he beat Martha Coakley and I wish he had won last year.

        3. Scott Brown nearly scotched Ocare and ensured it got passed with a lot of ‘bugs’ in it that may yet be its downfall. Great move.

          Is LM’s raison d’etre to make Tulpa look reasonable?

          1. Trying to lure me into your battles with the Tulpster?

          2. LM’s sine qua non is to be Pope of Anarchism.

            1. LOL!

              Okay, you got me. Will you help me with the drafting of my Papal bulls?

              1. You’re perfectly capable of your own bull.

        4. I’m not that familiar with Wenzel, but anyone that can put together two logically coherent sentences can beat Raimondo in a debate.

        5. Raimondo and Wenzel don’t debate. They just yell.

      2. Well in this case, it was more of a direct quote from Rand Paul that suggests that.

        The bone casting begins when you start to ask whether he’s telling the truth, what’s his real motivation, what the turtle is resting upon, etc. etc.

        Since it ultimately doesn’t matter what face the marionette wears that Obama hangs in the Pentagon, that kind of analysis is an even bigger waste of precious time than usual.

        1. I’m not sure the strings don’t go the other way. Since he’s been in office, BO has struck me as a guy who likes to campaign and give speeches and play golf and play president, while leaving the actual running of the executive branch to his underlings. Everything we know about the Benghazi situation confirms that perception, as does the general inability of this administration to get out of its own way.

          1. ^This^

  3. As the next Secretary of Defense will be presiding over large reductions in the Defense budget (social spending has to come from somewhere) I am curious as to why the White House was not able to offer a more able candidate (if nominating hearing a a good judge).

    The Secretary of Defense should not necessarily be the Secretary of Annoying Republicans, should it?

    Undoubtedly there is an more than qualified woman or visible minority democrat that the White House could have nominated.

    1. SandraFluke not quite ready yet. Wait until Biden administration.

    2. My guess would be that having a Republican as SecDef was intended to help blunt Republican wailing about the coming drawdown.

      Or it could be he was just poking Congressional Republicans with a stick.

      1. Your first guess is correct. “Obama’s not destroying the military! See, the SecDef is a Republican! That proves it!”

    3. As the next Secretary of Defense will be presiding over large reductions in the Defense budget

      Good one.

      1. If there’s one area part of the federal government that Obama will shrink, it’s the one that pretty much the only major spending we do do that’s authorized in the Constitution.

  4. Re Hagel’s ‘non-interventionist credentials’. WHAT CREDENTIALS?

    1. Might they be better than AIPAC’s or Billy Kristol’s and his mysteriously funded Emergency Committee for Israel?

      How about Senators Graham, Inhofe, McCain and Cruz? What of their non-interventionist bona-fides?

      You are purposely distorting the facts. One important fact is that there was over a million dollars spent on television commercials in support of the anti-Hagel smear campaign.

      Does this mean that anarcho-free enterprise-individualists like Chuck Hagel and endorse his worldview? You would think from your posts that we do.

      1. Things that don’t exist can’t be better than other things that don’t exist.

        You are purposely distorting the facts.

        Name one fact I have distorted. It is you-you!-that are setting up opponents of Hagel as Billy Kristol kiddies. You would think from your posts and opinion pieces written by other anarch-derps that you do indeed have some warmth to a guy who has called for reinstatement of the draft.

        1. In the Weekly Standard (Kritol’s pro-interventionist / pro-war mongering / pro warfare / welfare state rag), Elliot Abrams complained of Hagel’s alleged dismissal of concerns raised by Nebraska jewish groups. Indeed, Abrams wrote, “perhaps Mr. Hagel has no problem with ‘the Jews’, but one purpose of the confirmation hearings should be to find out.”

          Is demonstrating sufficient fealty to jewish groups a pre-requisite for becoming secretary of defense? Must one demonstrate that he has no problems with ‘the jews’ in order to be confirmed?

          The war hawks, i.e., Kristol, Abrams, Graham, Cruz, Inhofe et al, have made Hagel’s confirmation about what they perceive his lack of loyalty to Israel and his reticence to give Israel the green light to make war on Iran.

          Thus, you have Senator Inhofe asseverating that Iran has “endorsed” and “celebrated” Hagel’s nomination. You have Senator Cruz all but calling Hagel a liar after the latter denied that he was paid by any foreign governments, particularly Iran. You have some folks, like Ben Shapiro of weaving fairy tales of Hagel taking money from the “Friends of Hamas”.

          Funny, how often do you condemn the warmongers like Kristol, the state of Israel, Abrams, Senators Graham, Cruz, Inhofe, McCain et al? They, of course, continue to fiddle while the country is going bankrupt.

            1. Leave President Jarrett alone.

          1. You of course continue to miss the point. And dodge.

            1. No, that is you. The point is that if one favors peace and prosperity and an end to empire, one does not get in bed with the likes of those I set forth above.

              1. In bed? Oh of course. If I don’t agree with you or ever do agree with your enemies, I must be in bed with ‘them’. Seriously fuck off. You have nothing to contribute with your ‘you’re either with me or the neocons’ finger-wagging routine.

                1. If you are in bed with the neocons, how can you be in favor of liberty?

                  Do neocons support the closing of american military installations in South Korea?

                  Do the neocons support the closing of american military installations in Iraq?

                  Do the neocons support the closing of american military installations in Afghanistan?

                  Do the neocons support the use of drones to kill people in foreign lands?

                  Have you heard of any neocons criticizing the killing of children via Obama ordered drone strikes?

                  Do neoconmen support a dismantling of the FED?

                  Do neoconmen support the elimination of the income tax?

                  Do neocons support the elimination of the IRS?

                  Do neocons support the end of the war on drugs?

                  Do neocons support the immediate drastic cuts in military spending it will take in order to someday soon balance the budget?

                  1. Have you heard of any neocons criticizing the killing of children via Obama ordered drone strikes?

                    Yes, I have.

                    1. Lindsey Graham?

                    2. Yes, he has.

                      To what would you attribute the Hannitizer’s criticism?

                    3. Hannity has, but it seems to be mostly to compare its treatment to that of Bush’s waterboarding. It’s hard to see if there’s any principle there.

                    4. What the neocons are criticizing is the administrations like of sales ability when it comes to the strikes.


                    5. This was in response to Ranian’s 3:23 post.

          2. how often do you condemn the warmongers like Kristol, the state of Israel, Abrams, Senators Graham, Cruz, Inhofe, McCain et al?

            You aren’t very good at reading comprehension, are you?

            1. Nevermind, I missed cyto’s reply.

            2. Are you?

              Your point does not carry the day as, standing alone, without context, it is just unintelligible.

              1. The same could be said of everything you write here, except that even when given context it makes no damn sense.

                1. Are you just making generalities or can you beef up your empty assertions?

                  1. Well I can start with EVERYTHING you’ve written in this thread.

                    1. Reading comprehension deficit much?

                      You made a general statement and you have failed to support it. Basic expository writing prinicples.

                    2. I just gave support. Reread the garbage you’ve posted on here and you’ll see some nonsensical ramblings.

      2. Yes, Libertymike, but there’s another implication going on in this discussion (not this thread, necessarily): that those who think Hagel is a lying little shit and incompetent fool have strayed into the dark side and become war apologists.

        Bottom line: criticizing Rand Paul because he won’t agree that Hagel’s balls taste like ice cream is just more extremist bullshit from the lefty/BHL types within the libertarian movement. You think Hagel is the best among horrible possibilities? Great. Sound the trumpets. But fuck you if you use this as a litmus test, against Rand Paul or anyone else.

        1. Yes, but show me where Justin Raimondo or Robert Wenzel have become war apologists. Please, show me.

          The fact is, they have not.

          1. NO ONE SAID THEY HAD.

          2. Yes, but show me where Justin Raimondo or Robert Wenzel have become war apologists. Please, show me.

            How is that relevant to the discussion?

            1. He’s just flailing.

              1. How so?

                1. Because no one was talking about either of those chuckleheads until you brought them up. Which is the definition of a red herring.

                  If they are relevant, YOU link to what’s relevant and tell us HOW it’s relevant. I am not going to go running multiple searches and wasting hours of my day making your argument for you.

                  1. Why would you go ad hominem on two great friends of liberty like JR and RW?

                    In your 12:45 pm post above, you wrote, “I guess it’s still OK for a certain breed of liberal(tarian-ha ha) to manufacture reasons not to vote for RP.”

                    IIRC, in Friday afternoon’s thread, there were at least a few posters who were critical of Raimondo specifically for what they (incorrectly) perceived as Raimondo’s pro-Hagel position. In that thread, I made the point that Raimondo did not support Hagel as much as he opposed the most vocal faction of the war party.

                    1. At least a few posters in the Friday thread took pains to criticize Raimondo, in essence, for being too critical of Rand Paul.

