Sen. Rand Paul Filibusters, Chicago Cops SWAT the Wrong Place, Venezuela's Military Digs Hugo's Chosen Successor: P.M. Links

|

Have a news tip for us? Send it to: 24_7@reason.com.

Follow Reason 24/7 on Twitter: @reason247

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content

NEXT: Ill. Governor Blames Lawmakers for Pension Crisis

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sen. Rand Paul is filibustering the vote on John Brennan’s confirmation…

    Just another politician who likes the sound of his own voice. Has he started to read the Constitution yet?

    1. RAND PAUL

    2. joined by Ron Wyden of OR, which should really put the test to the screaming lefties in the blogosphere.

      1. If they can throw Woodward under the bus they will do it to anybody.

      2. Not really.

        Wyden is a traitor to TEAM Blue and a counterrevolutionary! Silence him! Silence him NOW! Blue Dog! DINO! TEA BAGGER!!!!

        1. After the new CIA director is appointed it will be easier to simply drone bomb him.

          1. Wyden was actually pretty explicit in his support of Brennan. He does however, want the same questions answered Paul is asking.

            1. Even Rand has said this isn’t about Brennan as much as it is about the unanswered questions.

              1. Paul has voted to confirm people he railed against, as he agrees that the President has the right to the cabinet he wants. You’re right that this is about principle, not the nomination.

                1. Wyden took a deal with Feinstein et al. to support this nomination in exchange for access to the OLC memos. Not necessarily a terrible decision, considering that the nomination will succeed anyway. But it does smack of being a team player.

      3. From the WaPo.

        “I want it understood that I have great respect for this effort to really ask these kinds of questions,” Wyden said. “And Sen. Paul has certainly been digging into these issues in great detail.”

        At the same time, Wyden said he was satisfied with Attorney General Eric Holder’s response to Paul’s question about drone strikes on American soil.

        1. So really, any words from the administration in Paul’s direction count as a satisfactory response.

          1. Now you’re getting it.

          2. Yes and no. Wyden was referring to Holder’s remarks that had happened earlier today in the Senate judiciary committee hearing. He was not satisfied up to that point, and Rand had already started the filibuster by then.

  2. Venezuela’s Defense Ministry has thrown its support to Hugo Chavez’s designated successor in the upcoming election. Not surprisingly, the country’s military isn’t really supposed to do that. Good luck, folks!

    Democracy in action!

  3. While he was in office, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, Executive John Leopold maintained a secret system of 500 surveillance cameras located in county government buildings.

    He got the idea from the greatest William Baldwin movie ever.

    1. You mean Fair Game?

      1. He’s obviously talking about Backdraft, you fool.

        1. Biodome?

          Wait, what?

          1. HOW DARE YOU.

      2. Barney didn’t have security cameras set up in The Flintstones. If they did, I’d still have the screencaps of Halle Berry in the buff.

  4. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo…..33329.html
    Hugo Ch?vez may have been oppressive, but at least he wasn’t a lapdog for Washington like so many other heads of state. The world would be a much more free and decentralized place with more anti-imperialist “rogue” nations.

    1. Are you going to link that in the comments for everything on H&R?

      1. He should if it he doesn’t. It needs to be shouted from the rooftops how rancid the Fever Swamp really is.

    2. The self-appointed One True ‘tarian Lew.

    3. Re: Gladstone,

      Hugo Ch?vez may have been oppressive, but at least he wasn’t a lapdog for Washington like so many other heads of state.

      And you think there’s virtue in being DC’s lapdog, G?

      1. Don’t try to rehabilitate this bullshit.

        1. Re: Randian,

          Now that we’re on the subject of intellectual dishonesty, I should make it clear that Gladstone was not linking to something Lew Rockwell wrote himself but one Danny Sanchez, who argues that Chavez may have been an oppressor but compared to those in the Axis of Evil (i.e. Bush, Obama, Hollande, Blair, Cameron, et. al.) who have killed thousands of real people, Chavez was a pussycat.

          1. What about:

            “The world would be a much more free and decentralized place with more anti-imperialist “rogue” nations.”

            Of course Hollande just praised Chavez. And I don’t recall any shortages of attacks on Hollande or Obama from me or anyone else here.

          2. When you quote something without comment, that’s commonly thought of as an endorsement.

            Of course, the game Lew and Crew like to play is to simply *pretend* that convention doesn’t exist, so Lew can quote things that are inflammatory and ridiculous and then dance around anyone who accuses him (rightly) of supporting those things because he didn’t actually say it.

            In this, OM, you are part of The Crew. Which I knew you would be. You guys bitch and moan about sophists and the law and technicalities and you play that game to the hilt.

            1. But he just beat the snot out of you.

              How many nations did Venezuela invade during Chavez’ reign?

              How many nations were subjected to “regime change” by Venezuela during Chavez reign?

              How many children were starved to death by blockades, no-fly zones and sanctions ordered by Chavez?

              How about comparing the total amount of money spent on warfare between the US and Venezuela during the reign of Chavez?

              How about comparing the total number of people killed in foreign nations during the rule of Chavez? Did Venezuela’s thugs kill more or did the socialist, useless, parasitic american troopsies kill more?

              Get real.

              Neither OM nor Epi nor Rockwell nor I are claiming that Chavez was a good dude. He was a brutal dictator.

              1. How many nations were subjected to “regime change” by Venezuela during Chavez reign?

                Colombia, at least attempted regime change by harboring FARC rebels. I believe Chavez also supported the campaigns of Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Evo Morales in Bolivia to the same extent the CIA supported the 2002 coup against Chavez. Chavez also backed the losing candidate in Peru’s last election, if memory serves.

              2. You do realize you can criticize the US government without whitewashing the deeds of of brutal dictator right?

                1. Lew Rockwell, OM and I are not whitewashing what Chavez did. Let me repeat:

                  HE WAS A BRUTAL DICTATOR.

                  1. The problem is that you say he’s better than Clinton, Bush, or Obama. Even people who dislike those three and oppose their policies are going to blow the whistle on that comparison.

                  2. An elephant stomps to death thousands of insects a day just through negligently walking around, while a praying mantis kills maybe ten a day by grabbing them and slowly chewing their heads off.

                    Does that make the elephant a more brutal creature than the mantis?

                    1. Fucking mens rea, how does it work.

                      Why can you not get your head wrapped around the concept of intent?

              3. Libertymike: impotence is not innocence.

                Chavez has done everything he could to squash liberty. Remember how he threatened military force against Honduras when they impeached and removed his ally from the presidency?

                yeah, Chavez hasn’t changed regimes or killed tens of thousands of people in preemptive wars. But that’s cause he didn’t have the chance. There’s no reason to believe that if he were in command of the indisputably most powerful military force the world has ever seen, that he would do as much or more killing than Bush did.

                1. Bush was a piker compared to a lot of past Presidents. Odd that you would choose him as your point of reference.

                2. Yes, impotence is not goodness (unless one is married to Hillary or Roseanne or Michelle O or Oprah or Barbara Bush or Barbara Milkulski or Nancy Pelosie).

                  Of course, as I said in other posts and as OM acknowledges, as we must, that Chavez was an evil, nasty, profligate piece of scum.

                  Whether Chavez would have perpetrated all the murder and liberty crushing effected by Clinton, Bush and Obama is open to speculation.

                  1. Suppose a kid who catches a cat once a month, brings it into the barn after everyone is asleep, and tortures it to death. What do you think the kid is likely to do if he’s put in charge of an animal shelter with 200 cats in it and zero supervision or accountability?

                    1. Are we safe in assuming the kid has gone on to work for PETA in one of their kill centers?

                    2. Probably the same thing as the eight year old who threw dogs off the Kremilin tower for kicks.

                      Hey, that’s a good topic for further exploration, perhaps even worthy of a doctoral thesis:

                      Hugo and Ivan: A study of their respective reigns of terror and use of sadistic measures as state policy.

                      BTW, my cousin, at 15, along with 3 friends, shot (with a beebee gun) and killed a cat. My father represented him in juvy court and got it squashed. My cousin, now 42, is married with two children and a dog and a cat.

      2. Red Herring.

        1. Re: Gladstone,

          You probably have a different definition of a “Red Herring” than I have, but you would not have linked to the blog posting if you did not find something objectionable in what was being argued, and the geist of the argument was that Chavez was not, at least, a Washington stooge. So I have to conclude you find a virtue in being one, otherwise your outrage would not make sense.