                    2. Clarification for Libertymike’s sake:

                      1) JR and Wenzel are asshats.

                      2) Support for Chuck Hagel should not be a litmus test.

                      1 and 2 are both independent statements without any bearing on one another. Both statements are also true.

                    3. Raimondo didn’t mention Paul, but he did mention that anyone who criticized Hagel was a tool of Israel.

                    4. No, he did not write, “anybody who opposes Hagel is a tool of Isreal”.

                    5. Then what did he write that was so badly misinterpreted? Give me a link or something.

                    6. I didn’t put quotation marks around those words because I did not intend them as a quote. He implied those words, though, in just about every sentence of his piece.

                    7. At the bottom of this article, Raimondo explicitly criticizes Rand Paul for opposing Hagel’s nomination

                    8. forgot the URL


                    9. Do you know how to rationally argue or do you just know how to emote?

                      I am striking this Raimondo stuff as irrelevant to the thread.

                      In your 12:45 pm post above, you wrote, “I guess it’s still OK for a certain breed of liberal(tarian-ha ha) to manufacture reasons not to vote for RP.”

                      Right. In an effort to garner the white smoke and be named Pope of the Anarchists, you guys are constantly jockeying for position on who can throw your fellow-travelers over the stagecoach faster (to mix metaphors a bit), and it is getting seriously old.

                    10. Emoting is for statists.

                      In order to argue rationally, one must not assume facts not in evidence. This is a basic, fundamental truth about argumentation.

                      You write that, “[i]n an effort to garner the white smoke and be named Pope of the Anarchists, you guys are constantly jockeying for position on who can throw you fellow-travelers over the stagecoack faster (to mis metaphors a bit) and it is getting seriously old.”

                      Thus, pursuant to your argument, there must be some individuals who form the “you guys” set who are constantly jockeying for position. Besides me, who are such individuals? Your argument is predicated upon the existence of such a group. You obviously did not elaborate; you did not set forth who belonged in this association of “you guys” nor did you attempt to cabin the membership.

                      Next, you assert that all of us “you guys” are jockeying for position for the purpose of throwing our “fellow-travellers over the stagecoach (did you know that I love westerns? See The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance) faster.” Again, you failed to establish the identity of the association, cabal, clique, element, group,etc. to which we (the “you guys”) belong. Put another way, who are the fellow-travellers?

                      Moreover, you failed to set forth a single example to buttress your argument. Which fellow-traveller threw his tovarish over the stagecoach? If you submit that Justin Raimondo is a fellow-traveller with Ran

                    11. d Paul, you are assuming facts not in evidence. If you are contending that Justin Raimondo is a fellow-traveller with Rand Paul, you are assuming facts not in evidence.

                    12. To be fair, you do make an assertion of fact which is true:

                      Yes, I pray for the day that I am named Pope of Anarchy!

                    13. You have not defined the meaning of the word ‘is’!

                    14. Jesus H. Christ, LibertyMike maybe you should pay attention to that whooshing sound above your head rather than using your magnifying glass on the cracks in the sidewalk.

                    15. And as a self-proclaimed anarchist, why the fuck do you give two shits about who exactly is appointed to what in the government?


        Called it.

  5. Obama looks like a dunce in that photo. The eyes. There’s nothing there, behind the eyes.

  6. Why do you hate America, Ed?

  7. So, even Hagel’s non-interventionist credentials are overrated. But the real question is if his dislike of Israel is genuine. This is what matters for non-interventionists.

    1. Good one!

  8. Do the A.M. links get a break on President’s day?

    1. Reason’s A.M./P.M. links observe all federal holidays.

        1. Had a friend of mine who worked at a law firm in DC & when the govt. closed, the firm closed. It wasn’t dependent on how much work they did for the feds but just that half the city apparently ceased to function normally.

          1. does it ever function normally?

          2. half the city apparently ceased to function normally

            Tell me that’s not a “plus” where Wash DC is concerned!

              1. I predict that in the not-so-distant future, we will see a campaign for some sort LBGT national holiday.

                1. Naw, when they’re local celebrations on different dates you can go to more than one party. Although Harvey Milk day could gain traction or possibly June 28 for the Stonewall riots.

  9. In 2004 he called for reinstating the draft

    Most libertarian Sec of Defense nominee ever. Only some kind of hook-nosed statist neocon could oppose Chuck Hagel.

    1. Anyone wanting reimpose military slaver should get the same response –

      Fuck off, slaver!

        1. Yes, as we should tell Billy Kristol and Elliot Abrams and Lynee Cheney and her mass murdering husband and Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Teddy Cruz and Senator Inhofe to fuck off slaver.

          1. Do we not?

          2. Did anyone here disagree with that sentiment? This really isn’t either/or…

          3. OK – sounds good

          4. What the hell is the point you’re trying to make?

            1. Jooooos and lizard people should be denounced?

              Chem trails?

              1. Fuck on, slavers?

                1. Look, whatever you do in private is your own business. You don’t have to brag about it here.

                2. Fuck on slavers.
                  And you call yourself the dirty poet laureate?

          5. Ted Cruz hasn’t voted us in to war or for the Patriot Act. He probably opposes conscription too.

            1. Has he supported an abrogation of the Patriot Act?

              Has he called for an immediate repeal of the WOD?

              Has he demanded that Obama stop the drone strikes?

              Has he contended that the income tax must be eliminated?

              Has he insisted upon the closing of US military installations in Iraq? Afghanistan?

              When he does, your point will be well taken.

              1. Do you realize the hypocrisy of attacking Cruz for holding unlibertarian positions, to the point of arguing that we should support someone who is even less libertarian to be confirmed as SOD just to spite Cruz (among others)

                1. shhhh perfect is the enemy of decent.

              2. Libertymike, if one of your litmus tests for candidates for federal elective office in the US is that they advocate abolition of the income tax, well, don’t bother holding your breath on election nights.

                1. I don’t.

  10. “In 2004 he called for reinstating the draft, albeit on the grounds of shared sacrifice across socioeconomic lines.”

    Well, that’s the definition of a Progressive, isn’t it?

    Someone who wants force people across socioeconomic lines to make sacrifices on behalf of the government.

  11. Mike Lee and Rand Paul both took office during the term of a Democratic president. At least Hagel drew criticism for bucking his own party’s president. Until we get a Republican president, we don’t know whether Lee or Paul will question civil liberties encroachment s and war policy of a president from their own party.

    1. Rand Paul criticized Republicans in his SOTU response, and criticized them for trying to make “defense” spending sacrosanct.

      1. Rand Paul was never going to live up to his dad in my eyes, but I was willing to keep an open mind that he might be acceptable. He has not impressed me so far.

        1. Then you’re fucking impossible to please. Go be miserable elsewhere.

          1. The Reason people are promoting Rand Paul and probably are trying to defend him from criticism of his vote against cloture vote for Hagel. We’ll see if he redeems himself.

            Rand Paul going nowhere with support just from libertarians. He needs his dad’s paleocon friends.

            1. Dude, Hagel is a moron. Leaving aside whether he is or isn’t a non-interventionist, he’s just not competent enough to head up an important Cabinet department. This isn’t HUD or Education or Transportation, this is Defense. We want someone smarter than the average American, not dumber.

              He’s not going to make policy anyway. He will do what he’s told. The overreach of the US “defense” complex will not end under the Obama Administration, no matter who’s the SecDef.

              I’d rather have someone competent, and a Hagel looks to be either senile or retarded.

              1. either senile or retarded

                Why can’t it be both?

              2. Well said, Virginian.

      2. Rand criticized them after the fact, much like Obama criticized the same Iraq war his ’08 nomination peers supported. Easy to criticize something you never had to vote on.

        1. What is it he’s never had to vote on?

    2. Bucking the policy of a Repub President =/= non-interventionist or “better”, ‘specially when that decision paved the way for that someone to get a job with the opposition.

      Hagel’s a turncoat, and not a particularly bright one. Period.

  12. Jesus Christ, gas just jumped up another ten cents overnight! What the hell is going on, because this is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

    1. Somewhere a baby seal smiled.

      1. Hey, could one of our Canadian friends go club that baby seal? Archduke? Anyone?!

      2. Somebody tell that seal pup about seal oil and see if the little bugger still smiles.

    2. I know the Chevron plant in El Segundo is replacing some heavy equipment right now. They’re bringing in new coke drums through King Harbor tonight, and obstructing traffic down CA 1 sometime this or next week. If any other plants are down at the same time it could create quite a pinch in the supply.

  13. Sorry, after reading several articles from the American Conservative that hardly seemed “conservative” by any defintion of the term of which I am aware and certainly not libertarian (such as an article praising Keynesian economics and crediting it with ending the Great Depression), I am convinced that the sole purpose of that magazine is to give voice to Pat Buchanan’s hatred of the Bush family.

    1. Ridiculous comment like many of the snarky comments by people on this site.

      1. Why? I think someone’s buttmad.

      2. Not really. Paleoconservatism has always been opposed to free trade and not always been very bright on market economics.

        1. FURRIN INVASION!!1

    2. Hatred of the Bush family is a virtue, is it not?

      1. No. It is not.

        1. You like mass murdering statists like Poppy and Junior?

          1. Uh… no. Didn’t vote for either of them; wouldn’t vote for them if offered another chance. I also wouldn’t call them “mass murderers”; silly ol’ me thinking that words mean something more than their immediate utility as political agitprop.

            1. Just because you would not call them mass murderers does not mean that they were not.

              There are no “political” exceptions to murder. There are no “nation state” or “operation enduring freedom” or “nation building” or “war on terror” exceptions to murder.

              Let us start with Poppy. Upon his orders,the united states military aggressed against the nation of Panama, late in 1989. There were several hundred civilians murdered by US forces.

              Just because one big, bad nation state indicts the leader of another nation state on drug trafficking charges, does not mean that the big, bad nation gets to send in the goons and kill people.

              1. I was living in Panama City when the invasion happened, you idiot. The “nation of Panama” (more specifically, Noriega’s unlawful coup government) declared war on the US prior to the US’ invasion, and brazenly kidnapped, threatened with sexual assault, and killed US citizens and military personnel who were there under the auspices of both US and Panamanian treaty obligations. There’s no planet under which that’s not a valid casus belli, and even in anarchotopia there would be an armed response to that shit.

                1. Stop that you TIT. Nothing upsets a peaceniks more that getting facts all over their narratives and emotional leading.

                2. Oh, the fact that you were living there makes you an authoriteh on the subject?

                  Do you think that your assertions are the truth? The whole truth? Nothing but the truth?

                  Boy, do you swallow the propaganda and hard!

                  1. Facts?

                    How about the efforts of two American administrations to foment uprisings against their recalcitrant drug runner? You will note that there is no textual authority in the constitution for the proposition that the federal government can meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations. There is also no textual support for the proposition that the federal government can confiscate the property of any person for the purpose of meddling in the affairs of other lands.

                    How the fact that the constitution does not authorize the federal government to install military bases in foreign countries?

                    How about the fact that civilians were murdered by US military personnel?

                    1. How about Reagan’s authorization of Panama 3 in 1988? The fumbling, unintelligle B actor thought it best to take taxpayer money to finance a coup of the Noreiga regime.

                    2. Let’s not forget the October 1989 coup attempt in which the US participated. Military goons (you know, the losers who can’t hack it in the private sector and who did not have the intestinal fortitude to avoid joining the biggest, baddest killing machine in the world and who, after getting a taste of the killing and raping and a hosing by their paymaster, come home and kill themselves in large numbers and otherwise have trouble obtaining employment and become far more apt to engage in violence than those who never “serve”), in connection with the coup, set-up checkpoints and blocked key intersections in order to assist in the kidnapping and arrest of Noreiga.

                3. “brazenly kidnapped, threatened with sexual assault, and killed US citizens and military personnel”

                  Ahhh,….Los Bragadas de la dignidad, I had almost forgotten about them. A blast from the past…

    3. Don’t forget the part where they explain how anti-Israel they are. That’s the whole reason we’re here: Hagel said something not completely supportive of Israel once, so he is the one they’ve been waiting for and any who criticizes him (or holds up his nomination) is a neo-con, war mongering tool of the Israel Lobby.

      1. It really is just that simple. Or I should say ‘they really are just that shallow’.

  14. nobody talkin bout the Burger King hack?

    1. Is that like the Monster Mash?

    2. Not a Libertarian did

  15. What’s up Chuck? Barf.

  16. I never knew who Thom Hartmann was until I saw this interview on RT.

    What a fucking douchebag.

    1. He starts out by saying that in America, you have to go to jail to get the healthcare you need, but he doesn’t seem to mention that in Obama’s America, the IRS comes after you if you can’t afford to buy the health insurance Obama says you need.

      1. In Soviet Russia, healthcare taxes YOU!

        Oh, wait…

      2. Notice how he always frames his economic arguments in the form of moral and emotionally charged appeals.

        1. Who? Thom Hartmann, or Obama?

          Oh wait, the answer is “both”. Nevermind.

      3. He starts out by saying that in America, you have to go to jail to get the healthcare you need, but he doesn’t seem to mention that in Obama’s America, the IRS comes after you if you can’t afford to buy the health insurance Obama says you need.

        Obamacare finally makes sense!

        You’ll get the healthcare you need when your in prison for failing to pay Obamacares’ tax.

    2. Re: EDG reppin’ LBC,

      What a fucking douchebag.

      He’s not a douchebag! He’s just a liar and a cheat and intellectually dishonest…

      Ok, he’s a douchebag.

      1. Douchebags everywhere: “Stop insulting us!”


      Who is fooled when the black strips are that wide (and stop below your dress in some shots)?

      This is the worst thing I’ve ever internet-witness Paris Hilton do.

      1. I didn’t even know such a thing existed.

        What’s seen truly cannot be unseen…

        1. What’s seen truly cannot be unseen…

          That’s why I stopped watching Tosh.O

      2. I’m not a big fan of that product category but most look better than the ones Paris is wearing. Is she too poor to shop at the Wolford Outlet store?

        1. She should be able to handle non-outlet Wolford, SIV.

          And yeah, I’ve seen better ones than those in fucking TopShop. (And that was the first time I’d seen any and I pretty much ran screaming out the door.)

    2. Her jawline just hasn’t been the same since she took her little foray into steroid enhanced body building.

    3. She’s actually a decent singer. The reggae-ish dance number “Stars Are Blind” may strike many as over-produced pop, but I like it.

    4. Is “socialite” ever used other than as a euphemism for “trust fund whore”?

      1. Sometimes it’s “trophy wife.”

    1. You lie! Strangling implies choking! They didn’t choke him!

      They pressed his face into the ground and piled on top of him until he died of asphyxiation!

      Not the same thing!

    2. procedures were FOLLOWED. Officer perception of RISK. bigorati got to be bigoratin’


      /dunphy off


    3. ‘They made numerous attempts to get him to leave, he was cursing at them, at that point they psychically removed him, and he began having the medical emergency,’ says Cpl. Jennifer Bailey, of the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office told

      Well, as everyone knows, in addition to super strength retards are known to randomly asphyxiate for no apparent reason. And I’m sure that any physical force used by the officers was justified by the guy literally being “retard strong”. Procedures were followed, etc. etc.

      1. Guns were discharged, medical emergencies were had.

        Also, wylie.

      2. Dat passive voice!

      3. “Well, as everyone knows, in addition to super strength retards are known to randomly asphyxiate for no apparent reason.”

        Well,…that,…And spontaneous combustion. Fortunately, this one seemed to go the other way. Those “heroes in blue?” probably stopped him at subcritical mass, they just wanted to make it home at the end of the night.

  17. OT: On Twitter, Balko called this “Probably the best essay on guns from this latest incarnation of the gun control debate,” but it seems…motherfucking horrible.

    As individuals, the majority of gun guys are achingly responsible with their guns. As a community, though, they are lethal?so focused on criminals and government as the villains that they have failed to examine how they themselves might help to reduce the number of gun fatalities.

    Is a gun guy who keeps his guns properly secured responsible for some knucklehead who doesn’t? If the NRA is consistent in its logic, the answer is yes. Solidarity is a constant theme of the NRA, which exhorts its members to lobby and vote in support of the wider community of gun owners.


    Um, no.

    1. The one with which I hunt was made in 1900, for the Spanish-American War.

      There’s the problem. He’s one of them.

      1. One of the ones with which I hunt was the US’ WWII sniper rifle (Rem 1903 – with an old Weaver scope FTW!). Got it from my dad when he expired.

        And his point is….? I shouldn’t also have an AR and a Glock and a fucking Howtzer if I want one? Fuck him

      2. “The one with which I hunt was made in 1900, for the Spanish-American War.”

        Krag-J?rgensen, or Spanish Mauser?

    2. WTF am I reading?

    3. This is the BEST? Holy fuck.


    4. Radley is slipping badly. This is just a premium example of the terrible shit he’s been endorsing lately.

      I wonder what Radley would think if we took out “gun guys” and substituted “mainstream Muslims” or “law-abiding black guys”

      Changes the tone a bit, eh?

      1. He needs to stop huffing HuffPo and come back at least for a break.

    5. I read that. A few things kinda pissed me off about it.

      (1) It wasn’t at all clear to me that the author got his CCW license as anything other than a prop to use, to put gun owners at ease with him.

      (2) His holding the victims of crime (namely, theft of guns) responsible really rubbed me raw. His demand that my guns be rendered useless for home defense by being locked up in a safe or with a trigger guard or something.