          1. That was *not* the gist of the argument at all. The gist of the argument was that Chavez would be preferable to most Western governments. That was what was strongly implied if not outright said:

            Considering the chaos, terror, and wanton murderous destruction perpetrated on a daily basis by the West upon its recipients of “liberation,” the evil of Ch?vez is dwarfed by that of the governments of the “free world.

            See, what you want to say is that Chavez was better, but you know how that’s going to sound (like the lunacy that it is), so you dance around it without actually saying it but strongly implying it.

            That’s the game the Yokeltarians play.

            1. The thing about this line of thought that really sticks in my craw is that I am a Canadian.

              In Canada libertarianism is seen as some evil American puppet ideology.

              Want Private Healthcare? Well America has it so socialized Medicine is our Sacred Trust!

              Don’t like Hate Speech Laws? Well only an American would be concern about such a pesky idea. Europe of course has hate speech laws too.

              Free Trade is bad since the Americans will take us over. This isn’t opposition to NAFTA by the way.

              Industries must be nationalized to prevent Americans from taking over.

              Should I agree with these attitudes because it would piss off the Neocons, Rush, etc?

              If I was concerned about pissing off the US I wouldn’t be a libertarian I would be a communist.

              1. America has hate crime laws. Americans are charged with hate crimes every day all across the reich.

                Americans are punished for daring to challenge the proposition that they must hand over an ever growing portion of their income to the COMMUNIST IRS.

                The wealth of individual americans is spectacularly squandered every single day by the communist reich of america.

                Have you heard of the drug war?

                Do you know that literally millions of americans have been incarcerated over the last several decades because they chose to either use or sell drugzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz?

                Get real.

                1. Yeah. Hell, you can even be charged with laughing at someone too loudly here in America.

                2. Seems my point flew over your head.

                  1. No, it did not.

                    Sure, Canada is a socialist cess pool.

                    America is just a much bigger one, that’s all.

                    1. What I am saying that advocates of Canada’s socialist cess pool do think that opposing the US means supporting said cess pool and that the US is bad because it is too capitalistic, individualistic, etc.

                      The actual facts don’t matter of course. I mean I am talking about a world were Bush deregulated stuff and the current Republican party is filled with “anti-government” extremists.

                    2. Yes. Agreed.

                      I will concede that you are more intimately conversant with that attitude than moi.

                      I am friendly with an assistant manager of a Wholefoods who hails from Nova Scotia and who thinks Massachusetts is paradisce compared to home. I give him, in small doses (can’t spend all day doing it), some real hardcore Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard

            2. No, that is you being obtuse.

            3. Re: Randian,

              See, what you want to say is that Chavez was better,

              Nobody is saying that Chavez is better. What Mr. Sanchez is saying (as I propose below in my reply to Gladstone) is that Americans did not own Chavez, so his evil was his alone.

              He also suggests that it is preferable to have petty tyrants doing their evil on THEIR dime than on OUR dime. Now, tell me you disagree with that, please.

              1. In other words now that you’ve lost the argument you’re reinterpreting what we’re arguing about out of existence.

                Speaking of sophistry…

                1. My 6:29 is in response to OM.

                  1. Please, do tell, how is OM’s post a work of sophistry?

                    He is more logical than Randian and more coherent. Period.

                    1. Because the post clearly does say Chavez is better, and OM says it doesn’t.

                      Quote, from Danny Sanchez:

                      “Considering the chaos, terror, and wanton murderous destruction perpetrated on a daily basis by the West upon its recipients of “liberation,” the evil of Ch?vez is dwarfed by that of the governments of the “free world.”

                      Yes, you are explicitly saying that Chavez was better than the leaders of the ‘free world’.

          2. The post says that not being a lapdog is some sort of indulgence. I disagree. In case you wondered I don’t think Chavez would have been a good guy if he was an American puppet. I’m sure you can find all sorts of nasty stuff about US allies and I’m not going to think more highly of them because they like the US.

            1. Re: Gladstone,

              The post says that not being a lapdog is some sort of indulgence. I disagree.

              I disagree as well, it doesn’t excuse Chavez; but that is not what Mr. Sanchez is saying. What he’s saying is that Chavez was, at least, not a Washington stooge, which means he alone owned his evil. You as an American should appreciate that you were NOT made an unwilling participant in genocide by bankrolling one of the many proxies on the Washington’s dole.

    4. Holy crap. That bastard Lew literally called Chavez a true libertarian hero who’s more libertariany than any Orange-line riding, cocktail party invitation coveting, cosmo libertarian wannabe!

      Bastard!

      1. If that’s the game Lew wants to play, then let him play it. He’s a worse person for it, though.

        1. I knew there was a reason I stopped reading LRC about 6 months ago.

      2. This whole subthread makes me think of this statement.

    5. Why do you keep linking to this? The guy wrote something stupid. We got it.

      1. And Lew Rockwell didn’t write it. It was (presumably) written by this assclown, Danny Sanchez.

        1. When you quote something without comment, that’s commonly thought of as an endorsement.

          Of course, the game Lew and Crew like to play is to simply *pretend* that convention doesn’t exist, so Lew can quote things that are inflammatory and ridiculous and then dance around anyone who accuses him (rightly) of supporting those things because he didn’t actually say it.

          1. How dare you accuse Lewis Ellen Rockwell of dishonesty? He is the Chosen One, the heir of Rothbard, and hero to TRUE libertarians everywhere!

            1. It sure ain’t Randian or Cytotoxicity.

          2. When you quote something without comment, that’s commonly thought of as an endorsement.

            Actually, that is exactly backwards. About 90% of the time I quote someone on google+, for example, I am mocking them. But I do it without comment.

            1. Also, look at the filibuster thread from earlier this afternoon. People where quoting without commentary idiots from other sites left and right.

              And it wasnt an endorsement.

              Your basic premise is wrong. Which seems about normal for you.

              1. Honestly, OM is far more logical and coherent in his arguments than Randian and he is far less likely to go ad hominem or shift the goalposts while asseverating that the other guy is doing it.

                1. Libertymike| 3.6.13 @ 7:20PM |#

                  Honestly, OM is far more logical and coherent in his arguments than Randian and he is far less likely to go ad hominem or shift the goalposts

                  Bullshit, ad homs and gps is Old Mex’s schtick.

                  So is Libertymike his fanboi or sock puppet?

              2. So that’s what you think Rockwell was doing?

                yeah right.

                Context, how the fuck does it work?

              3. There’s this thing called context, robc.

                After stating my position on Rand Paul and drones many many times, it was clear that I was quoting HuffPost morons ironically. I don’t see Herr Rockwell making it clear that he doesn’t think Chavez was not as bad as the US presidents.

                1. Tulpa, my brother, I extend my hand to you in this mighty struggle. šŸ˜›

                2. Context doesnt matter, Randian made an absolute statement. Absolute statements apply in all contexts.

        2. I didn’t say he wrote it. He’s quoting it favourably which would imply that he agrees with it.

          1. Ok. Then go plaster your dissatisfaction all over the Lew Rockwell site. Has any commenter here at H&R written support for the statement? No? Then let it rest.

            1. What is it you think OM is doing right now?

              1. Kicking the shit out of you, again.

      2. “One thing no patriot is ever supposed to do is remember the Empire’s record of war aggression and mass murder against the North Koreans.”

        Lew Rockwell

        “If a man can be defined by the enemies he makes, then Chavez was a saint.”
        Justin Raimondo

        1. Ah, does North Korea have a history of invading the US?

          Doe North Korea have a history of engaging in war games off of Cape Cod?

          Does North Korea have a history of engaging in war games off of the Monterey coast?

          The US did invade Korea in 1866 and again in 1871. Are you familiar with the landing at Kanghwa beach in 1871? Are you aware that the US killed as many as 650 people in that campaign?

          Does the constitution specifically permit the US to invade Korea?

          How about the Jeju experience? Do you know a fornicating thing about it?

          1. WTF is the point you, Raimondo, Rockwell, etc. are making? You can oppose the US government without trying to make third world dictators look better by comparison. Hugo Chavez was a POS. The fact that US politicians didn’t like him doesn’t change that and is irrelevant. So why does Raimondo feel the need to make a tweet about how he would be a saint if judged by who his opponents are? Hitler had some pretty evil opponents. So did most evil mass murderers throughout history. What relevance does it have? North Korea hasn’t invaded the US, but they did invade South Korea and nearly succeeded in putting the entire population under the control of a totalitarian communist dictatorship like the North already is. What exactly is the point of comparing these people and regimes to the US government? And just because Chavez opposed the US government doesn’t mean the world would be more free if Chavez clones ruled more countries

            1. We are making the point that if one is going to criticize Dennis Rodman for going to NK upon the basis that he should know that NK is a bellicose, brutal place the leaders of which are hell-bent on destroying the US and that the nation represents a serious threat to the US without pointing out that the US has been far more bellicose and has been far more likely to engage in mass murder and has mass murdered on a far greater scale than NK and has invaded Korea and made war there and engages in provactive war games off the Korean coast, is claptrap.

              Context. Perspective. Get some.

              1. Cali-

                Are you conversant with the history of US meddling and mass murder in Korea?

                It resembles what the US has done all over the world.

                1. NK has never dropped an atomic weapon on another nation.

                  NK does not outspend the rest of the world in warworks.

                  NK does not have over 1,000 military installations all over the globe.

                  NK does not engage in nation building.

                  NK has not killed over 500 children via drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan as OBama the nasty negro has in the last four plus years.

                  All of the above does not make NK “better” than the US, but the failure to drive home the above is intellectually dishonest.

                  1. All of the above does not make NK “better” than the US

                    Why not?

              2. I thought we had determined yesterday that Rodman was excused under the Madonna Sexually Transmitted Retardation Principle that also had a negative impact on Sean Penn’s acting and Guy Ritchie’s ability to make a good movie.

                A-Rod’s douchery may or may not have been impacted as tests were inconclusive due to being tainted by steroids and HGH.

                1. Rodman would literally kick the shit out of any special forces pussy, don’t you think?

                  Just as Chavez would have pulverized that fairy GWB, right?

                  Same with Saddam. He would have killed Bush in a no-holds barred steel cage match.

              3. Rodman didn’t simply visit North Korea. He described a brutal dictator as a lifelong friend.

                As for the other posts, I am well aware of history and US foreign policy. And the funny thing is, in most foreign policy threads, I’m accused of being a “peacenik” or a “pacifist” or a “noninterventionist cultist” because I’m so critical of US foreign policy. But the fact is that none of that shit has any relevance when it comes to a lot of the stuff that Raimondo and Rockwell post about people like Chavez, Putin, Assad, the Kims, etc. They go well beyond saying “these guys are bad, but let’s remember the US government is bad too.” Even that statement alone, while true, doesn’t need to be brought up in ever discussion of an anti-American foreign dictator, and it’s not intellectually dishonest to not do so.

                And the North Korean government would be glad to do all that if they had the power. The US government, while wrong in doing so (especially in the manner they do it), is not unique in wanting or trying to spread their influence and power around the globe

                And WTF is up with the “nasty negro” comment? I’m certainly not the kinda person to scream “RAAAACIST!” over every little thing that might not be PC but that’s crossing the line. Obama being half-black has nothing to do with why he’s a terrible president

                1. Yeah, Libertymike, that ‘nasty negro’ thing is fucking ridiculous. Why do you seem incapable of arguing any point without saying something stupid?

                  1. This is what the Yokeltarians do. It’s the same thing the newsletters were doing. The Yokeltarians are like the kids who play the “I’m Not Touching You” game.

                    1. Randian, my one complaint about the term Yokeltarian is that there seems to be some confusion over who it refers to. I’ve seen both Rockwellian hardcore non-interventionist ancaps included, as well as conservatarians who are more mainstream on foreign policy, and those two groups hate each other because of their FP disagreements.

              4. Except that isn’t even true. Quite literally millions of North Koreans have died as a direct result of that government’s brutal oppression. You quite simply cannot say the same thing about the United States.

                you just can’t, because it isn’t true.

                1. Not to mention the millions of casualties in the Korean War. While I don’t think the US had a vital security threat at stake that justified intervention (and the draft was especially unjustified) the conflict was ultimately the fault of the North Korean aggressors and their Chinese/Soviet backers.

                  1. Libertymike loves the Norks because they feed
                    the military while starving everyone else. And they hate Negroes almost as much as he does.

                    True libertarians support Songbun!

              5. Libertymike| 3.6.13 @ 7:25PM |#

                We are making the point that

                Mike’s a collectivist libertarian.

                Derp

  5. Colorado officials want to collect DNA from people convicted of misdemeanors.

    Bend over, Colorado officials.

    1. Sounds like a real lemon party.

  6. ROCKVILLE CENTRE, N.Y. ? A Long Island man says he didn’t know it was a crime to laugh.

    1. Laugh, and get cited for disorderly conduct. Cry, and get left alone.

      1. For the sad old judge must have a grudge, and can’t leave the disabled alone.

      2. Crap, I should’ve “and must make the disabled atone” instead. I violated the “using same word to finish rhyme” rule.

    2. Huh. Better check and make sure I don’t have any relatives featured in this.

      1. Nope. But Irish guys calling Italian guys retards. It does sound familiar.

  7. A state representative took his own DNA sample at a news conference Tuesday announcing a proposal that would require people convicted of misdemeanors to submit samples for a database.

    Fap, fap, fap, fap!

    /Dan Pabon

  8. C’mon, guys. Alt-text should be “Don’t drone me, bro”

    1. “Paul Protests Drones With Droning, Spends Hours on Filibustering to Make Needless Point”

    2. Drone you, drone me; drone it for always
      That’s the way it should be
      Drone you, drone me; drone it together
      Naturally

      1. You’re once, twice, three times a statey.

        1. What? No….Oh what a feeling when you’re droning on the ceiling?

          Nahh….that’s just stupid!

        2. First thing to make me laugh the entire day. Thanks Mike.

      2. It drones on and on and on, yeah
        Strangers
        Droning
        Up and down the bouleeevard
        Shadows are all that re-mai-ains!

      3. But are you runnin’ through the night, playin’ in the shadows, just you and I, from the drone we’ll hide?

    3. Well, you got your wish. What was it before?

      1. “man”

    4. Sell this T-Shirt.
      Profit.

  9. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Ch?vez would “return on resurrection day“. He said he had “no doubt that Ch?vez will return to Earth” along with Jesus and Imam Mahdi, the most revered figure among Shia Muslims, to help “establish peace, justice and kindness” in the world. Announcing a day of mourning, Ahmadinejad also said he believed something “suspicious” caused Ch?vez’s cancer.

    1. Raimondo and Rockwell will agree.

    2. Too many visits to the secret Iranian uranium factory?

      1. Say ‘iranian uranium’ six times real fast.

    3. It’s quite amazing how a tinpot dictator schmuck who had the the King of Spain tell him to shut the fuck up is now the equivalent of Jesus in some people’s eyes.

      Por que no te callas.

      1. Yo quiero Taco Bell.

        1. We all do, Tim. We all do.

      2. He wasn’t a Lapdog of DC, Epi. Some anarchist you are.

        True anarchists are out there calling for higher taxes, more spending and more regulations. Oh wait…

        1. “Hi, I’m a statist anarchist. Yeah, I know that doesn’t make sense but it sounds cool. You wanna have sex now?”

          1. Once the State controls everything then it will wither away.

            Once people learn that they own everyone else’s stuff then they’ll stop stealing and oppressioning everyone.

            Once we have TOP. MEN. and worker’s committees redistribute the wealth fairly then equality will exist.

            People can do whatever they want as long as they work 24/7 for the collective. Anyone opposing the collective in any way is a wrecker and will be shot. Freedom!

            1. I think you’re onto something! Has anyone ever attempted to apply this?

              Give that man a Nobel peace prize!

      3. Kinda makes you wonder about all of the other people who are so revered….doesnt it?

    4. Sounds blasphemous to me. What does Ahmadinejad’s local Sharia Council think of this sort of talk.

      1. Sounds blasphemous to me. What does Ahmadinejad’s local Sharia Council think of this sort of talk.

        Considering every school of Islam teaches that only Muslims are eligible to enter heaven, Ahmadinejad seems to have committed a grievous sin.

        What should happen is that his statement is publicized throughout the Muslim world with the proper criticism. Even a few fatwas of takfir against him. But we’d never run that sort of psyop, because we’re incompetent.