      Yeah, he can pop his safe open in a few seconds. When he’s not groggy, confused and under pressure. And if thinks some li’l old safe is keeping his guns from getting stolen, he’s a fool. Most small safes can be opened by dropping them on one corner or, at worst, a minutes work with a pry bar or hammer.

      So, fuck you, cosmo-gun-guy. I’m not the problem, so my contribution to the solution is “Leave me the fuck alone.” And, if it comes down to it “Come and take it”, if you can.

      1. Most small safes can be opened by dropping them on one corner or, at worst, a minutes work with a pry bar or hammer.

        Anyone who thinks small safes are safe should watch Storage Wars.

      2. No no, cosmo gun guy is me. This is collectivist gun guy. Because it’s like some kind of revelation for Democrats that people with guns are sometimes also collectivists.

        The other thing that bugged me was the implication that no gun owners currently shame unsafe gun owners. Give me a break.

        Oh, and the last two sentence were golden. “Taking collective responsibility for social problems is not the same thing as knuckling under to a tyrannical government. In fact, it’s the opposite.” I mean, after all, we are the government, so just take some fucking collective responsibility already! THERE’S NO DIFFERENCE NO DON’T LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN.

        1. That is amusing, isn’t it? Any time I’m shooting and I see someone else violating a gun safety rule, me and a chorus of fellow gun nuts shout the poor guy into being safe with his guns.

          1. Yeah, but see, to collectivist-gun-guy, you shouldn’t associate with any gun owner until their home storage arrangements have been inspected and meet with your approval.

      3. This is it in a nutshell – as I tell me gun-grabbing-soon-to-be-former “friends”, I am not the fucking PROBLEM, so why must MY rights be fucked with??!

        Well, cause, um, and mumble mumble dangerous NO ONE NEEDS AN ELEVENTY ROUND CLIP!111

        Fuck you motherfuckers. I’m already taking notes on who I’m NOT going to help when the apocolypse comes, and at the top are the gun grabbers.

      4. I am really growing tired of Radley’s schtick. He’s practically begging the liberals to take him seriously, but it isn’t going to happen.

        1. He also has no sense of humor at all, and loves shitty whiteboy fake blues. Major. Flaws.

          1. He does have a sense of humor IRL at least. But I know what you mean.

        2. Yeah, I don’t know. Or HuffPo is infectious?

          1. “Or HuffPo is infectious?”


        3. I haven’t read him, since I refuse to go to HuffPo and Google reader can’t seem to digest his feed. That’s a shame to hear.

          1. Seriously, WTF. Anyone know if it’s like that for other HuffPo RSSes, or is this some kind of Radley discrimination?

            1. I don’t know, their whole site completely sucks so I’d be more surprised if it wasn’t an all-around thing. Not that I want to read them, but the comments almost never load properly for me.

              I haven’t seen anything bad in what he’s written there, though. Not that I’ve read it all.

              1. The last time I visited HuffPo I actually laughed out loud at their website design. Somebody likes boxes and has no sense of spacing or style.

          2. He really does the Lord’s work on following the CJ system. But hell man, he is really working on leftist bona fides.

        4. That’s a real shame. I haven’t read him since he moved to HuffPo, but he was the reason I started to read Reason regularly.

    6. If you think that’s bad:…..s-gun-laws

      Warning: do not read without a barf bag handy.

      1. If the second paragraph of a newspaper editorial highlights the bullshit about fire in a crowded theater, does it forfeit all 1A protections? Please?

        1. Well since “no constituitional rights are absolute” I don’t see any problem with this proposal, and neither should the “journalist” who wrote this crap.

          The funny thing is I found this because I was google-ing for a video or story about one of our intrepid Colorado state legislators who I saw on a local news story saying pretty much the exact same thing: “no constitutional right is absolute”. When I saw that the other day it’s a good thing I didn’t have any heavy objects to hurl at the TV screen, otherwise I’d be shopping for a new bigscreen.

          I find the mind melding on the left to be kind of creepy. I mean, this CO legislator used the exact same phrase as this article. Fucking group thinking asshats.

          1. I’ve seen the “fire” comment offered up as an initial argument, not even as a defense, in a few comments sections too. They heard it somewhere and it sounded good to them so it must trump all other arguments.

            1. How dare you insult the beloved Oliver Wendell Holmes, Junior!

        2. Whenever someone offers up those platitudes as a rational defense of an argument, especially not related to the first amendment, I know I no longer have to pay attention.

    7. They could make unsafe gun behavior socially unacceptable, just as it has become unthinkable, among most Americans, to smoke inside another person’s house or to make lascivious comments about underage girls.

      I guess I’m not “most Americans” on all three counts.

      1. Thank god for that.

    8. Is a gay man who doesn’t get AIDS responsible for some knucklehead who does? If the Human Rights Campaign is consistent in its logic, the answer is yes. Solidarity is a constant theme of the HRC, which exhorts its members to lobby and vote in support of the wider community of gays and lesbians.

    9. really, the only way responsible gun owners can limit fatalities is to not shoot anyone or live in some sterile hermetically sealed biosphere where all risk is controlled from the outside.

  18. When did early man first realize that the sun would indeed come up tomorrow?

    1. When he could bet his bottom dollar, come what may?

      1. +1 Warbuck

    1. It’s true. I watched a lot of Ducktales when I was a kid. And I grew up believing that money and business were productive, positive things.

      1. oh, me too! So many good lessons in that show.

      2. It’s funny. There were cartoons back then that were actually kinda pro-business. And there were also A LOT of eco-indoctrination. Captain Planet was just the beginning.

      3. You MONSTER!

      4. Turbulent wie’n Hurrikan
        Hier ist Dagobert Duck!
        Wer verhilft zum Happyend?
        Es sind Tick, Trick und Track!

        Sie sind geheimnisvoll,
        doch sie sind supertoll
        Die Ducktales, woohooo

        Neue Storys, Tag f?r Tag
        Ducktales, woohooo
        Keinen gibt’s, der sie nicht mag:
        Die Ducktales

        Vo-Vo-Vo-Vorsicht – es geht ab hier
        Pluto und Goofy – alle sind bei dir
        Entenhausen ist in Aufruhr – Ducktales, woohooo

        Spa? und Action, Schlag auf Schlag
        Ducktales, woohooo
        Es gibt keinen, der sie nicht mag
        Ducktales, woohooo

        Alles ist wahr, ganz wunderbar
        Es sind Ducktales, woohoo

      1. So… people find communicating with others over the internet is satisfying? Whoa! Slow down there.

  19. So how ’bout that Danica Patrick, huh?

    1. She was really the only reason to watch the Wonder Years.

      1. She had you in the pole position from way back.

  20. Sad sack Seattle reporter is hilariously disappointed in gun controllers’ totally not foreseeable overreach. I think the Very Concerned expression on his face is what puts it over the top.

    1. I’m sort of impressed he actually thinks it would be creepy and uncool for the cops to go door to door without a warrant.

      1. I’m sort of not believing him when he says that, nicole.

        1. Well it doesn’t make any sense considering any of his other beliefs.

          1. I think he’s lamenting the fact that the warrentless search shot down the rest of the bill. Something needs to be done now, Nikki. Like right now.

            btw, “Nikki” is the number one nom de porneau for female performers.

            1. Look, Sug, if you really want to know what nickname my friends used to make fun of me with, it’s “Nicki Lizzie.” Or Nikki, I don’t know, I don’t like the two k’s but I don’t think people wrote it down very often.

              1. I don’t care what your degenerate friends called you. You’re Nikki Diamond to me and that’s all that matters. Glitter like hope, Nikki. Glitter your goddamn heart out!

                1. Sigh. Glitter is one of the items very specifically on the “do not wear” list.

                  This is why…you know. Fucking glitter.

                  1. I am disappoint.

                  2. “Glitter is the herpes of the craft world”

                    1. I knew you were a good ‘un, jesse.

                    2. I have to admit I plagiarized it from my roommate. She’s better with the bon mots than I am.

                    3. I used to be a department store buyer in the girls’ sportswear office. I had to handle A LOT of advertising samples covered in glitter. I finally gave up and accepted that as an occupational hazard my face would always be covered in a light coating of the stuff.

      2. That’s more than you can say for most of these total-state fluffing assholes called “journalists”.

    2. 8 page bill, and nobody has any idea, none at all, how a provision allowing annual “inspections” (warrantless, natch) of gun owners homes by local LEOs, got in there.

      Total mystery. Have to pass it to find out what’s in it, etc.

      1. I’d like to see more poison pills included in legislation.

        1. Yeah, that was my other thought. I’m just still in shock that this one appears to have actually been poisonous.

        2. If I ever got elected to a legislative position (state rep or national level), I think I would make it my mission in life to insert as much shit like this into various bills (and then vote no on it) just to see how many of my “esteemed colleagues” I could make look like retards.

          Basically I’d be a congressional troll. I probably wouldn’t have a very long career, but damn would I have fun.