        1. Maybe Ahmeadinejad knows Chavez was a Muslim in his heart.

          Or maybe it’s an honorary thing and he got a special prayer rug (or something) for delivering a speech to some graduates about opposing the Great Satan.

          1. Considering that Chavez was poisoned by the Great Satan and infected with cancer (their words), he died as a martyr during jihad. There’s special rules for that.

        2. don’t worry, Juan Cole will come to his rescue and claim it was a mistranslation, citing that there’s no word in Farsi for “resurrection day.”

          1. Juan Cole will come to his rescue and claim it was a mistranslation

            I believe that will actually happen.

    5. “no doubt that Ch?vez will return to Earth” along with Jesus and Imam Mahdi,

      His name is a killing word!

    6. “no doubt that Ch?vez will return to Earth”

      No doubt. Aaaaaaaany day now.

    7. “Christmas is a time when people from all religions come together to worship Jesus Christ.”

    8. “Imam Mahdi”

      Doesn’t he drive a cab now?

      1. Maybe that’s how he’s remained occulted, by blending in.

  10. Basketball tonight. I don’t know if it’s on national TV, but VCU is hosting the University of Richmond tonight at the Stu. Should be a great game, as VCU needs to finish strong and avenge their earlier loss across town. Always a good game, great rivalry.

    1. Basketball tonight…Should be a great game

      Does. Not. Compute.

    2. Will it be as good as tOSU whomping on IU last night?

        1. I-O!

          1. That defense was an absolute buzzsaw. Craft was a beast.

            1. As with Rand Paul, I expect eventually to be disappointed. But with the Bucks it’ll be sooner, probably second round.

              1. Probably. But then again, anyone who gets the bracket completely right this year deserves $1 million dollars.

            2. Craft was a beast.

              Yeah. He looked “on” last night. Which is good.

              1. Agreed. He hasn’t been on much this season. The biggest problem this year has been total lack of offensive creativity. You can’t run the weave for 25 seconds and then hope to get off quality shots every time down the court. I’m not saying they need an up-tempo game, because I think they have a thin bench. But I will advocate for taking good, easy shots when they present themselves.

                They could go out in the second round or the regional finals. I can’t see them making the final four this year but I’ve been wrong plenty of times.

                Evan, if they place then in San Jose, do you want to take a road trip up to watch Rounds 1 & 2?

                1. Yes. Yes I do.

                  1. Well, ESPiN has them there in their latest Bracketology. Of course, the win at Indiana might move them up to a 3 seed, but I’m sure they’ll bow early in the Big Ten tourney to go back down.

                    On a side note, you know how much I fucking hate Michigan. I’m having a hard time with the IU-scUM game coming up. If scUM wins and tOSU beats Illinois, the Buckeyes will share the Gig Ten title for the fourth straight year.

                    It’s a pickle.

                    1. CBS has them going to Austinas a 5

                    2. Even after beating Indiana? Wow. That sounds way off. I still have them at a 4, but they could play up to a 3 if they make the Big Ten championship game.

                    3. I have to cheer for scUM for us to get a title.

                      Boo.

                    4. No. Fuck Michigan!

                2. you mean rounds 2 & 3

                  1. you mean rounds 2 & 3

                    Go to hell. There is a play-in round and then Rounds 1 & 2. Just like there is a Division 1-A and 1-AA in football.

                    1. Can’t wait for Selection Sunday!

  11. Jose Canseco
    ?@JoseCanseco
    I am now painting donald trump

    1. Is that the new euphemism for taking a dump?

      1. Did “taking my talents to South Beach” fall out of favor somehow?

  12. Chivalry is dead:

    A frisky woman was mauled to death by a lion as she had sex with her boyfriend in the African bush. …

    A friend told My Zimbabwe: “Unfortunately the woman was mauled to death by the lion, but her boyfriend managed to escape naked.”

    The pal said Sharai and her fisherman boyfriend would meet at their favourite beauty spot in the wild.

    He said: “The two were romping when the incident occurred. The lion came from behind and roared.

    “The guy managed to escape before stopping at a distance where he witnessed his companion being attacked.

    1. The horror, the horror!

      1. Can you feel the love tonight?

        1. “All I know is maul…and food…and rape.”

          1. Remind you of the good times with Warty?

            1. Tonight…YOU.

              1. STEVE SMITH in a lion suit?

          2. The mix of references in this subthread is hurting me.

            1. Befriending new people can lead to having sex with your children, accidentally.

    2. Something about eating pussy.

    3. If ever there was a time for “manning up” …

      1. Like “man up and GTFO?”

        1. “I don’t have to out race the lion, I only have to out race you.”

    4. Well what can one man do against a freaking lion?

      1. Tow it?

        1. It’s “Toe the lion”. You have to catch him by the toe, and if he hollers, let him go.

          1. That’s a tiger you twit.

          2. If he hollers, that’s not his toe…

            1. What if there was a thorn in it?

      2. What, at this point, does it matter?

      3. Well what can one man do against a freaking lion?

        Shoot it, with a gun.

    5. She wasn’t liberated enough to outrun her boyfriend.

      Men must have their hamstrings cut so they can’t outrun women.

      1. I heard it said about bears, but I suppose it is true of lions as well. You don’t have to be able to outrun the lion, you just have to be faster than the slowest member of your party.

    6. “In the African bush.” The grooming habits seem like unnecessary information.

      1. Thanks.

        My 5 year old is curious as to why I just let out a legit belly laugh.

    7. Presumably this means she was on top where the lion could get at her first.

    1. Are you calling me a Korn listener, dude? Really? Fuck you. I thought you were cool.

      1. ugh, you’re right.
        how could I do such a thing

        1. Yeah Pantsfan, what the fuck, everybody knows that Warty is a juggalo and they don’t listen to that pussy band Korn.

          1. ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH

  13. -Chicago police face a lawsuit after SWAT raided the wrong house and held grandparents and kids at gunpoint. Yes, they killed the dog.

    There are so many cop shows, how about one about a brutal and incompetent operation?

    1. Reno 911! wasn’t really brutal.

      1. Drama. The leads are all despicable bastards and we follow their crimes and fuck ups, cover ups and intimidations.

        1. It was called The Shield and I highly recommend it.

          1. Curse you Red Baron!

            Once again my little intellectual dog house has been shot up.

            1. Maybe you shouldn’t use Woodstock as your wingman.

          2. Where did the Commish go bad?

            1. Bald = evil, just look at Max Von Sydow in Flash Gordon.

              1. Michael Chiklis springs to mind.

    2. Unlawful and Disorder.

      1. Special Victimizers Unit

    3. Wasn’t that COPS?

  14. “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns,” Obama told Lott one day at the University of Chicago Law School.

    “I have said consistently that I believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right.”

    So, a person has the individual right to *not* keep and bear arms?

    1. Hey, his views evolved to a more electable position. Just because he can’t be re-elected President again is no reason to believe he’ll actually default to his gun-grabbin’ ways.

      1. http://www.japantoday.com/cate…..their-face

        you keep saying that

        1. I keep being sarcastic about it, too.

      2. my kingdom for an edit button

        because he can’t be re-elected President again
        you keep saying that

        1. Monarchist! There’s no place for your kind in our democratic republic.

          1. I still predict more people than Serrano are going to start calling for repealing the 22nd Amendment. Just wait.

            1. But considering it would take another amendment to overturn it (and good luck with that, with all the unenlightened legislatures in state houses across America) what fresh hell would the nation face while some other, lesser being occupied the White House from 2017 to 2021?

              All those Dems who were pro 22 while Booosh! was in charge should feel awful stupid now.

              1. Yeah, I seem to remember quite a few people being certain that Bush would try to stay in office after his two terms too.

            2. After eight years of this, even he may be too toxic for that crap.

            3. I read earlier that there are people who want Michelle Obama in 2016.

              And you know she’d win, too.

            4. The best case scenario, it gets repealed, Obama runs, and loses.

              That would be the greatest day of laughter ever.

              1. The best case scenario, it gets repealed, Obama runs, and loses.

                Then 3 terms of President Santorum…

                All Hail President Santorum!