        3. I think these poison pills get put into a lot of legislation deliberately.
          You can pander to your base while not killing your career with awful legislation.

          Darn, I tried. vote for me again and maybe we can get it through next time.

    3. Concerned? He looks like he’s thinking about the time his Little League coach fingerblasted him in the dugout bathroom, the purest moment of joy he’s ever known.

      1. No, he has the same expression as my cowardly orange polydactyl cat. OH I’M VERY CONCERNED

      2. He looks like he just sharted, and he’s pretending that none of us can smell it.

        1. No, he just sharted and it’s his sexy little secret. tee-hee!

    4. I think it’s funny how certain issues cause certain people to flip their normal positions. I’ve seen people who are reasonably liberal on vice issues suddenly promoting absurdly draconian punishments for victimless gun crimes (like having the wrong rifle in your safe or the wrong paperwork for an ammunition purchase). I’ve even seen one person propose that if someone else uses your gun in a crime you, as the owner, should be ‘shot in the face.’ That’s right – capital punishment for being the victim of a theft. These weren’t trolls, these were some of the regular commenters at Volokh.

    5. Are they going for like a faux stipple kind of look with that headshot? I had no idea that the Seattle Times was into designer knockoffs.

    6. I like how he laments that the rest of the bill was so reasonable. They were just reasonable attempts at gun grabbing, that came from our adult conversation about guns.

    7. The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.

      “I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said.

      He said he came to realize that an assault-weapons ban has little chance of passing this year anyway. So he put in this bill more as “a general statement, as a guiding light of where we need to go.” Without sweating all the details.

      Somehow I get the feeling that he just got caught with the mask slipping. “a general statement, as a guiding light of where we need to go.” Indeed.

      1. A.k.a. “political posturing.”

    8. The problem with the 2 minute hate is that the sheriff’s inspection clause was in the 2005 version of this bill, which failed. Not the current bill, WA Senate Bill 5737. The 2005 proposed version of 9.51(5)(a) had a clause concerning the sheriff’s inspecting storage arrangements once a year. This bill omits that language, instead saying that the person possessing the assault weapon shall, “Safely and securely store the assault weapon.” Naturally, it doesn’t define the terms of safe or secure storage.

      This bill sucks about as bad as the old one. It’s poorly drafted. And the Definitions section raises more questions that it solves. But the Seattle reporter’s complaint is, for now, inaccurate.

  21. Anyone who tries to pretend a guy who co-sponsored a bill to send US troops in on the ground in Kosovo is a “non-interventionist” is making claims so indisputably out-of-touch with reality that the only question left is, “Why are they lying?”

    1. Because they hate Jews and Hitler isn’t in the running for Secretary of Defense?

  22. I was unaware there was a Beyonc? birther controversy.

    People are weird.

    1. I’m feeling really weird about how the commenters seem to all be Beyonce birthers too. They’re all like “yeah giving birth sucks, being pregnant sucks, no one would say it was awesome!” Oh yeah? You wanna see some retarded blog posts about how hot and sexy and loving it was to be in your birthing pool with your husband as you took a shit on him while pushing out his spawn? Because I have a friend who sends me birthing horror stories, and a browser history.

        1. My liver, heart, and skin are all very excited that we are now giving organs personhood rights, although the latter is slightly upset about losing out on its “largest organ in the human body” rep.

          And all I can summon the will to really care about is misuse of “latter” in this sentence.

          No, seriously, I’m really mad about that now.

        2. Why would Jezebel object to that idea? They shouldn’t be mocking it; it would justify abortion if the fetus were just another organ.

        3. Wait, so You aren’t the largest organ in a woman’s body?

          1. Oh ho there’s some vintage troll humour.

            1. I didnt mean it in a mean way, but you are indeed flattering me by saying “humour”

      1. You wanna see some retarded blog posts about how hot and sexy and loving it was to be in your birthing pool with your husband as you took a shit on him while pushing out his spawn?

        Fucking gross, dude.

        1. It could be worse: we could be talking about the “Top Ten Sexiest Mounties” list.

  23. As I said in the thread last week, I find it absurd that Raimondo and those like him are using “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and “the enemy of my new friend is my enemy” as serious arguments. Given the countless times they’ve vociferously argued against such logic, I find it hilarious that now they’re embracing it. And in this article, Raimondo has the nerve to accuse Rand Paul (and his supporters) of being the hypocrite(s)…..niversary/

    1. You’re ISRAEL missing the point, Calidissident. Rand JOOOOOOOS Paul is a pro-war traitor because he opposes the nomination of a HEBREWS man who voted for every war that we’ve ever ISRAELIS been engaged in. Conversely, this man is PALESTINE a hero (or at least better than the alternatives LIKUD) because he KIKES is not Bush, and didn’t like Bush.

      What about this are you ISRAEL not getting?

      1. Haha

        Your post is like if Dunphy became an anti-Semite whose obsession was foreign policy rather than defending cops

        1. Heh, now to bring it JOOOOOS up on every unrelated thread…

        2. spare me the bullshit. i am just as eager to criticize cops when they do wrong. i just have this pesky love of rule of law and don’t automatically assume cops are in the wrong because some nincompoop makes an unfounded accusation.

          not only do i criticize cops here who do wrong, but i actually (yknow real world stuff that actually matters) have testified to internal affairs about police misconduct, same misconduct resulting in discipline.

          nobody is more critical of corrupt cops than i am. i just don’t see them where they aren’t there. an d i tend to agree with courts/prosecutors in this regard whereas the cop hater brigade is constantly flummoxed in why ofc. krupke isn’t being prosecuted for their latest bogus cause du jour

    2. Yeah, it’s very weird seeing the “purity at all costs” camp embrace Hagel as if he were Murray Rothbard reincarnated. This is like yesterday’s Keystone XL discussion: even if you really hate leftists/environmentalists, the project is not some libertarian dream that we should all push to have approved. Neither choice is all that great for libertarians.

      1. Who has embraced Hagel as if he were Murray Rothbard reincarnated?


      2. Keystone is just another pipeline among thousands.

    3. Raimondo’s argument is not as you characterize it. In fact, your assertion is frivolous and is not supported by the evidence.

      Raimondo has been critical of the multi-million dollar smear campaign orchestrated by the likes of Billy Kristol’s Emergency Committee for Israel against Hagel and hatchet pieces authored by the likes of Elliot Abrams.

      Raimondo has consistently argued that one cannot be a libertarian and genuinely anti-war if one supports a bellicose, socialist cess pool which insists upon looting american taxpayers out of billions every year and has repeatedly engaged in mass murder.

      Raimondo has stressed that Hagel is no libertarian and that he is no Ron Paul.

      1. You’re the one mischaracterizing my argument. I’m not saying Raimondo is claiming Hagel is a libertarian. All I’m saying is that he has been supportive of Hagel’s confirmation, largely due to the fact that AIPAC, neocon senators, etc oppose him, and has criticized Rand Paul for also opposing Hagel’s confirmation. Hence the use of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and “the enemy of my new friend in my enemy” logic

      2. Raimondo has consistently argued that one cannot be a libertarian and genuinely anti-war if one supports a bellicose, socialist cess pool which insists upon looting american taxpayers out of billions every year and has repeatedly engaged in mass murder.

        Justin “Attempted takeover of Poland and Western Europe were in the USSR’s national defense” Raimondo said that?! Really?!

      3. a bellicose, socialist cess pool which insists upon looting american taxpayers out of billions every year and has repeatedly engaged in mass murder.

        That’s an excellent description of the Palestinian Authority. (And Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and Mexico….)

    4. You have to keep in mind that Raimondo is a simpleton of breath-taking degree. Those who support Israel, rightly or wrongly, are his enemies, no exception. Those who critcize Israel, rightly or wrongly, are his friends.

      I don’t have a dog in the Paul/Hagel fight. But with undeclared drone war/assassination going on in at least four countries (that the public is aware of), there are some other windmills Mr. Antiwar could be tilting at.

  24. Well, no P.M. Links either. So, there’s that.

    1. Chavez goes back to Venezuela, HuffPo commenters who would never actually live under his regime fall all over themselves to fellate him:…..09962.html

      One even thanks him for the oil he “contributed” to the Northeast.

      1. The comments are insane.

        Why did I ever follow that link?

        1. Why did I ever follow that link?

          Link Addiction is a serious problem. First couple are free, next link will be behind a paywall.

      2. Meanwhile, the murder rate in Venezuela is 67 per 100,000 (about 2x that of Colombia and 4x that of Mexico), inflation is ~30% (highest in Latin America, baby!), and the average salary according to the Venezuelan government is ~10,000 — well below the US poverty level.

        I’m sure that poor Venezuelans are just thrilled by Chavez subsidizing affluent Americans in the Northwest.

        1. Like I said, the people fellating him in the comments over there would never willingly live under him, because they know that it would be unspeakably awful. But since they are safely away from that possibility, they can praise him for being a good socialist, and above all for not being Bush.

          1. Nope, but they would gladly tell you to move to Somalia if they know you are Libertarian. Even though I have never heard one Libertarian singing the praises of Somalia.

            But they don’t want to live in a country that they praise, like it was heaven on earth.

            Oh, and they’re not socialists either, they’re liberals, just like Chavez.

            1. Ah yes, Somalia — the country whose last functional government was the Communist one-party state, the Somali Democratic Republic. *That* libertarian paradise.

              Of course, it has somewhat less of a ring to it than, “Go move to Hong Kong, Singapore, or maybe Switzerland. Then see how you like the hellholes that libertarianism has wrought!”

            2. Also, my wife had a class last fall with 2 Venezuelans who actually did live there, under the Chavez regime, until recently. Their opinion of him is not exactly as glowing as those hot airbags on HuffPo. I wonder why?

              1. Dude, we had an old Cuban guy some speak to our high school about how wonderful life was during the revolution and the leftwingers were all “He just hates Castro because he was a business owner and the government took over his factory. It’s not like he really has any legitimate criticisms. He isn’t being fair, he is biased.”

                That’s the banality of evil.

                1. When people say things like that to me I point out to them that this means we can’t judge the Holocaust based on the complaints of Jewish survivors of it. ‘Cause they’re biased, and all.

                  1. That was my exact response. I bet you can guess what the reply was.

                    1. I’m guessing the reply was something like this….

                    2. Yep. Specifically since we’re talking about Cuba, I activated Leftist Talking Point 7A: “BUT BUT BUT FREE HEALTHCARE!!!”

                    3. I thought Cuba was poor because of the Yanqui Blockade?

        2. Argentina might have higher inflation.

          Another bummer: authoritarian asshat of Ecuador Correa got re-elected because free shit/’strong leader’. On the bright side, he’s pushing a law that actually makes foreign investment in mining easier.

      3. Hugo Chavez never used eminent domain in America to transport his country’s oil here. Chavez is obviously more pro-freedom than TransCanada.

        *winks at SIV and SaltySeaDog*

      4. Wow, they’re even fellating that fat fuck, Michael Moore. These people are loons.

        There’s only one sane comment in the top 10:

        Are you serious?

    2. You’ve been slacking in the first comments, anyway. Maybe a day off will help you.

      1. Obviously I don’t try for first comments, it just so happens a new post always happens to come up just when I’m ready to make a comment.

  25. 80 Year Old Man Dies, which is somehow national news. In other news, the Lakers now have as much chance of winning another title as the Knicks:…

    1. People with Asperger’s are known to have serious difficulty with social interactions, but doctors say it carries no predisposition toward violence.

      One of the violent games Lanza loved to play may have been “Call of Duty,” an intense shooting game set during World War II.

      Ah, correlation without causation. There’s no drink so sweet.


      1. I’ll give you this controller when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!

  26. Not sure if anyone else has seen this. WA dems sponsor bill that gives police ability to inspect assault weapon owners’ houses once a year. Crazy shit. FTA:

    According to Senate Bill 5737:
    In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.…..17xml.html

    1. Warty covered this upthread. It was fun. We all made fun of the author for his dumb ideas, as well as his stupid column portrait.

      1. You idiot. Isn’t it obvious that PowerBottom is just a sockpuppet account for Episiarch? Agreeing to repost that link is probably the only way he could convince Warty to let him out of the cage today.

        1. He lets me out for walks. If I don’t keep my muscle tone he’ll get upset and use the cattle prod on me again.

          1. That seems oddly humane. Could he not find a giant hamster wheel?

            1. Do you know how expensive those are? Warty’s nothing if not cheap.

              1. Can’t he recover his costs by hooking the wheel up to a power generator? And it’s green! Epi power!

                1. Really he should use the wheel to power the prod. Add a few extra gears and it could tip down randomly to incentivize more power output.

              2. You mean he doesn’t just make you do squats all day?

                1. No, he wants me weak so it’s harder for me to escape. Little does he know I’ve been secretly training my penis to pick locks. Soon I’ll be free, and that means no more milkshake enemas!

      2. Good shit, sorry for the repost. I mean, who can be bothered to wade through the detritus of 250+ comments before posting here?

    2. The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.

      “I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said.

      Legislation is just like guns. As soon as you turn around, it gets up and starts acting of its own volition.

  27. I guess celebrating Washington and Lincoln is as good as reason for a holiday as any, but who really celebrates it? Are the Reason staff all taking advantage of the mattress sales?

    1. I was wondering why there are so few articles today. I had to work so forgot it was POTUS day.

    2. They’re all laughing and throwing rotten fruit at @LucyStag while she huddles in her cardboard box under the shadow of Reason’s monolithic office.

      1. I liked Lucy, but I’d still laugh if I saw that on YouTube.

        The Jacket with a monocle and cigarette holder emptying a silver spitoon on to Lucy’s cardboard box would be sooooo LOL.

    3. I had to take the day off because daycare is closed. One of the many joys of parenting.

      1. You should spend the day driving your kid around to all the places that produce meaningful goods or services and explaining that they are hard at work providing useful things for everyone. Then drive them by all the government buildings that are dark and abandoned and tell your kid about how these people provide nothing of value and nobody misses them not working today anyway.

        1. The kid is only three. Maybe in a few more years.

          1. Sarc, it’s never too early to start with the Libertarian propaganda. You have to have the kid radicalized before the first day of school!

            A Ron Paul t-shirt and a backpack with a Gadsen flag is required for the kid on that day.

            When the proglodyte teacher starts to go around the room asking names, the kid needs to say ‘I know about the fourth amendment, statist pig! So fuck off, slaver!’

            1. Sounds reasonable.

        2. I think that Congress should take every day off. I mean all of them.

  28. Man that dude sure is full of himself.

  29. We’re already subsidizing the 5.6M annual passengers to the tune of $90M; hey, let’s spend another $9M to get more of ’em:
    “Caltrans blitz seeks more Amtrak riders”…..286609.php

  30. everyone on strike at Reason now? NO links since morning?

    1. It’s emperors day.

      1. Must be awful cold for all those folks wearing the traditional festival garb for this day.

    2. It’s Presidents Day. Are you saying Reason should be disrespectful of our country’s great leaders?

      1. No more than the commercials with Lincoln and Washington jumping around like Kansas City faggots.

  31. Most people say I am crazy for saying that Muslims will overtake Europe and turn it into an Islamic Caliphate within 20 years, but the evidence keeps piling up to prove that I’m not so crazy:

    English Muslims to take welfare to fund Jihad

    Anyone wanting in on my burqua factory should act quickly. It’s a limited time offer.

    1. When things get bad enough the europeans will push back. I just hope they dont wait until it is too late. As bad as the europeans are the muslims are exponentially worse.

      1. It doesn’t look good for them. Did you read that? They are literally taking money from tax payers to fund these assholes, in the form of welfare.

        1. Yeah I read it. It isnt surprising. 20 years ago I spent some time in England. I found them to be sheep. I think it has only gotten worse.

          At some point there will be resistance. I think there is starting to be some in France.


          1. Meh, the French riot for the sake of rioting.

      2. It’ll be the Moops all over again!


          1. I once broke down in a bad neighborhood. While I was waiting for the tow truck I noticed that scrawled across a large cinderblock wall in 2ft high red letters was a gang sign. It read: BLOOBS

    2. Hyperion will you also be producing a Burqini(TM) knockoff?

      1. Hmm, that’s going to complicate things a little. I currently only have black cloth in stock…

    3. Muslims are less than 5% of the UK’s population. It was about 3% ten years ago. Even if we were to assume every single Muslim was hellbent on turning Great Britain into a fundamentalist Sharia-based Islamic state, they’re outnumbered 20 to 1 and even with high birth and immigration rates, it’s gonna take a lot more than 20 years to have enough numbers to be a serious threat to do that.

      1. Make sure you tell the Brits that, I’m counting on selling lots of these burquas

        1. Yeah I don’t know. Pat Buchanan been the demographic chicken little forever now. I guess he figures eventually he’ll be right at least once. We’ll see. I have a hard time getting worked up over it though.

      2. 1) CD is right the demographics clearly show that Europe will never be Muslimified.

        2) So what if it was? Fuck Europe. An Islamist takeover would be awful in the short term but might be what is needed to get that continent out of its torpor.

    4. A quack in a crowd of 30 people is not evidence.

      1. Have you ever heard of the Muslim No Go zones that are popping up all over Britain, and Europe?

        1. I’ve heard of yokel meme of the same name. Fortunately, it bears no resemblance to reality.


              1. Acknowleding the existence of certain cultural ghettos in London that are hostile to outsiders is not equivalent to hyperventilating about global Islamic hegemony.

                But you knew that already.