                1. Okay,there would be tears with that laughter.

        2. IT guys don’t work for navel lint and old candy wrappers, so maybe you need a better kingdom?

          1. Hell, I got offered $55/hr on a job who listed in their 10 requirements:


            d) Migrate Microsoft Access and SQL 2000 databases to SQL Server 2008 R2.

            e) Apply Data Access technique using Stored Procedures and web services.

            f) Provide detailed comments in C# code and stored procedures that are sufficient to allow Agency programmers to understand and maintain code.

            g) Ensure no duplication of code ? highly modular.

            h) Create Stored Procedures to be used for reporting by SSRS.

            i) Add process improvements for Agency programmers; i.e., convert manual backend database steps (now in VBA and Access Macros) into application code, rate setting steps etc.

            j) Ensure rounding accuracy. (Some reports show calculations to 4 places (i.e.: 25.0006)

            Apparently, the state can only find incompetent programmers who can’t use a round() function for $54/hr.

            No fucking way am I taking this job in an IT shop that obviously has lacked competent management for over a decade, but…

            1. Apparently, the state can only find incompetent programmers who can’t use a round() function for $54/hr.

              No, but the ones who get $54/hour will know that just calling round() before you print out your results doesn’t ensure any particular level accuracy in your output.

              1. e.g. Choose a thousand numbers from a standard distribution with a mean of 1 billion and a variance of 1.

                Write an algorithm that will calcuate the population variance of this set correctly to four decimal places. (Hint: if you do this the obvious way, you’re going to end up some ridiculous result like -134.0000 instead of something close to 1.000)

    2. So I’m supposed to believe that John Lott Jr. memorized every conversation he had with then inconsequential adjunct faculty members almost two decades ago?

  15. wearing surgical masks for cosmetic and comfort purposes has become so popular among young people in Japan over the past few years that the media has begun labeling it as a “fashion trend.”

    1. I thought it was because of SARS and air pollution. Maybe that’s just China.

      Dang Japanese, always stealin’ Chinese culture?

      1. It’s been going on in Japan since after WWII, at least when people are sick.

        Asian dust storms make it practical to use occasionally regardless of pollution. I was in Taipei last time there was a dust storm, and although almost everyone was wearing a mask, including me, none of the office girls were wearing the disposable models.

    2. Those wacky Japanese! You haven’t lived until you’ve attended a geriatric diaper fashion show!

      I’m a model you know what I mean
      And I do my little turn on the catwalk
      Yeah on the catwalk on the catwalk yeah
      I shake my little touche on the catwalk

      I’m too sexy for my too sexy for my too sexy for my…..adult diaper!

    3. some women see the mask as not only a way to cover up their face on a bad makeup day, but also as an accessory that can make them more attractive.

      “It gives you a mysterious appearance since only your eyes are showing,” says one high-school girl. “Wearing a mask makes me look cuter!”

      I guess it is a fashion trend, albeit a weird one.

      1. Burkas really make the broads look great!

    4. That’s weird you mention that as I saw an asian girl at the bus stop wearing a surgical mask.

      I coughed on her…

  16. Harry Reid just got up there and called for cloture after 90 more min of debate.

    1. Paul: “I’m alright with a vote now, I’ve talked a lot today, but I’d like some clarification…”

      1. Reid of course can’t clarify so Paul says he wants to keep going, Reid is like “fuck y’all we’re coming back tomorrow.”

        1. Wait, so Rand will have the time when he gets back tomorrow?

          1. He’s still on, and talking about Alice in Wonderland. I think Reid thought he was dismissing the Senate but couldn’t actually do that since Paul had never ceded the floor. It was something about like, “I just want to be able to let my people know if we’re going to get to vote tonight? No? Okay, fuck you, I’m going home.”

          2. Rand has to stay up there, I believe.

            I wonder if anyone is going to stick around to try to seize the floor.

            1. Reid huffed off, seemed like he was giving it up for the night.

            2. Serious question: I haven’t seen him eat or drink anything. Can someone bring him a pizza and a six pack, and is a senator allowed to eat or drink without ceding the floor?

              1. Pretty sure he can, at least since drinking wouldn’t make him stop talking very long, but I have a feeling he’s been avoiding it so he doesn’t have to pee.

                1. Were he dedicated enough he would’ve rolled out in adult diapers. Clearly Rand isn’t dedicated to his cause.

                  1. Hey you never know. Maybe he put a catheter in.

                  2. Just because you’re dedicated enough to your cause, whatever the hell it is, to sport Depends all the time doesn’t make him less of a patriot.

                    1. Do we consider “debilitating laziness” a cause?

                    2. We call it dedication to idleness, jesse. And yes.

                    3. Of course. Hell, I’m just happy it’s not yet a protected class under the ADA.

                    4. It’s not protected by the ADA? I thought having a job with internet access was just accommodation for my disability.

              2. I thought they could drink at least.

                1. He’s approaching 6 hours, I’m going to be kind of disappointed if he doesn’t make it to the record time now.

                  1. What’s the rule? I mean if you leave and no one takes the floor is it still yours?

                    1. I would assume it is. If there is no one there to challenge your possession of it, it’s still yours (I think).

                  2. He’s approaching 6 hours, I’m going to be kind of disappointed if he doesn’t make it to the record time now.

                    Then you better be prepared to show up and see him finish sometime during lunch tomorrow, because Strom Thurmond clocked in at 24 Hours and 18 Minutes.

                    1. Yeah I misread an earlier post that cited Bernie Sanders as having the record for this century at nearly nine hours.

              3. He’s now talking while snacking.

      2. Typical libertarian, talking to hear himself talk. Probably had a smug look on his face the whole time too.

        1. And a monocle.

          1. Was he twirling his cane?

            1. I long for the days when said cane would be used to beat scoundrels like Reid.

            2. No, he was using it to beat his manservant.

  17. Oklahoma woman arrested for possession of crack, subsequent strip search reveals she had a loaded gun in her vagina.

    Or was she just happy to see them?

    1. Did she have an assault magazine hidden under the hood? Or was she REALLY happy to see them?

    2. Re: A Serious Man,

      subsequent strip search reveals she had a loaded gun in her vagina.

      There’s no satisfying her.

    3. And here we see the consequences of smaller magazines! If everyone were required to have thirty round magazines, I would sincerely hope it wouldn’t fit in her vagina.

      And yes, I now know from reading the article it was a tiny Freedom Arms .22 revolver! My point still stands.

    4. the cop spotted the handle of the five-shot revolver “sticking out from” inside Harris

      Still think shaving is a good idea?

    5. This is why I never bring a woman to orgasm.

      1. Women do not avoid FoE, but they do deny him their essence.

    6. Perhaps it was her unborn baby that was packing heat, and it was just standing on “Castle Doctrine”?

  18. A football fan was so disgusted with the referee’s decision to send off Nani in Tuesday’s Champions League clash with Real Madrid he called 999 (the UK’s 911).

    1. As much as I hate ManUre I was disgusted by the call too. The game was really good at that point and it was ruined.

      1. It was a soccer game. There is no “really good” at any point.

        1. Zackly!

      2. ManU fans whining about the refs = pure hilarity. How many games have they won in the PL with questionable calls and even more questionable non-calls?

        1. It could be worse. It could be Chelsea bitching about the refs.

          It was refereshing in the final matchday last season when the 4th official held up the board at 90 minutes and it said “Play until Manchester City wins”.

  19. Decades of socialist indoctrination and these wreckers engage in tax evasion. Mao would be so sad.

    New Chinese tax policy on house sales leads to more divorces.
    http://offbeatchina.com/the-un…..vorce-rate

    1. I guess this beats Lewis Grizzard’s plan to just find a woman he didn’t like and buy her a house.

      It would also make a great new reality show here in the US. “Honey, I love our old house? and my new husband. Tell the kids I said hi.”

    2. Wow, that is hilarious. You’d think the CCCP – the biggest murders in the human history – would have figured out this whole unintended consequences thing by now.

  20. Feeling more favorably to one of my Senators since Toomey is joining the filibuster.

  21. Feminists need to be less funny and sexy and more angry.

    1. Because nothing makes the world agree with you faster than pissing them off, amirite?

  22. VOTE CALLED ON ACCOUNT OF FILIBUSTER. (But not really called in the vote calling sense.)

      1. I don’t read other people’s comments. You know that.

        1. YOU JUST DID.

          1. No, those were just random words strung together.

  23. Police Investigate Dog Owner Whose Dog Attacked a Swan at Orlando’s Lake Eola

    I think you already know how I feel about ORLANDOOOO’s Lake Eola (namely, fuck it), so I am happy to see nature take it’s course here in the great dog vs. swan struggle. Unfortunately, much like Oviedo’s chickens, Lake Eola’s swans are a protected class. Central Floridians really love their avian species.

    P.S. Fuck Lake Eola.

    1. If I were a homeless guy, I’d be eating sweet, sweet roast Canada goose every night.

      1. Homeless Guy #2: Oh, roast goose AGAIN?!

        1. Better than boiled goose (insert Lonely Island’s “Boombox” video)

  24. The immediate need for emotional justice.

    Yup, emotional justice. Give you 3 guesses (and the first two don’t count)as to who’s emotions don’t qualify for consideration.

    1. Change a few words and that article could be about Scientology. I’m not even kidding here. THETANS!

      1. The author of the article…

        “Yolo Akili is an Emotions Educator, Performance Artist, Practicing Astrologer, Yoga Teacher and long time activist. He can be reached at

        1. Only one of those things is a real thing.

          1. Which one?

          2. It is?

    2. White males?

      1. RACIST!

        /reflex

        1. Shit. I fucked it up. My bad. I missed the don’t count.

          1. No, that’s a common expression used to indicate that 3 guesses won’t be needed.

    3. You have found someone who writes more nonsensically than Marcotte. Congratulations for culturally and individually wounding us yet again, Coeus.

      1. What can I say? It’s a gift.

      2. Oh stop your bitching, get your eMeter and achieve Clear already.

    4. We could offer them a Kleenex to cry on but since Kleenex are white it would no doubt be racist.

    5. Yolo Akili is an Emotions Educator, Performance Artist, Practicing Astrologer, Yoga Teacher and long time activist.

      Of course he is.

    6. I read that whole thing and completely failed to understand what “emotional justice” means. Anyone else?

      1. It’s because we’re white males. *duuuuuh*

        1. What’s my excuse then?

          1. You’re white and suffer from false consciousness imposed by the patriarchy.

            1. That and her suburbian middle-class existence only serves to show she is not down with the struggle.

          2. Dunno. You’re not a tranny or some bizarre M2F post-op freak, are you?

          3. Do you really want us to answer that? Because it’s not so much an excuse as it is a shortcoming.

            1. Are you trying to slur me like joe???

              1. Well, you are pretty short, and you’re usually drunk.

              2. Absolutely. I mean, you are shorter than him. Which means you probably get drunk in bars all the time and start fights that you always lose.

                1. Yeah, totally. Plus, isn’t nicole a pathetic substitute teacher whose wife left her?

                  1. Yup, and even worse, she’s a Masshole.

                    1. Yup, and even worse, she’s a Masshole.

                      Oh. My. God. SHORTY RAGE!

                    2. Oh. My. God. SHORTY RAGE!

                      Rampage!!!

                2. Easy, asshole. Banjos is pretty short as well and she hasn’t hit me in months days.

    7. “Oppression is trauma. Every form of inequity has a traumatic impact on the psychology, emotionality and spirituality of the oppressed. The impact of oppressive trauma creates cultural and individual wounding. This wounding produces what many have called a “pain body”, a psychic energy that is not tangible but can be sensed, that becomes an impediment to the individual and collective’s ability to transform and negotiate their conditions.”

      Fuck you Yolo Akili. Does that wound you coming from a white, redneck cracker son of a bitch? Good. Fuck you again.

  25. White House tells Executive Branch to make sequestration hurt

    The White House announced Tuesday that it is canceling tours of the president’s home for the foreseeable future as the sequester spending cuts begin to bite and the administration makes good on its warnings of painful decisions.

    Announcement of the decision ? made in an email from the White House Visitors Office ? came hours after The Washington Times reported on another administration email that seemed to show at least one agency has been instructed to make sure the cuts are as painful as President Obama promised they would be.

    In the internal email, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service official Charles Brown said he asked if he could try to spread out the sequester cuts in his region to minimize the impact, and he said he was told not to do anything that would lessen the dire impacts Congress had been warned of.

    1. For his next trick, he’ll execute all the teachers and firemen.

    2. Good ol’ Charlie Brown. How I hate him.

    3. Obama to cabinet: “Men, we need to make this sequester hurt to drive home how destructive it is. I have a plan: no more public White House tours. Yep. I’m cutting off access to me, my environs, where I make the magic happen. That’ll bring them to their knees. This country thrives on me.”

      1. He can have the three White House Calligraphers write up pretty “CLOSED” signs!

  26. Where was he during the Chuck Hagel confirmation hearing? Oh he needs Ron Paul’s anti-Jew supporters. Rand Paul is dead to me.

    1. If only you were actually dead to him.

    2. LOL WUT?

    3. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    4. Can somebody please translate this to English? I tried, but all I could come up with was “derp”, repeated over and over again.

    5. Oh he needs Ron Paul’s anti-Jew supporters

      Why is why, of course, he stated an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States.

      ANTI-JOOOZZZZZ!!!!

      1. HM, that dog won’t hunt.

    6. Ron Paul? The the only congressman at the time to refuse to vote to condemn Israel for blowing up a site where Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear reactor? That Ron Paul?

      1. Yes, that Ron Paul.

        Supporting Israel when they are right makes you anti-jew.

        Its giving them infinite amounts of aid that makes you pro-jew. Duh.

    7. He voted against cloture.

      THIS IS A BIGGER ISSUE. HE SAVED HIS POLITICAL CLOUT FOR IT.

      Sigh. Idiots.

  27. Alternate Universe Headline: Senator Obama joins Rand Paul’s filibuster against President McCain’s domestic use of drones.

  28. Bill O’Reilly loses it on TV again

    1. Cant blame the guy. Obama supporters/democrats lie their asses off in the faces of Obama critics every every day….and Obama lies incessantly.

      After a while, it does piss people off.

  29. Jesus. Even Alljazeera is hosting feminist bullshit now.

    Anyone following the pro-life movement knew very well that opposing contraception access is the mainstream pro-life organisational position – despite the fact that birth control prevents enormous numbers of abortions, I’m unaware of any major pro-life group that supports contraception access. That’s because, for all of their talk about valuing foetal life, the bigger issue for pro-life organisations is the radical shift in gender roles that birth control and abortion enabled.

    How dare you not pay for other’s birth control?

    The general American public doesn’t take kindly to targeting victims of rape and domestic violence. Directing animosity at women, and at non-white women in particular, may be a good way to rally the base. But it’s also a great way to lose elections.

    Ugghh.

    1. despite the fact that birth control prevents enormous numbers of abortions

      How do they even measure this? Do they assume that every time someone on the pill has sex, it’s unprotected, would have resulted in pregnancy, and would have ended in abortion?

    2. This is the kind of mendacity we are up against. Holy shit.

      If I didnt already know that what they are accusing pro-lifers of is not wanting to pay for other people’s BC, I would not have had a clue what they are talking about since I have not seen any pro-lifers who are against access to BC.

      Back door socialism.

  30. We had to put down one of our dogs last night.

    ARE YOU RETHUGS SATISFIED WITH YOUR SEQUESTER NOW??!! ARE YOU, YOU HEARLESS BASTARDS! EDDIE’S DEATH IS ON YOU!

    1. Sorry about that, dude. That sucks.

      1. No worries – it was his time.

        I mean – I blame Bush.

        1. If only Obamacare could be extended to canines. But then the cat people would insist on cats, fish and bird people would get in on it, and then the whole thing would be ridiculous.

          In all seriousness, sorry for your loss.

          1. First medical marijuana for your puppy (says Nick G.) THEN Obamacare.

            Seriously: I doubt there are 3 regular posters on this site that would take the bet that the Federal govt won’t eventually cover pet medical care.

          2. “…. then the whole thing would be ridiculous.”

            I hope you are not trying to say that that is a reason to believe they wont try it. Actually it seems to be one of the criteria.

            Hmm….makes me wonder what vet practice would be like under a single payer system here. The vet I use is the best surgeon I have seen. Her stitch work is truly artful. She could have easily been a plastic surgeon. I have joked to her before that the next time I need stitches I am coming to her. She looks at me funny like she thinks I am only half-joking….probably cuz I am.

      2. We can’t afford to offer condolences under sequester.

    2. Did you at least honor Eddie by stir-frying him with some crispy noodles and taking his flesh into yourself?

      But in non-glibertarian honesty, you have my condolences. The only time I’ve ever cried as adult was when my dog died.

  31. The reason 24/7 twitter exchange with some idiot liberal ed scott is pretty humorous.

    1. I have no idea how to read twitter..

      What exchange?