                1. Are there cultural ghettos? Or is there just a small group of tards walking around as if there is one? It doesn’t really matter which is true, yokels will cry MOOSLIM either way.

                  And isn’t hyperventilating about global Islamic hegemony exactly what you’re doing?

                  Most people say I am crazy for saying that Muslims will overtake Europe and turn it into an Islamic Caliphate within 20 years, but the evidence keeps piling up to prove that I’m not so crazy

                  1. I don’t think that was him saying that. But consider this: Prohibition was never supported by a majority of the population of the US. Yet it became the law of the land. Highly motivated and organized pressure groups can exert an outsized influence on a democracy.

                    1. And Prohibition was short lived. It’s certainly true that the majority doesn’t necessarily always get what they want in a representative democracy (which is a good thing) but it’s gonna take a lot more than 5% (and again, that’s assuming every Muslim in the UK would support such a movement) to get laws passed enforcing Sharia or turning Britain into some sort of Islamic state

                    2. Eh, but they’ve already begun hearing cases in sharia courts. Which, from a libertarian point of view, is not a bad thing in and of itself, but it’s certainly something to keep in mind as one considers the larger picture.

                      I don’t know if you’ve seen the polling data, but significant numbers of Muslims in the UK have views that I think are fair to call radical. One poll (which we must always take a grain of salt with) reported 45% of British Muslims think 9/11 was committed by an Israeli/US conspiracy. A quarter thought that the Tube bombings were justified. 80% think the government should punish the people who published the Muhammad cartoons.So this isn’t a “tiny minority of extremists”. It’s a minority, but it is not a tiny one.

                      The 7/7 bombers were British subjects. They spoke with Yorkshire accents, were clean shaven, had jobs. One was a special needs teacher. All had families, two had wives and kids. These weren’t madrassah brainwashed orphans. These men led comfortable Western lives.

                    3. The difference is that Mooslims are scary furriners while the people who started Prohibition were the wives of the elite. So it’s hard to see how you could seriously make that analogy. The number of people who are afraid of a global Muslim caliphate probably far outnumber those who are actually trying to create one. I doubt that was true right before Prohibition.

                  2. Gee, I don’t know. Why don’t you go to London and tell me?

                    And isn’t hyperventilating about global Islamic hegemony exactly what you’re doing?

                    Firstly, that was written by Hyperion, not me. Secondly, I was responding to what you wrote in response to Hyperion’s comment:

                    Have you ever heard of the Muslim No Go zones that are popping up all over Britain, and Europe?

                    You claim, without even a shred of evidence that such things “bear no resemblance to reality”. I responded to your head-in-the-sand denial with documented evidence that they do exist. You responded to such evidence with special pleading, question begging, and puerile sarcasm mistaken for wit.
                    I can only speculate why you would so vehemently ignore the existence of such a well-documented phenomenon. Perhaps a subconscious desire to award yourself with the special “I’m Not a Bigot” gold star? Considering that I personally and friends with or acquainted with more Muslims (Mostly Saudis, but Syrians, Moroccans, Libyans, Kuwaitis, Iranians, Malaysians, Pakistanis, Singaporeans, and Yemenis as well) than you have ever even heard the names of, much less have met in person, I have no need for such posturing to affect a latitudinarian persona.

                    1. Gee, I don’t know. Why don’t you go to London and tell me?

                      You seem to be an expert on Islamic ghettos, so I thought you would know the answer. My mistake.

                      You claim, without even a shred of evidence that such things “bear no resemblance to reality”. I responded to your head-in-the-sand denial with documented evidence that they do exist.

                      Actually that video is evidence of my point more than yours. Nothing in the video resembles an Islamic ghetto. It shows a small group of tards who think they are in an Islamic ghetto or want to be in an Islamic ghetto, producing considerable confusion in the random people they are yelling at, who apparently did not get the memo that they are in a “Muslim No Go Zone” (Who came up with that term anyway? A 5 year old?).

                      Maybe you should visit a real ghetto since you don’t seem to be able to accurately determine what resembles one.

                      But you’re right, the only reason I could possibly deny such an obvious phenomenon is because I am trying to not be bigotted. It couldn’t be the laughable “evidence” – or lack thereof – and caliphate-paranoia of the retarded yokels who are always talking about this. Yes, once again, you’ve hit the nail right on the head.

                    2. Also, I just love how you assume you know more furriners than me. Is that supposed to impress me into gullibility? Yes, you have no need for posturing (except posturing as an international man of mystery).

                    3. Listen Josh, you aren’t very bright, so I’ll explain this to you in monosyllabic Anglo-Saxon. In some neighborhoods in Jerusalem, and even some places in New York, ultra-Orthodox Jews will do the same exact thing! Does recognizing that fact imply one believes in the existence of a Zionist plot to take over the world? (I’ll complete that implication for you since you’re not very smart: the answer is “no”).

                      So spare me your self-righteous howling.

                      Also, I just love how you assume you know more furriners than me.

                      I don’t have to assume. The fact that you can sit in Brandeis and still be as ignorant as you are is ipso facto proof that you are a provincial twit. And the correct term is “foreigner,” your cutesy faux-ignorant spelling just makes you look immature and petulant.

                    4. Holy shit, I didn’t know that! Now what does any of that have to do with Muslim No Go zones? Not a god damn thing. Are Orthodox Jews the same thing as Muslims? Is Jerusalem the same thing as Europe? No, and the fact that you think you just said anything relevant to the debate is fantastically delusional. Keep wasting electrons.

                      Oh and I’ve been to Israel many more times than you and know more Haredi than you know exist. That obviously means something important to you.

                2. Acknowleding the existence of certain cultural ghettos in London that are hostile to outsiders is not equivalent to hyperventilating about global Islamic hegemony.

                  There are cultural ghettos in the US that are hostile to outsiders, mestizo. Yet no one in the US is worried about black people taking over the country (well, other than Ron Paul’s ghostwriters).

                  There’s little in that vid that wouldn’t be solved by CCW, either.

  32. Country singer’s suicide: Another reason for gun control.

    And your barf-inducing quote:

    “It’s access to weaponry that turns desperate people into suicides,” says psychiatrist Kenneth Duckworth, medical director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, interviewed before McCready’s death.

    Yup, nothing wrong with that statement.

    1. …psychiatrist Kenneth Duckworth…j

      What a quack.

    2. There is every reason to believe that McCready was a murderess who could no longer take the guilt of having gotten away with murder and who chose to kill herself at the scene of her crime.

      So perhaps it’s access to weaponry that turns murderers into corpses. And that’s a good thing, right?

    3. They just dont get it. No matter how long and hard they hammer away with their anti-gun drivel, no matter how much propaganda they put out it just isnt going to fly.

      Distilled, their argument is that people dont have the right to self-defense. The answer is always going to be FUCK YOU.

      1. And it’s not even like we have a comparatively large suicide rate.

        UK = 11.8 / 100k

        US = 12.0 / 100k

        And suicide is not an indictment of the object used, no matter how you cut it. They say that more people that attempt suicide with a gun actually die over pills and other methods; maybe that’s because the person using a gun is fucking serious about it, i.e. no cries for help.

    4. A girl’s gotta do what a girl’s gotta do. Too bad she had to do it with someone new but a girl’s gotta do what a girl’s gotta do.

    5. Curious, this is basically the same argument conservatives used to use to justify banning contraceptives. Not sure how Mr. Duckworth would process that.

      1. Every right statist has their leftist counterpart, and they put up blinders so they don’t have to see that they’re making the same argument.

        I saw ted nugent on that brit’s show once and they started talking about drugs, and ted made the same anti-argument that piers made about guns and vice-versa.

        1. You should be on these shows, naked. You’re more qualified than Nugent.

          1. Do you like Ted Nugent?

            I think that on occasion he makes good points and sounds persuasive, but at other times, he seems like loudmouth horse’s ass.

            1. He strikes me as a bigmouth.

              1. I think that’s why he’s invited to be on so many mainstream shows. That is, to make gun owners look like half-crazy rednecks. A guy like Mr. Colion Noir from youtube would never be allowed on national television as he destroys all the stereotypes.

  33. You guys have nothing better to do an a holiday?
    Economics students get the most sex

    1. Let me gets this straight; Economist pens study that concludes studying Economics gets you laid?

      Sounds legit.

      1. These are Economics students. They’re probably counting “quantitative easing” as sex.

    1. I think you meant to say, “I hope this ain’t my NEXT.”

      If it’s your ex, you dodged a bullet.

      If it’s your next, you might be the poor schmuck that marries this walking death sentence.

    2. I notice there is no photo of her. She never wants sex again…maybe cuz sex doesnt want her.

      1. Well, someone has to be a nun.

    1. The AMA is less an organization of Docs than a progressive political action group. Of course they want to tax soda. And ban guns.

      Fuck them.