      All i see is people screaming 120 characters each into a vacuum.

  32. Some things are old as time. The 5 longest Senate filibusters.

    Robert LaFollette ? 18 hours, 23 minutes: The Wisconsin Republican in 1908 halted efforts on a bill to allow the U.S. Treasury to lend money to banks during fiscal crises.

    1. When I feel like causing myself pain, I deadlift. Your way is dumber.

      1. Yes, but 3 more fark politics tabs and I can finally achieve orgasm.

        1. I think you need some emotional justice. From yourself.

          1. And you. Maybe you should squat more.

            1. I am squatting plenty, buddy. Seriously though, you change lives.

            2. NEEDZ MOAR POWERKLEENS

    2. Made me think of this gem.

      Hey Kurt, do you read lips? Fuck you!

    3. Jesus, the leftists at work are just fucking intolerable today. It’s a fucking tu quoque smorgasbord talking to them about this issue.

      1. Lefties?

        You mean those big government republicans who have been whining about the impact of the sequester on war spending?

    4. Comment from Gameshowhost:

      It’s such a goddamned shame that modern libertarians push such awful economic policy (save drug policy, but they don’t understand *why* they’re correct on drug policy).

      As if the current economic policy was such a bliss. And I guess there’s a correct *correct* reason to support a different drug policy besides – oh, I don’t know – individual freedom? But the guy does not suggest what it is.

      1. He probably wants it legalized just so it can be taxed. Proggies don’t believe in individual liberty unless they can extract a little money out of people for exercising it.

      2. Yeah, that comment caught my eye too. I’d be curious as to what he thinks the reason drug policy needs to be changed is, since as far as I know the libertarian reason is because (1) you have a right to put what you want in your own body and (2) banning things creates violent black markets.

        And especially since the left never really gives a reason for their favored policies, all that matters is which team is advocating it now.

      3. I think he’s the one that doesn’t understand why we’re correct on drug policy. Something about “first principles” or “premises” or something.

        1. I guessing the rational is like this:

          That’s what they did in the backwards nineteen fifties where you could just puff away on a Marlboro but you couldn’t legally purchase dope. You don’t wanna be like those people, do you? Outlaw gauche cigarettes, and legalize hep hemp. And tax it!

      4. You ever get in those conversations with a lefty who asks you what the libertarian policy would be in a given circumstance, and he just can’t extrapolate from the NAP to guess what it would be? This is one those guys.

        1. No one else knows what the NAP is, do they?

          1. Even when you explain it to them, they lack the imagination to apply it.

            1. That is because they have a fundamentally different definition of “aggression”. To them, not sharing is “aggression”; one person having more than another is “aggression”. Inequality is “aggression”. You’ll note how this is like how they invert the idea of negative rights into positive rights.

              You can’t have a discussion with someone who isn’t speaking the same language.

              1. You can’t have a discussion with someone who isn’t speaking the same language.

                Says you!

                1. You’re a fucking monster, Ken.

        2. In some cases the NAP is either unclear or gives a foetorous result.

          1. Examples being abortion and shipwreck survivors trespassing on beachfront property.

            1. I’m sorry we hunted you that time you showed up at the lodge door. You know, we’ve moved on, why can’t you?

              I don’t mean difficult cases that call for a Walter Block to parse. Even something as trivial as how it applies to victimless crimes proves allusive for these people.

            2. Doesn’t one have to have intent to trespass? Wandering onto someone’s property you were unaware was private hardly counts as trespassing.

              Mens rea is pretty important IRT the Non Aggression Principle. Isn’t it?

              1. Intent can be a slippery slope, of course. Sometime back I heard a knocking on my door at four in the morning. I realized as I was trying to peer through the door window the person could see in, but I couldn’t see out. So I used the master to cut the lights to get a good look at the person. He misunderstood my intentions as hostile and ran like hell back to his car. Never found out what the guy wanted.

                1. Don’t you know the Reason-favored approach is to swing open the door and point a gun at whoever’s there?

                  1. Really? I can’t recall a situation where that actually happened, the police report notwithstanding.

                    You still never addressed all of the physical evidence that totally contradicts the police report in the Andrew Scott case.

              2. Even without mens rea, this means the property owner is justified in forcing the survivors back out to the ocean at gunpoint and shooting them if they do not comply.

                1. Only if he owns the entire island or land mass they landed on. As long as they left his property when he requested, they have complied with his rights. That could include going to his neighbors and/or the roadway (if there is one) and seeking help.

                  1. So my property rights don’t exclude people from crossing my property whenever they want, as long as they don’t stay there?

                    1. Well, if they’re already on your property, and they don’t have a right to exit on a reasonable path, then property rights would suggest a right to indefinitely detain anyone. Or, if you want to be truly technical, to demand that the only method of exit acceptable to you is through this gate filled with whirling blades. Since I don’t think even hardcore ancap types believe that, it would suggest that the right of exit is a limitation on property rights.

                      That being the case, forbidding crossing would depend on preventing ingress. And even then, invoking the right to exit a particular piece of property would often require entering a separate piece of property with a different owner. A limited right of crossing seems like the only way to have any sort of functional system of property.

                    2. A limited right of crossing seems like the only way to have any sort of functional system of property.

                      I agree.

                      And as I dont buy any of the commonly proposed systems of natural law property rights, and I know this is one of the few things Tulpa and I agree on, he is arguing dishonestly. I dont think trespass in the simplest form is necessarily aggression at all.

                      I think a “right to passage” could be argued for any property.

                    3. I think a “right to passage” could be argued for any property.

                      Not if entry was made for the sole purpose of passage though. It would lead to people building roads on another person’s private property.

                    4. So you better staple your suddenly murky definition of “aggression” on to the NAP. It just got a lot longer and a lot more difficult to justify.

                      This is my issue in many cases with extreme libertarians; definitions get stretched to make sure things they like or dislike are on the right side of the aggression/nonaggression boundary. Not to the extent that leftists/rightists/other statists do this, but there is a little vinegar in your libertarian wine.

                    5. ag?gres?sion
                      /??greSH?n/
                      Noun
                      Hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.
                      The action of attacking without provocation, esp. in beginning a quarrel or war: “the dictator resorted to armed aggression”.

                      What part of happening upon private property by accident do you consider aggressive under the accepted definition of the word?

                    6. Well, under that definition I don’t think you can consider any trespassing to be aggression, unless it is accompanied by threats of force to his person. Which means the NAP essentially forbids private property.

                    7. Then give your definition of “aggression”.

                    8. I’m a mathematician, not a dictionary writer.

                    9. A limited right of crossing seems like the only way to have any sort of functional system of property.

                      Or you could allow the property owner to insist that the trespasser exits where (s)he entered, where there presumably wouldn’t be spinning blades, unless the trespasser was a moron who trespassed past spinning blades.

                    10. I’m ok with the property owner having the right to eject them, but why does he have the right to do so only at the point of his choosing?

                    11. Well, first off I’m not defending the NAP, just showing (pretty damn well I think) how it’s not immune to interpretive disputes.

                      Applying a utilitarian thought to it, I would say that a good general rule would be that the owner can force the trespassers out at the place where they came from. This would make it impossible for the trespassers to use this leniency to cross the property AND prevent the owner from abducting honestly mistaken trespassers.

                    12. Anything is subject to interpretive disputes. The NAP is pretty elastic insomuch as it’s really open to interpretation by each individual property owner.

                      I can honestly say that I would deal with shipwreck survivors differently than you in your hypothetical. I reckon every other person on here would as well. Except Warty. Warty would eat their souls before making them leave.

                    13. So if I interpret the NAP to forbid my neighbor from smoking pot, i can go over and murder him in his sleep when I smell it wafting onto my property? Who determines which interpretations are correct?

                    14. Yeah, that’s exactly right.

                      /facepalm

                  2. The owner is perfectly within his rights to demand that they exit the way they entered. What happens to them afterward is not his concern.

                    1. So my property rights don’t exclude people from crossing my property whenever they want, as long as they don’t stay there?

                      The owner is perfectly within his rights to demand that they exit the way they entered. What happens to them afterward is not his concern.

                      He is entitled to eject them from his property, yes. Why does he get to violate their person by making them leave a certain way or at a certain point? I’m sorry, but IMO they’d be free to leave in any direct route without upsetting any private property. And I think this is in accordance with the NAP.

                      Also, they are not “crossing” your property. They came onto your property to ask for help or by accident. You refused that help or pointed out that they were not welcome and they are therefore leaving your property. That’s hardly the same thing.

                      Sorry, Tulpa, but I don’t think you understand the NAP as it applies to private property unwittingly entered upon or entered to request assistance.

                    2. I guess there’s more to the NAP than meets the eye. Which is my point….

                      I don’t see how you can reconcile the vagaries necessary for a functional policy about privately-owned land with one sentence.

                    3. Also, they are not “crossing” your property. They came onto your property to ask for help or by accident.

                      If they enter your property in one place and leave in another, they are crossing your property. Their intention in doing so does not matter. Just like I have the right to use force against someone who is negligently sticking scissors into my arm, regardless of their intent.

                      If you and your government hired guns are telling the property owner that he must let people cross his property, you better have a good reason. It’s not to be found in the NAP.

                    4. If they enter your property in one place and leave in another, they are crossing your property.

                      Bullshit. They entered your property and you ejected them.

                      Their intention in doing so does not matter.

                      So you’re OK with shooting on sight a blind man that wanders off the road onto your property?

                      Just like I have the right to use force against someone who is negligently sticking scissors into my arm, regardless of their intent.

                      Yeah, sure. “Just like it”.

                      Idiot.

                    5. So you’re OK with shooting on sight a blind man that wanders off the road onto your property?

                      No. As a rule utilitarian I am forthright about the fact that I’m making shit up, up to a point. I’m not out there telling people they must follow my philosophy because it flows logically from “A is A” like doctrinaire libertarians do.

                      I value stability of coercion higher than anything else, so that means wandering slightly off the road can’t be met with lethal force when staying on the road is met with no force.

                    6. I’m not out there telling people they must follow my philosophy because it flows logically from “A is A” like doctrinaire libertarians do.

                      Libertarianism is not Objectivism, you fucking nitwit!

                    7. So wandering in from the ocean when your ship sinks is somehow vastly different than wandering in from the road accidentally? Because you have said that forcing them out to sea is essentially a lethal action.

                    8. I would support forcing the blind man back onto the road where he came from.

                      I don’t see how the inhospitability of their previous location is any of the property owner’s concern under the naked NAP.

                    9. I would support forcing the blind man back onto the road where he came from.

                      Even if he walked 100 yards beside the road on your property and is only a few feet from reentry? You would actually support forcing him (on your property) to walk 100 yards when a step to the right will put him back on the road? Bullshit.

                    10. “The owner is perfectly within his rights to demand that they exit the way they entered.”

                      I dont see that in the NAP.

                    11. He’s not guilty of aggression since they initiated the trespass regardless of what he does.

                      He could skin them alive and feed them to crabs as far as the NAP is concerned.

                    12. He could skin them alive and feed them to crabs as far as the NAP is concerned.

                      Where the fuck do you get this lunacy from? There’s nowhere in the NAP that says this is acceptable for someone that unwittingly trespassed onto your property. You are, as usual, full of shit.

                    13. Guys, why are you having this absurd argument when you could be watching hour motherfucking nine of this filibuster?

                    14. Unlike a simple-minded woman, we’re able to multitask. I’m doing both.

                    15. “He’s not guilty of aggression since they initiated the trespass regardless of what he does.

                      He could skin them alive and feed them to crabs as far as the NAP is concerned.”

                      Last reply to you on this as you are arguing the completely absurd, or just flat out making shit up.

                      I googled the NAP, first link was wiki…second paragraph: “In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others.”

                      Again Tulpa, I dont see that in the NAP, nothing about giving people the crabs.

                    16. The owner is perfectly within his rights to demand that they exit the way they entered.

                      I find that stupid. I dont have a problem with a peaceful, nondestructive crossing however.

                2. “Even without mens rea, this means the property owner is justified in forcing the survivors back out to the ocean at gunpoint and shooting them if they do not comply.”

                  Oh for fuck’s sake. No it doesnt. Ask anyone here when it is justifiable to take someone’s life.
                  It is justifiable, even under the NAP, only when another life, or yours, is being threatened….not to keep douchbags from making footprints in your sand.

                  1. I don’t see that in the NAP.

                    1. Why are you making the assumption that any and all aggression under any definition of what constitutes aggression should be met with deadly force under the NAP. I dont see that in there either.

                      I think the problem might be that we are looking at two different NAPs.

                    2. Tulpa you are a moron. How many followers of the NAP think every violation of the NAP instantly justifies a lethal response? Nor does the NAP imply or state that

                    3. Exactly. He doesn’t understand the concept of compensation or civil recourse. To him, everything has to be settled by death.

                      I reckon he’s compensating for something.

  33. And one more Fark link (muaaahahahaha):

    Fark loves the SPLC.

    1. You, sir, are worse than Hitler.

    2. To get that record breaking high number of hate groups, they had to include an octogenarian quilting circle. I wished I was making that up.

    1. Cocaine dealers rejoice.

    2. Carrie Fisher to return in new Star Wars

      To play the older version of fat Princess Leia.

      Only because the slave-outfit Leia is gone forever…

  34. Oh, God. He’s just ripping the drone policy in Yemen to shreds.

    Imagine the response from the left if this was Franken saying the same words verbatim and Bush were in the White House. I honestly believe they would be writing up terms of impeachment.

    1. He’s looking awful tired though.

      1. At least he doesn’t have to worry about his hairdo getting ragged overnight.

        1. I hope his cute little curls won’t fall out!

      2. Needs stimpaks! Or maybe a banana bag.

        1. Fucking Red Bull, how does it work?

          1. But he’ll lose the floor if he sprouts wings and flies away.

          2. Too much liquid.

            What he needs in 5 hour energy.

    2. That’s because he’s good enough, he’s smart enough, and doggone it, people like him.

    3. Watching liberals on HuffPo voice their support for no due process droning of Americans on US soil is fucking delicious.

      They support it because Rand Paul is against it.

      Fucking mindless idiots.

      We. Are. Fucked.

      1. What gets me is that they bring up the same ticking-bomb scenarios to justify everything, just as their neocon frenemies did before 2008.

        I mean obviously if we have strong evidence indicating that a warehouse in the middle of Manhattan contains a nuclear bomb, which is being prepared for detonation by 5 US citizen engineers, and circumstances dictate that a SWAT raid or the like is likely to result in detonation, then yeah I would support droning in that case. Just like I’d support shooting a guy holding a gun to a hostage’s head without a trial; lethal force is justified to stop a clear and present danger to innocent lives when nothing else will do the job.

        But the administration is unwilling to lay that out as the standard, and indeed clearly does not consider that the standard for Americans abroad.

  35. Fark defending Hugo Chavez

    Alphax 2013-03-06 10:58:16 AM
    Because support for the poor is somehow bad, Subby?

    padraig 2013-03-06 10:58:47 AM
    It really hurt American’s asses that Chavez was actually, really, honestly popular in his country.

    They just can’t quite understand how that is possible.

    LOLOMGWT 2013-03-06 11:25:51 AM
    Ask any Venezuelan if he’s a “brutal dictator”. You won’t find one who isn’t among the top 5% income earners.

    Annnnnd I’m spent.

    1. Never forget. Never disarm.

    2. Why would anyone need an assault rifle?

      Because you would elect a Hugo Chavez in a heart beat.

    3. By quoting without commenting, you are endorsing those comments. Randian says so.

      1. Depends on the context.

        1. No it doesnt. Absolute statements are absolute.

      2. I haven’t put much stock in anything Randian says since I realized he’s TAO.

  36. Seven hours. This is about to wrap up. C’mon, man. I’ve called sales for 5-6 hours straight and made it through. And I guarantee you I spoke at least 4-5x as many words per hour as Paul. By that measure, he should be going until at least midnight.

    1. I keep thinking he’s going to stop but then he keeps going.

      1. It’s almost done. Shit.

        1. Nope. It’s going to go on, and on, and on…

        2. So Durbin could’ve ended this and he said “no, let’s have a committee meeting about it”?

  37. 8 hours! He looks like he got a second wind thanks to Cruz.

  38. Damn, Rand Paul even coming out against “Open Spaces” interpretation of police using planes and choppers without a warrant. I like this guy more and more.

  39. like Micheal implied I am startled that people can profit $9748 in four weeks on the computer. did you read this web site …http://tiny.cc/5s93sw

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.