  34. Oh, and General, I have five lbs sliced into jerky strips, overly dried and currently resting in a sealed container with ample amounts of sliced scotch bonnets and jalepenos.

    I am going to let them sit in there for one or two days, but I couldnt help tasting some.

    In your words ” Shit is good!”

    1. Keep that shit secret. The first few times I was so proud of my creation I handed it out like candy, jerky-candy.

      But now, everybody wants some; “Hey man, you make any more jerky lately?”

      Dole it out carefully.

      Think I’ll go get a piece right now…

      1. Damn you guys, I want some! Can you email me some?

        1. Go to the store and buy the nastiest, cheapest cuts of fat-free beef (or if you can get venison use that).

          Marinate it with whatever you like and some hot peppers for awhile.

          Dry it until crispy and over-dried.

          Throw it in a tupperwear container with a bunch of chopped up hot peppers. Release the jerky when it’s no longer crispy, but nice and chewy. If it ain’t gettin’ chewy add more peppers.

          Get laid like a muug.

          1. Excellent! Thanks.

      2. I made good jerky before so I know about that. My stepson and his buds usually eat it all the day after I make it unless I hide it.
        The laundry room is the best hiding place. Or the broom closet.

        1. Shit’s addictive. I think I’ve eaten about a pound worth of meat since your initial post.

        2. My brother-in-law used to send me some really good moose jerky from Montana, that he made, but he hasn’t sent me any in a while. Time to try making my own.

    1. curse you squirrels

    2. Deep down, I want to feel needed. I want to be the person who fusses over my husband’s dinner, who keeps a perfect running household and still manages to look elegant and beautiful at dinnertime. I want to be taken care of, to be looked after, but more importantly to feel safe.

      The HORROR! That’s like a man wanting to feel like he provides for his family!

      1. I ain’t buying that story.

        10 minutes after some sucker marries her, she’ll be a fat nagging slob feminazi who wants a divorce, so she can get alimony while seeking the next victim.

        1. Not necessarily, she could be Indian, for example.

          1. She sure as hell ain’t American, or she’s a damn liar, it’s one of the 2.

            You don’t find any women born and raised in this country that think like that, not anymore.

    3. Who wants to spend their days with a damned, dirty double-poster?

      Nobody that’s who!

      1. It’s my secret shame.

        1. dirty double-poster

          Wow, that’s an awesome posting name. Someone should take it.

    4. Desperate is not pretty. Doesn’t matter how badly you want to be Suzy Homemaker.

    5. I have been happily married for 15 years and I am looking forward to at least 15 more. My first criteria when choosing my wife was not her looks or how good in bed she was or how good her cooking was. It was how controlling she was, which is zero. I got pretty lucky on all of the other stuff. Nothing takes the fun out of a relationship faster than nagging, whining , and manipulation.

  35. As my single issue voting strategy to re-legalize cockfighting in any and all of the 50 states isn’t bearing fruit I’m thinking of switching to a new single issue, defeating THIS by campaigning against anyone who votes to fund it.
    Y’all are welcome to join in the War on Theft-Funded Phrenology.

    1. I am all for the research….and completely against it being tax funded.

      Also, the fact that Obama and his acolytes even know about this gives me the creeps. I assure you they see this as a means to some nefarious end. Other than looting more tax money and funneling it to their cronies I mean.

      1. Other than looting more tax money and funneling it to their cronies I mean.

        Nope, I think that right there is pretty much it for them. They don’t think outside of that box.

        1. They hope to find the “brain abnormality” that causes non-leftist political thought.

    2. O’BrienObama: Power is tearing human minds apart and putting them back together in new shapes of your own choosing.

      First thing I thought of after reading the article.

    3. They also said that a series of national brain “observatories” should be created as part of the project, like astronomical observatories.

      Kill it with fire…and pitchforks.

  36. I don’t know if you saw but I think my dad made the news.

    1. Does he only slap babies, when naked?

  37. Speaking of cabbages and kings: AP does a 180 on a Rand Paul story that said the exact opposite of what the Senator actually said.

    The Associated Press has withdrawn its story about Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., saying he sees some in the his party favoring a 2016 presidential candidate with an immigration policy that would “round up people… and send them back to Mexico.” That quote was in the transcript of “Fox News Sunday” that was distributed after Paul’s interview on the show. A subsequent Associated Press review of an audio recording of the show determined that the transcript had dropped the word “don’t” from that quote, and Paul actually said, “They don’t want somebody who wants to round people up, put them in camps and send them back to Mexico.”

    Maybe they were set up maliciously by Fox News – who knows? Anyway, that is quite a journalistic boo-boo, especially when the video was available (right along with the transcript) to confirm Sen. Paul’s statements.

  38. OK, folks, breaking news! Lanza was a right-wing whacko!
    “Report: Conn. shooter motivated to top Norway shooter”…..y-shooter/
    Well, not so much:
    …”Lanza was determined to top Breivik’s death toll.”…
    He was just a whacko, and you’d hope Mom would have kept a better eye on him.

  39. ICP? There’s an app for that!

  40. Tha fuck?!?!? Where are my a.m./p.m. linkys?

    1. some kind of holiday?

      1. Louis Riel was the driving force behind Manitoba becoming Canada’s fifth province. His dream of a province that embraces all cultures is still shared by Manitobans today.

        Sounds like the canadian jesus. Jesus.

          1. Riel was the undisputed spiritual and political head of the short-lived 1885 Rebellion. He never carried arms and hindered the work of his military head, Gabriel Dumont. Riel was increasingly influenced by his belief that he was chosen to lead the M?tis people. On May 15, shortly after the fall of Batoche, Riel surrendered to Canadian forces and was taken to Regina to stand trial for treason.

            I seriously didn’t know that this was the official canadian jesus. Please accept my most sincere apologies.

            1. probably why a lot of Canadians hate him.

                1. Some say he was a traitor to Canada

                  1. Some Americans say the same of John Brown.

                    1. but does he have a holiday!

  41. 5 wittiest comebacks in history.

    I like senor barrymore’s the best.

  42. anyone watching “the following”?
    it’s not bad, but it does telegraph the next scene.

  43. It hurts me to do this, but (via Zero Hedge):

    Thank you, Elizabeth Warren

    After questioning various bank regulators about when the last time they actually brought a bank to trial (rather than getting a settlement for less than the profits from illegal acts), and getting a bunch of evasive responses, mostly saying that they’d rather the banks get back into compliance rather than have to punish them:

    There are district attorneys and United States attorneys out there every day squeezing ordinary citizens on sometimes very thin grounds and taking them to trial in order to make an example, as they put it. I’m really concerned that ‘too big to fail’ has become ‘too big for trial’

    1. While I agree with the sentiment of that quote, I have to wonder if Mizz Warren feels that way not out of sympathy for citizens that are losing their rights, but rather out of anger towards so-called banksters.

      The mind of the native american is a mysterious thing to behold, indeed.

      1. You know who else didn’t trust Native Americans….

        1. Hernando de Soto, and with good reason. All previous Spanish attempts at a reconnaissance of the interior of Southeastern North America didn’t make it out of Florida alive.

          1. Like they wouldn’t have found the Mississippi anyway.

        2. The Canadian Government?

  44. Don’t know what was better – reruns of “The Revolutionary War” on the Military Channel or the new season of “Fast ‘n’ Loud” on Discovery. “Gas Monkey Garage only deals in CASH.” Just like the US gummint!

    Night all.

  45. All: We are the mediocre presidents.
    You won’t find our faces on dollars or on cents!
    There’s Taylor, there’s Tyler,
    There’s Fillmore and there’s Hayes.
    There’s William Henry Harrison,
    Harrison: I died in thirty days!
    All: We… are… the…
    Adequate, forgettable,
    Occasionally regrettable
    Caretaker presidents of the U-S-A!

    1. Taylor, like de Soto, knew not to trust Native Floridians.He even penned a text on hunting them down with dogs.


        1. It would be a continuous loop of him saying “affirm” instead of “swear”.

          I don’t get why none of the prezzes since haven’t used that inauguration trick to get into the record books.

  46. In case you guys haven’t seen it yet: Armalite is in hot water with gun rights supporters over the response of a very stupid so-called “sales rep” to NYS gun owners requesting that Armalite join other companies in boycotting law enforcement in the state since regular citizens can’t purchase modern rifles anymore.

    Dear concerned gun owner,

    First of all I would like to say thank you for filling my email with all this spam email.

    Second, I am not sure where you got this blanket email from to send out as spam, but please stop it.

    Third, The manufacture is not the one you need to convince.

    You need to convince the law enforcement agencies and the common people about their mistake in electing these officials and have them removed. Again NOT the manufacture.

    In case the “common people” line didn’t give it away, it turns out this guy is a cop who works as a government/LE sales rep in his spare time. Hilarity ensues when the president of the company tries to step in and calm the waters. Apparently every level in this company is flush with incompetence, because he just fanned the flames.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.